1944-02-14

LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave under standing order 31 to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the urgent need for postponement of the application of the wartime wages control order, 1943, P.C. 9384, which order otherwise becomes effective February 15, 1944, which is to-morrow.


Mr. SPEAKER:: A copy of this motion was given to me just before I entered the house. The question of the adjournment of the house must depend upon the urgency of the matter involved. I am not in a position to be fully aware of that urgency, so I would ask the hon. member to let me know the degree of urgency upon which he would base such a motion.


Percy Chapman Black: Under the terms of the order in council to which this motion refers, Mr. Speaker, it becomes effective February 15, which is to-morrow. The matter is urgent, because if the application of the order is not postponed it will become effective to-morrow, with its many objectionable features, without members of parliament having an opportunity to discuss it. Therefore I consider it most urgent that the application of the order be postponed.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: May I say to my hon. friend that the order has been in force since December 9, 1943. I have in my hand a copy of the wartime 'wages control order, 1943, P.C. 9384. dated at Government House, Ottawa, Thursday, December 9, 1943. It was approved at that time. There is one clause in the order which does not become effective until the 15th of this month; that is, a provision giving employees certain advantages through having the cost of living bonus embedded in the wage rate, and having wage scales based on that basic rate. The effect of the postponement of that particular clause, as requested by my hon. friend, would be simply to deprive labour of at least one provision in the order which I think labour would very much wish to have retained. At any rate the order is in force at the present time, and my hon. friend's motion is not a correct statement of fact.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
say something with respect to the matter now before the house. When the Prime Minister speaks of the order in council having been effective or in force since December, the date of the order, he must remember that one of the major provisions of the order will become effective to-morrow. So important does labour regard this, that during the last few days there have 'been protests from one end of the country to the other. And when the Prime Minr-ister talks about taking away something from labour by not having this order applied tomorrow, I suggest that he should not be so far out of tune with labour sentiment. Only yesterday in this city there was a largely-



Labour Conditions-Wages Control
attended labour meeting which asked not only for the postponement but for the rescinding of this whole order in council. The fact that the hon. member for Cumberland has brought this matter before the house is only a reflection of the views of labour from one- end of Canada to the other. I am convinced, despite what the Prime Minister says, that this is the last day before the order in council comes into full force and effect, and therefore urgency is a prime factor in the matter.
Mr. MACKENZIE, KING:	Mr. Speaker,
this is not the time to debate the question of the order. It is a matter of stating, with respect to a motion which is before the house, whether what is set forth in the motion is or is not correct. The fact that there have been a number of meetings held-and we all know how these are arranged-


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: How are
they arranged?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, my hon. friend, I suppose, has as much knowledge of those matters as I have.


Gordon Graydon: I do not know what the Prime Minister means by that, but if he is insinuating that there is someone behind the scenes arranging meetings of labour, then I say that is not correct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think the point is one which needs to be discussed. What I was going to say about these meetings is that they reveal the extent to which representations have been made with respect to the order, not only in the house but throughout Canada, which are not correct. The people have been led to believe that the order was not to come into force until a certain time, namely, the 15th of this month. As a matter of fact the order has been in force for over two months, since December 5 in fact. And so far as I can see no one has suffered by it. Indeed, we are now being told that it should not be put into force to-morrow, lest once in force somebody might perchance suffer from the consequences of it. *
The clause which, was not to come into effect until to-morrow is No. 16, as follows:
16. No employer shall, except in accordance with a written direction of the National Board in any payroll period commencing on or after February 15, 1944, pay wages to an employee in an occupational classification for which he is required to establish a single rate or range under section 15 of this order, at a rate other than a single rate or a rate within a range established in the manner therein prescribed for such classification.
The manner prescribed is to see that that basic rate contains not only the former rate, but also an amount calculated by way of
[Mr. Graydon.J
bonus, embedded in it as part of the rate. The fact the hon. member and others have been under the impression that the order has not been in force up to the present time shows that there has been a good deal of misleading information and some misleading expressions with regard to it. However, I made clear a day or so ago that the government has under consideration certain amendments. Representations have been made by hon. members and representatives of labour and others, and I have stated that very shortly we expected to have certain amendments made to the order. I therefore cannot see why there is any urgency with respect to the order being discontinued at this time.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations on this matter, and particularly as to the urgency of it. I believe the point raised by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) is a good one. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, the order has been operative, with the exception of its financial aspects, since December.
I am always afraid of how legislation of this kind may be administered. As I view it, the postponement of the order now will not cause labour to suffer the loss of any benefits which might accrue to them because of the application of-the order with respect to the bonus. They are now being paid the bonus; they are receiving that money now. It is merely a matter of changing it from a bonus arrangement to basic rates. What I am afraid of if the order becomes operative to-morrow is that the minimum of thirty-five cents an hour, which the order sets out as being grossly unjustifiable, will be applied by the national war labour board. There are many organizations now negotiating agreements with employers across Canada who have not that particular angle to contend with. If the board is permitted to apply the financial aspects of the present order, in my opinion it is going to militate against organizations now in the process of wage negotiations. That is what I am afraid of-that the board will take as its only latitude in permitting increases the basis now set out in the order, "gross inequalities" meaning thirty-five cents an hour. Consequently it will interfere with the functioning of regional boards, which are now making examination of the wages in different places and with different organizations. They have some latitude, and can make decisions. Under the new order they are not permitted to make any decisions unless they are ratified by the national board. The only scope the national board will have in making adjustments in wages is in respect of the financial aspect of

Labour Conditions-Wages Control
the order to be declared operative to-morrow.
I cannot agree with the Prime Minister when he says that labour would receive any benefit from the bringing into effect of the provisions of the order which are not at present operative.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to a point of order. I do not wish to prevent my hon. friend from speaking, but there is a time when this matter can be debated. I might point out that it has already been debated in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Then there is a bill on the order paper with respect to the wages control order that would make the discussion of the wages control order at this time out of order. Moreover I have given the house the assurance that the matter of amending the order will be discussed again before very long. What we 'have before us is a motion which states as a fact something which is not a fact; and, not being a matter of fact, the grounds upon which it is suggested action should be taken fall completely. I submit it is for Your Honour to say whether this is the time to discuss this particular question, and more particularly on a motion which does not set forth the facts.


Thomas Vien: I have listened to the
submissions by hon. members with regard to the urgency of the matter. Citation 176 in BeauChesne, third edition, states:
The "definite matter of urgent public importance" for the discussion of which the adjournment of the house may be moved under standing order No. 31, must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.
On the 2nd of November, 1932, a member asked leave to make this motion for the purpose of discussing the necessity of immediate action being taken by the house to investigate the financial position of a certain life insurance company and the conduct of its senior officers, as disclosed by a recent police court investigation in Chicago. The Speaker ruled that the motion should not be allowed, because he did not think the matter mentioned in the member's statement was of recent occurrence nor so urgent that the proceedings of the house should be halted so that it may be discussed. There must be a prima facie case of urgency.
On page 741 is to be found a ruling given by the Hon. Mr. Rhodes, then Speaker of the house. It reads:
(b). "Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means^ "urgency of debate" as the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
The right hon. Prime Minister has stated what I had noted, that the motion concerned the urgent need for the postponing 100-27J
of the application of the wartime wages control order, 1943, being P.C. 9384. This order otherwise becomes effective on February 15, 1944. The facts as stated by the right hon. Prime Minister are that the order in council in question is now in effect and therefore it does not come within the last sentence which states that it becomes effective on February 15, 1944. It is very difficult for the Chair not to accede to a request by an hon. member to adjourn the house to discuss a matter which is evidently much in the minds of hon. members, but the Chair must be satisfied that there is that degree of urgency which would make it absolutely necessary that it be discussed in order that no injustice should be done either to hon. members of the house or to the people of Canada. In the circumstances as I now have them I must come to the conclusion that there is not that urgency which would justify me in allowing this motion to be put before the house.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Speaker,
I have the greatest respect for your position and I have the highest regard for Your Honour-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland). -because of your fairness, dignity and ability to discharge your duties as Speaker, but in view of the urgency of this matter, and in view of the protests that have been made by all parts of Canada, I desire with the greatest courtesy to appeal from your decision.


Thomas Vien: I am not deciding a
point of order. Standing order 12 reads:
Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the house without debate. In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the rule or authority applicable to the case.
I am not dealing with a question of order. I am dealing with a question of the opinion of the Chair, and I take it that my opinion is not appealable by the house.


Mr. NEILL:: The Prime Minister raised a point of order and you gave a decision.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Prime Minister raised a point of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not raise the question. May I say that in regard to matters of urgency 'the practice is for the hon. member to confer with the Chair in advance and obtain the agreement of the Chair that it is a matter of urgency.


Gordon Graydon: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I submit respectfully to Your Honour that you gave a

Labour Conditions-Wages Control
decision on a point of order and therefore this motion is either in order or out of order. Whatever you may conclude, that is your decision, that is the judgment of this court on a question of order, and certainly it is appealable.


Thomas Vien: Standing order 31, subsection 3, states with reference to the member who desires to make the motion:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.
I take from that the decision rests entirely with the Chair. The Chair must decide whether it is in order. In this case 1 was not required 'to decide a point of order. What I did say to the hon. member for Cumberland was that I wished him to give reasons to support his claim of urgency in the matter. I repeat the standing order:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.
I did not think it in order; therefore the hon. member has not the leave of the house.


Gordon Graydon: May I respectfully point out to Your Honour that the custody of the rights of this parliament rests with the members of parliament themselves. When a question arises as to whether or not the ruling of Your Honour is a proper ruling, surely there does not arise, as Your Honour would suggest in this instance, the right of the Speaker to make a decision quite apart from reference to the house itself. This would be particularly so when a part of the house has asked that the opinion of the house foe tested on this point. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) now asks that the opinion of the house be tested, and we are prepared to rise in sufficient numbers in order that the opinion of the house shall be tested now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has just referred to the custody of the rights and privileges of hon. members of the house. These are in the care of His Honour the Speaker. My hon. friend well knows that at Westminster, from which we take our example in these matters, it is not only the tradition, i't is the custom and the practice of the house, to obey the Speaker in his rulings as largely as possible and to have very serious grounds before taking exception. I do submit that if this house is to get on with its business in the way in which it should, it is important that we should not be indifferent to the opinions expressed by the Speaker and begin

a practice of appealing from the Speaker's rulings time after time without number. A lot of time of the house has been wasted in that way in previous sessions, and I do submit that the decorum and business of the house will both be furthered by hon. members accepting the rulings of the Speaker unless there are the strongest of reasons to the contrary.


Thomas Vien: I would refer hon. members to page 747 of Beauchesne, third edition, on which is reported a decision by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black), who was then Speaker of the house. I quote:
The Speaker's refusal to permit an appeal from his decision that it is not urgent to adjourn the house for the purpose of discussing an urgent matter of public importance being appealed from was confirmed by the house.
Leave had been asked under standing order 31 to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, which was stated to be:	,
The recent dismissal of between 200 and 300 officers and men of the Royal Canadian Air Force without regard to their families, their overseas service or their period of enlistment or service, and the embarrassing situation which may arise if they were forced by the necessity for employment to accept service with another nation.
_ Mr. Speaker ruled that the statement was not in order and that the matter was not one of urgent public importance and moreover that there -was no appeal from his decision.
Mr. Ralston appealed from the Speaker's i;efusal to permit an appeal from his decision.
And the question being put by Mr. Speaker: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained; it was decided in the affirmative.


Gordon Graydon: I did not quite hear one part of that quotation. Was it the present Minister of National Defence who made the appeal at that time?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Why not? It killed the air force.


Mr. POWER:: Sabotage of the air force by the government of the day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You began the sabotage back in 1923.


Thomas Vien: The appeal was made by the present Minister of National Defence.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 

No. 20456

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Graydon:	They must have been a fleet
of jeeps.
Mr. Coldwell:	No. They were not jeeps.
Some were fine modern cars, including one fine maroon car which I am told the minister himself drove on one occasion to attend a political appointment. Who paid for the gas and upkeep of the ears? The people of Canada. But the political machine is so brazen in the province of Saskatchewan that it dared to do this sort of thing in the midst of a by-election. And so, when the minister talks about regimentation, let me remind the house that no other province in this dominion, at any time, has been regimented in poverty by a political machine to the _ extent that Saskatchewan w'as regimented during the depression years. Unless you were a member of the Libera] party or had a recommendation from that party you found it difficult to get relief work.
There are certain statements in the Hansard report to which I wish to refer because they reflect upon my activities as a member of this house and of the government.
At page 334 of Hansard the minister for Rosetown-Biggar-
Richard Burpee Hanson: Not minister yet. .


Gordon Graydon: Keep the record straight on that.


James Garfield Gardiner: He just missed being a minister by two years-a minister of the church. The member for Rosetown-Biggar
stated at page 334:
Let me say to the house that employees of the federal government were there in force with cars belonging to the Dominion of Canada.
Answer: There was not a single federal government employee who had a car belonging to the Dominion of Canada which was being used for political purposes in the constituency of Humboldt during the by-election to my knowledge.
Again at page 334 the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar states:
We made a check of them. I have before me only a partial list of some of the cars that were present during the time I myself was in that constituency. I saw some of them there parked outside the hotel where I was staying, which also happened to be the headquarters of the Liberal party.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was he doing there?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not assume my hon. friend is suggesting that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was staying at the headquarters of the Liberal party. He happened to be in the same building.
Answer: Mr. Speaker, I have before me the full list that was taken down by the C.C.F., not only the 7 numbers quoted in Hansard but the full list of cars, the numbers of which were taken down by the C.C.F. and referred to the licence office at Regina for check, and this will provide a sufficient answer to that statement. The cars are as follows-this list is rather long, containing 29 car numbers and names of owners, and I will put them on Hansard unless it is the wish of the house that I read them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read them.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Read them.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Is this our war effort?
Privilege-Mr. Gardiner


James Garfield Gardiner: If it is the wish of the house I will read them. The numbers are as follows:
21025 Department of Natural Resources, Federal Government, Regina.
20458 Dominion Department of Agriculture, P.F.R.A., 910 McCallum Hill Building, Regina.


Gordon Graydon: Put them on Hansard without reading them. We could not discuss labour matters just now, which is a much more important matter than Saskatchewan elections.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am quite sure that if I did not answer the charge that has been made it would take more time to do it in the country than to deal with labour, when my hon. friends opposite get out there. Then, if it is the wish of the house, I will put the remainder of the list on Hansard. It is as follows:
20067 Arnold W. Loehr, farmer and provincial civil servant, Muenster.
20533 Saskatchewan Pool Elevators, Limited, Humboldt.
8147 John Deere Plow Company, Saskatoon.
765 Waldemir Yanchinski, farmer, Yellow Creek.
5493 Senhouse D. Noble, farmer, Colonsay.
2202 Lake of the Woods Company, Limited, 34 Cambridge Court, Saskatoon.
25357 William L. Dutton, farmer, Govan.
25983 William S. Nobbs, farmer, Portreeve.
20452 Dominion Department of Agriculture, P.F.R.A., 910 McCallum Hill Building, Regina.
20444 Dominion Department of Agriculture, P.F.R.A., 910 McCallum Hill Building, Regina.
20639 Archibald McCallum, 2910 Angus street, Regina, organizer.
2022 Ryan Brothers, Limited, James street, Winnipeg.
20456 Dominion Department of Agriculture, P.F.R.A., 910 McCallum Hill Building, Regina.
20474	Dominion Department of Agriculture, P.F.R.A., 910 McCallum Hill Building, Regina.
2914 T. M. Ball Lumber Company, Limited, 614-9th Street, Saskatoon.
21843 August J. Kruse, Humboldt, farmer.
20471 Dominion Department of Agriculture, P.F.R.A., 910 McCallum Hill Building, Regina.
21322 John F. Anderson, organizer, 7 Banner Block, Regina.
79938 August Kachur, farmer, Lanigan.
75069 Mrs. Elsie Tallentire, housewife, Whitewood.
58315 William Bernesky, farmer, Connel Creek.
57166 August Delke, farmer, Jansen.
4080 Russel William Ley, Viscount, farmer.
20475	Dominion Department of Agriculture, P.F.R.A., 910 McCallum Hill Building, Regina.
20731 Francis L. Brennan, salesman, 253011th avenue, Regina.
2812 The Wadena Nurseries, Canada Building, Saskatoon.
5737 Massey Harris Company, Limited, 1st avenue, Saskatoon.

It will be noted that in that list there is one federal car not mentioned by the member for Rosetown-Biggar, namely the first, and three operated by officials of the provincial governments, who, I presume, cover the territory in their ordinary work. 'What does this list together with the list placed on Hansard by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, indicate? It indicates first that what the C.C.F. did was to take the number of the cars standing outside the hotel in Humboldt at which the member for Rosetown-Biggar was a guest, send the entire list to Regina to be checked, take from the list cars which were registered as the property of the Department of Agriculture of the federal government; and then, without any further check, the member for Rosetown-Biggar makes a charge against me as a member of this government on the ground that because the Liberal headquarters were in the hotel the cars must have been used by employees of the federal Department of Agriculture for political purposes.
In the first place the member could not have stopped in the room in which he did in that hotel without knowing that the engineers of P.F.R.A. had a drafting room on the second floor of the hotel, which was occupied by them throughout the summer, before, during and after this election campaign, until the construction of the dam was agreed to.
The member for Rosetown-Biggar further states:
We took a number of car numbers; all Saskatchewan licence numbers of the dominion Department of Agriculture, P.F.R.A., Regina.
The list above shows they took a number of car numbers and selected a group of seven which they found to be P.F.R.A. cars registered at Regina. The list and the work being done by those operating these cars is as follows:
20458. This car is operated by M. B. J. Brockman, who has been stationed at Humboldt for several years on small water development. His car is always stationed at Humboldt, but my information is that it was not used in the election.
20474. This car is operated by Mr. Ed. Hogan, who resides just outside the Humboldt seat but who did some inspection work in the constituency during the election while Mr. Brockman was on annual vacation leave.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, is this
a matter of urgent public importance?


Percy Chapman Black: I rise to a point of order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is all out of order. There is no question of privilege here.

Privilege-Mr. Gardiner


Percy Chapman Black: I ask for a ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the statement read by the Minister of Agriculture is of urgent public importance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is a question of privilege.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement was made that I as a member of the government ordered and directed the use of cars owned by the government for political purposes during an election campaign; and as a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have the right to reply to that statement, made not only in this house but outside.
Car No. 20452. This car is operated by Mr. L. D. McMillan, district engineer in that district, who is in charge of the investigation work on the proposed water supply dam in Wolverine creek. He was also in charge of the drafting room in the hotel. Mr. McMillan is an engineer who comes from the province of Manitoba and about whose politics I know nothing.


Thomas Vien: The hon. the minister is going through a list of cars. I do not know just what his object is, but in so far as he is identified with any of the cars-


James Garfield Gardiner: They all come under my administration.


James Arthur Ross: Engaged to win the Saskatchewan election.


James Garfield Gardiner: A statement was made that I was using these cars in an election campaign in the province of Saskatchewan, utilizing public funds to purchase gasoline in order to operate the cars, and I am stating who was using them and for what purpose, to refute the statement just repeated.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the minister should be allowed to make his statement of privilege.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Arthur Ross: Let us quit the war and have an election.


James Garfield Gardiner: Car No. 20175. This car is operated by R. Peterson, engineer who was making soil tests in connection with the foundations necessary for the construction of the Wolverine water project.
Car No. 20444. This car is operated by Peter Hyndman, agricultural supervisor under P.F.R.A.. who made a survey and report on the agricultural benefits of the Wolverine water project.
I am positive that none of these last three men who were working on the project throughout the summer of 1943 took any part whatsoever in the by-election. Any part which the other two might have taken would only be what any citizen resident in the area is free to take under our democratic institutions; but they did not use federal government cars for political purposes during the election.
Car No. 20471. The information I have is that this car was operated in Manitoba early in the season but was turned over to Saskatchewan during the season, but that it at no time during the election was in or near Humboldt.
This leaves the car which is at headquarters in Regina, No. 20456, and which is placed at my disposal when I am in the province. I drove this car to the constituency, used it on certain occasions while there and drove it back to Regina later. I paid for my own gasoline while it was out, as I always do. The government did not pay for any gasoline in any car used for political purposes during that election, and no one of the cars listed above excepting '20456 was used for political purposes to my knowledge. To the extent that I drove the car in and out of the constituency and on a few occasions while I was in there it may be said that car was used for political purposes.
The Ottawa Citizen comments in these words on the last paragraph of the quotation from the remarks of the hon. member for Rosotown-Biggar, which I have given:
It is not a pretty picture that Mr. Coldwell draws. No doubt - Mr. Gardiner will enter a trenchant rejoinder. But how does Mr. King feel about it? He is perhaps obligated to Mr. Gardiner to some extent for election in Prince Albert.
There are two objections that I raise with regard to that comment as being unbecoming of a newspaper when referring to a member of parliament. The first is that it suggests that Mr. Coldwell's inferences are based upon facts, without -any further examination of the records. The records indicate they are not. Second, it suggests that what Mr. Coldwell infers was done in Humboldt-namely that government officials driving government cars operated on government gasoline, were directed by the Liberal organization under Mr. Gardiner-was no doubt done in the past to elect Mr. King in Prince Albert. I only wish to state that Mr. King has been elected five times in Prince Albert, the first time in spite of a campaign put on by an eastern newspaper which sent to Prince Albert the Stevens charges of 1926 just off the press and Mr. J. J. Maloney.


Gordon Graydon: I rise to a point of order.
Privilege-Mr. Gardiner


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Ring at no time-


Gordon Graydon: I rise to a point of order. I want the hon. minister to sit down until I get through with my point of order. After all I think I have the right to rise to a point of order.


James Garfield Gardiner: But I have the floor. I have the right to sit down before you get so angry about your rights.


Gordon Graydon: I am not going to argue the matter with the minister. I do not mind going a certain distance on this matter of privilege, but when it comes to reading into the record a whole lot of political propaganda, directed, I presume, at some other party now in the house-I have no idea to whom the minister is referring-I object to his bringing in these extraneous matters.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is replying to an attack in the press.


Gordon Graydon: You sit down, too.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Prime Minister has won each election on that record.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Sit down; Mr. Speaker has not ruled.


Thomas Vien: I gathered from the statement made by the minister that he was referring to matters which came within the question of privilege, but he must show that the latter part of his remarks also comes within the confines of a question of privilege so far as he is concerned.


James Garfield Gardiner: I could read the Citizen; I have it here. It suggests-


Thomas Vien: The question of privilege refers in part to the Prime Minister, not the Minister of Agriculture.


James Arthur Ross: The Prime Minister can speak for himself.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the editorial here. After giving what they call the picture of the organization in Saskatchewan they suggest that I used the same methods in Saskatchewan in order to elect the Prime Minister. I am giving the house the answer to that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: An attack upon you.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. King at no time has suggested, nor would he agree, that anyone should conduct a campaign in his interest on anything but his record and policies. He has won each election on that record and those

policies. The only person who has ever approached me to manipulate the organization of a Saskatchewan constituency to get a seat without opposition for anyone is Mr. Bowman of the Citizen. When I told him I had1 no such power or authority he refused to believe me. If he wishes to discuss that further I am prepared to discuss it with him, Mr. Speaker.


Major James William Coldwell: On a question of privilege, the minister in the course of his remarks left the inference that I had deliberately avoided making a speech in his presence. May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that on the afternoon in question I saw the Deputy Speaker as soon as I was able to do so, which was quite early. He told me that Mr. Raymond was ill and that if I saw the chief whip of the Liberal party I might be able to follow Mr. Perley, who was speaking second.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did you
have to get their consent?
Mr. COLDWEiLL:	There was a speakers'
list. I want it clearly understood the inference that there was some understanding between Mr. Raymond and myself is utterly without foundation. At no time did I speak to anyone other than the Deputy Speaker and the chief whip of the Liberal party. I want to make that very clear.



BORDER GROSSINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege; since we are having a field day, I have one of my own. On the first day of December last, as a law-abiding citizen of Canada I had occasion to go to the United States. I had diligently prepared myself with a passport and a permit from the foreign exchange control board. I carried in my pocket, as I have since August, 1940, my national registration certificate. At the border a very courteous young customs officer, whom I know very well and whom I am glad to call my friend, approached me, asked me for the paper given to me by the foreign exchange control board, and demanded my registration certificate. I asked him under what authority he acted1. He said he did not know, but those were his instructions. Not wishing to have an altercation with him I gave it to him. It has never been returned to me. I am now a lawbreaker in this country and liable to be taken at any time by the mounted police and run into the calaboose on Nicholas street by reason

Border Crossings
of some order of this government over here, which so regiments our lives as to make us lawbreakers willy-nilly. When am I going to get back my national registration certificate?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, on February 9-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I want an answer. I want to know from the responsible officer of this government when I am going to be put in order as a law-abiding citizen.
I want to know what right there was to take away from me my national registration certificate and make me willy-nilly a lawbreaker.
I have been going around the country in fear and trembling lest some mounted policeman take me by the neck and demand my registration certificate or in default put me in gaol.
I want an answer from the government.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I am not certain whether
the complaint that the hon. member has made is against an official of the Department of Mines and Resources or against an official of the Department of National Revenue.


Richard Burpee Hanson: National Revenue.


Gordon Graydon: He is not rum-running.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It must be War Services.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: To that extent the department I represent is in the clear, and I suggest to my hon. friend that if he goes to the Minister of National Revenue and gives the date and the name of the polite customs officer who kept his registration certificate, the Minister of National Revenue will endeavour to get it back, and if in the meantime it should have been lost, I ami sure there will be some way of getting the necessary authority to issue my hon. friend a new national registration certificate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why
should I have to do anything?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I quite agree.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are in agreement. Then send it back.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Has my hon. friend brought it to the notice of the Minister of National Revenue?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not. It is not my business to do so. It is their business. Send it back. That is the attitude I take; and I will not ask for it, either.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, the Minister of
National Revenue is not a mind-reader, and 100-28
neither he nor any other member of the government knew about my hon. friend's certificate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But you are responsible for the officers of your department.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We will try to get it cleared up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Send me back my certificate.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: There was a government notice in the newspapers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West). -that everyone crossing the border had to give up his registration certificate-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You can make all the noise you like; it does not bother me. If a member of parliament does not get back his registration certificate, what about the public, who do not know how to get theirs back? The hon. member's certificate has not been returned, and there was this notice in the newspapers that anyone crossing the border had to give up his registration certificate. If the hon. gentleman does not get back his certificate, what about other people? I think it is up to the government to give an answer to this at once.


Gordon Graydon: Before this matter is decided, I want to raise a point. We have not received an answer from the government to this very important question. What the hon. member for Peterborough West says is pertinent; it is germane to the whole issue, because .there must be thousands of people-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put it on the order paper.


Gordon Graydon: I am going to ask the government this question, which is a supplementary one, and I demand an answer.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How is this in order under "motions"? If the hon. member got up on a question of privilege, he was entitled to do so, but this other discussion is out of order.


Gordon Graydon: I rise to a question of privilege myseLf on behalf of thousands of people, not just one person. Is this policy still in effect?


Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue):: As far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned, the hon.

Questions

member has stated that his certificate was taken from him by a customs official. I shall be glad to look into the matter and find out if one of our officials has it. If so, it will be returned to the hon. member.


Gordon Graydon: You had better reverse the policy.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Also on a question of privilege, will the minister be good enough to inquire about certificates taken away at the Niagara Falls port of entry and get them back?



POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Mr. D. A. McNIVEN (Regina City) moved:: That the first report of the special committee on reconstruction and reestablishment, presented to the house on the 10th instant, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	What was the total strength of the Canadian army overseas as at December 31, 1943?
2.	What was the total strength of the home defence army in Canada as at that date?
3.	During the year 1943, how many men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act have gone active and are now available for service anywhere?
4.	During the year 1943, how many men and officers were discharged from the Canadian
[DOT] overseas* (a) on account of service disabilities; and: (b) for other reasons?
5.	During the year 1943, how many men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act serving in Canada have been discharged', and for what reasons were they so discharged?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Assuming that by "overseas" is meant in the "European zone" the strength of the Canadian Army Overseas at 31st December, 1943, was over 240,000 including over 700 members of the C.W.A.C.
_ 2. Assuming that by "home defence Army" is meant all troops in the North American zone including those in operational units, nonoperational units, training stream and district depots, the strength at 31st December, 1943, was over 235,000 including over 12,000 members of the C.W.A.C. In addition, there were
'Mr. Gibson.]
over 7,500 men on long term leave granted in order that they might engage in agriculture, logging, mining, etc.
3.	Of men actually enrolled in the Canadian Army, the following number have enlisted for general service anywhere during the year 1943 according to documents received at National Defence Headquarters to 31st December, 1943:
General Service Armv	 5,616
R.C.A.F	'	 114
R.C.N	 43
Other Military Forces	 5
Total	 5,778
Note:-(a) Above figures are subject to change by reason of documents received in 1944 which are applicable to 1943.
(b) Above figures do not include men who were called up under the N.R.M:A. but who presented themselves for enlistment for General Service anywhere without having been enrolled as N.R.M.A. soldiers.
4.	Assuming that by discharged from the Canadian Army Overseas is meant "discharges of personnel who have had service in the European zone", the following were such discharges according to documents received at National Defence Headquarters to 31st December, 1943:-
Medically unfit
Officers	 ng
Other ranks	 3,800
Total	 3,916*
Other reasons
Officers	 137
Other ranks	 710
Total	   847*
5. Of the men actually enrolled in the Army under the N.R.M.A. the following were discharged in 1943 according to documents received at National Defence Headquarters to
31st December, 1943:-
To R.C.A.F	 114
To R.C.N	 43
To other military forces	 5
To civil life-[DOT]
Medically unfit (estimated)	 6,532
Other reasons (estimated)	 841
7,535
To General Service-Army	 5,616
Total	 13,151*
* Figures are subject to change by reason of documents received in 1944 which are applicable to 1943.


L944
[Stage Direction]
Questions

Mr. WHITE:: 1.	What quantity of butter has been imported into Canada during the years 1942 and 1943?
2.	From what country was the butter imported?
3.	What quantity of butter has been exported from Canada during the years 1942 and 1943?
4.	To what country was the butter exported?


James Angus MacKinnon: 1 and 2.
Imports of Butter into Canada
	1942	1943
Country	Lbs.	Lbs.
United Kingdom		... 511	
Australia 		... 516,740	
New Zealand 		... 55,710	464
Argentina		... 1,808	
Alaska	... 270	244United States 	... 17,777	446Total 	... 592,816	1,154
3 and 4.
Canadian Exports of Butter
	1942	1943
Country	Lbs.	Lbs.
United Kingdom 			7,089,200
British South Africa ....	1,400	
Gambia 		4,800	
Gold Coast 	9,000	26.300Nigeria 	700	4,500Sierra Leone 	10,900	18,400Bermuda	3,500	British Guiana 	153,000	301,600Barbados 	81,600	38,200Jamaica 	1,400	222,500Trinidad 	91,400	588,700British West Indies, other	31,600	61,700Newfoundland 	1,064,100	951,000Greenland 	28,900	6,500Egypt 	2,400	St. Pierre 	88,500	99,800Peru 	20,000	United States 	7,700	200Total 	1,600,900	9,408,600


ANDREW SHELINE
Mr. STOKES:: 1.	Was Andrew Sheline in the employment of the national war service salvage division at Calgary, Alberta, during the year 1943?
2.	If so, what was his official position?
3.	What annual salary was he paid?
4.	What, if any, living or travelling allowances was he paid during 1943?
5.	Is he still employed in this or any other capacity in the public service?
0.	If still employed, what salary is he paid? 7. If not employed, when did his services
terminate?
Mr. LaFLECHE:
1.	Yes.
2.	Provincial salvage supervisor as certified by civil service commission.
3.	$3,300.
4.	$602.50 travelling allowances.
5.	He resigned August 10, 1943.
6.	Not applicable.
7.	See answer to question No. 5.


SUGAR CONSUMPTION
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What are the estimated quantities of sugar used for, (a) soft drinks; (b) wines; (c) candy; (d) preserving, in 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944?
2.	What are the estimated quantities of sugar, (a) produced; (b) imported; (c) consumed in Canada for each of the past five years?
3.	What is the estimated consumption of sugar in Canada for 1944?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1. (a) Soft Drinks
(b) Wines
(c) Candy
1941-	92,208,634 lbs.
1942-	72,590,397 "
1943-	72.608,628 "
1944-	73,766,907 "
1941-	12,962.988 lbs.
1942-	12,077.275 "
1943-	10,659.503 "
1944-	10,646,354 "
1941-	64,283.940 lbs.
1942-	49,566,518 "
1943-	51.081,684 "
1944-	51,427,152 "
Home Preserving
120.000.	000 lbs.
103.000.	000 "
99.000,000 "
120.000.	000 "
(d) Preserving
Industrial
1941-	74,943,867 lbs.
1942-	64,690,025 "
1943-	78,375,122 "
1944-	79,955,093 "
2.	(a) Production
Refined Sugar
1939-	158.400.814 lbs.
1940-	205.565,824 "
1941-	225,502,000 "
1942-	194,002,000 "
1943-	151.602,000 "
3.	Estimated consumption for 100-28i
(b)	Importations Raw Sugar 1,051,163.978 lbs.
975,284.781 "
1,063,372,000	"
612,066,000	"
826,276,000	"
1944-1,000,000,000 lbs.
(c) Consumption Refined Sugar 1.209,564,792 lbs. 1,180.850,605 " 1,251,590,000 "
974.200.000	"
969.680.000	"
Questions


DOMINION LOANS TO OTHER COUNTRIES
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	What loans, if any, were made by Canada to other countries during the year 1943?
2.	Has the government taken any security as guarantee for the repayment of these loans?
3.	What security is held by Canada for the repayment of the loan to Roumania?
4.	Has the government given any consideration to the question of the cancellation of the loan to Greece?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1 and 2. In the calender year 1943, $9,335,125.86 was advanced to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to be applied as a credit for the purchase by that country of Canadian wheat and flour, pursuant to an agreement with Canada. This advance bears interest at the rate of 3 per cent per annum, and is repayable in four semi-annual instalments commencing six months after the end of three years from the date of the agreement.
3.	$23,969,720 4 per cent consolidated loan bonds due April 1, 1968, principal and interest payable in United States dollars. 5,662,792.50 francs ($359,542.40) 4-J per cent consolidation loan bonds due November 1, 1953, principal and interest payable in French francs or gold lire.
4.	No.


JAPANESE NATIONALS
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	How many Japanese have been removed from the province of British Columbia to other provinces?
2.	To wrhat provinces have they been removed, and how many to each province?
Country
Gin-
United States	
Br. West Indies, other..
Newfoundland	
Colombia	
Nicaragua	
Peru	
American Virgin Islands
Bermuda	
Trinidad	
French Africa	
Iceland	"....
British West Africa___
Egypt	
French, Oceania	
Iraq	
Totals....
3.	Of those removed to the province of Ontario, how many are naturalized?
4.	How many of these are entitled to vote in federal elections?
5.	Of these, how many are in each riding (federal) in Ontario?


Mr. MITCHELL:: I can answer now the first four questions but it will take some time to get the information regarding the fifth. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer the first four and ask that the fifth stand as an order for return.
1.	6,480, including women and children.
2.	Alberta	 2,880
Saskatchewan	 57
Manitoba	 1,011
Ontario	 2,234
Quebec	 298
3.	136.
4.	Such of the above as qualify under the Dominion Elections Act 1938, section 14.


EXPORTS OF SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How many proof gallons of, (a) gin; (b) whiskey, wmre exported from Canada during the months of November and December, 1943, and January, 1944?
2.	To what countries were these exports made, and what was the quantity exported to each country?


James Angus MacKinnon: 1 and 2. Canadian exports, by countries, of whiskey and gin, during the months of November and December, 1943, and January, 1944:
November,	December,	January1943.	1943.	1944.Proof	Proof	ProofGal.	Gal.	Gal.963	2,3S0	109194	-	-159	1,790	1,08439	4	18OO	-	-10	87	-590	-	--	117	--	5	--	664	--	56	6-	-	325-	-	127-	-	301-	-	4241,977	5,103	2,394
I Mr. Ilsley.]

Questions as Orders jor Returns
November,	December,	January1943.	1943.	1944.Country	Proof	Proof	ProofGal.	Gal.	Gal.Whiskey-	164,100	233,862	139,370United States 	
639	-	-British East Africa 	
583	561	' 	Bermuda 	
229	-	48Jamaica 	
844	75	-Trinidad	
60	78	1,219Br. West Indies, other 	
1,583	4,410	4,998Newfoundland 	
45	-	-Australia 	
304	1,249	396Fiji Islands 	
1,684	-	-Chile 	
1,326	70	20Colombia 	
38	-	-Ecuador 	
75	3,044	3,253French Africa 	
2,349	1,174	462Guatemala	
8	-	174Hayti 	
1,027	-	Honduras 	-	150Bolivia 	-	283French Oceania 	
13	-	-Iceland 	
3,044	2,319	-Iraq 	
943	-	' 4,470Mexico 	
40	-	39Nicaragua 	
309	449	242Peru 	
2,989	-	-American Virgin Islands 	
1,584	-	761Puerto Rico 	
566	-	-Uruguay 	
152	-	-Venezuela 	1,309	2,346British West Africa 	3,028	-Ceylon 	317	-Bolivia 	351	803Brazil 	-	2,065	-Cuba 	
-	1,689	13,628Egypt 	-	761New Zealand 	-	2,154Totals	
184,534	256,050	175,577



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Was the Canadian Forestry Corps dispatched for service in Great Britain? If so, for how long did it remain overseas?
2.	How many officers and how many men received orders during September and October, 1943, to return to Canada?
3.	Did such officers and men upon their return
proceed to Debert camp, Nova Scotia? _ If so, what information, instructions or advice was given to them regarding their employment in forestry work in Canada?	_
4.	Were these men of the Canadian Forestry Corps interviewed at Debert by selective service officials? If so, to what purpose?
5.	Were these men advised and1 given assurances that during their occupation in forestry work in Canada they would receive the same privileges, protection and salary as they received while on active service overseas?
6.	Was one group of these men eventually established at Sussex camp, New Brunswick? If so, were they placed in charge of all fatigue and guard duty at that camp?
7.	Was another group of these men sent to Hastings Park, Vancouver?
8.	Why were these men returned to Canada from active duty overseas?
9.	How many of the Canadian Forestry Corps so returned were category "A", and how many of these men have been remustered and transferred back overseas?
10.	Did these men enlist voluntarily for the duration of the war?
11.	On whose authority were orders issued for the return of officers and men of the Canadian Forestry Corps in September and October, 1943?
12.	How many of the officers of the Canadian Forestry Corps so returned have, (a) reverted to their reserve status; (b) reverted to civilian life, and in either case was this done on instruction from authorities in Ottawa?
Questions as Orders for Returns


JAPANESE NATIONALS-BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. ESLING:: 1.	Under the jurisdiction of the British Columbia security commission, how many Japanese were moved from the coast to settlements at Sandon, New Denver, Slocan City, Lemon Creek and Kaslo in West Kootenay district of British Columbia?
2.	How many have since been moved from each of these Japanese communities to other provinces?



BEET SUGAR PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
3.	How many radio receiving sets are in use in each camp where persons of Japanese origin are located in the interior of British Columbia?
4.	Which of the said camps have schools; how many; what are the names of the teachers, and what are the qualifications of these teachers?
5.	What salary is paid to each school teacher in camps where Japanese are located?
6.	W'hat are the names, addresses and business or occupation of persons of Japanese origin who are allowed to remain in prohibited areas?

Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	In view of the danger of a sugar shortage in Canada during 1943 and 1944, has the government adopted any measures to stimulate beet sugar production in Canada during 1944 and 1945?
2.	If so, what measures?
3.	If not, why not!



CANADIANS IN R.A.F.

Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	How many Canadians are presently serving in the R.A.F. overseas?
2.	How many R.A.F. personnel are presently
serving in Canada?
3. What are the rates of pay in the R.A.l*., and how do they compare with the Canadian
rates?	.	.
4.	Are the Canadian personnel serving in England subject to income tax? If so, what is the rate?
5.	Are Canadian personnel who enlisted in England serving in the R.A.F. entitled to dependents' allowance, (a) for wife and family; (b) for mother or other dependents?
6.	Are R.A.F. Canadian personnel on demobilization entitled to Canadian rehabilitation regulations, (a) men who are attached to the RA..F.; (b) personnel who enlisted in England?


Charles Gavan Power: Return tabled.



ADVANCES FOR SEED, FEED AND FODDER

Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	What were the original amounts advanced by the dominion government for, (a) seed; (b) feed; (e) fodder, in each of the years 1917-1922 inclusive?
2.	How much was added in each subsequent year for interest and other charges?
3.	What amounts were repaid by way of, (a) interest; (b) principal, in each year from 1922 to December 31, 1943?
4.	What balances remained at December 31, 1943?


Mr. WHITE:: 1.	Has the government, through the Depart- ment of Mines and Resources, advanced moneys
to persons or corporations for the production of fluorspar in the county of Hastings?
2.	If so, what are the names and addresses of the persons or corporations to whom such moneys were advanced, and what is the amount advanced to each?
3.	Did the government advance the total amount necessary to operate the mine in any one or all cases, or was it necessary for the operator to invest any part of his own money?
4.	To what persons or corporations, if any, did the government advance the full amount necessary to operate the mines?
5.	What is the method of repayment and what amount has been repaid on each loan?
6.	What security has the government for the repayment of the moneys loaned?
7.	What has been the total tonnage of fluorspar ore produced to date from each mine financed by the government?
8.	What has been the profit of each operator?
9.	Is the operator permitted to make a profit before repayment has been made in full of all . moneys advanced by the government?



CANADIAN FORCES-SERVICE CENTRES IN CANADA

Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	How many service centres are established throughout Canada for the army, navy and air force?
2.	What are the names of these, where is each located, and by what organization is each one administered ?
3.	Are any of these service centres established and administered entirely by either of the defence departments? If so, which ones?
4.	What financial assistance, (a) in establishing; (b) in operating, has been or is being given by the government to each one of these service centres?



ASHOUAPMONCHOUAN RIVER BRIDGE, ROBERVAL COUNTY, QUE. JAPANESE NATIONALS-BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. ERASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	How many persons of Japanese origin are permitted to live and to do business or work in the prohibited area in British Columbia?
2.	Have any persons of Japanese origin who were removed from the prohibited area in British Columbia been granted permission to visit the Pacific coast prohibited area? If so, how many permits have been issued, and for what reasons?


Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	Has the bridge over the Ashouapmonchouan river at St. Felicien, Roberval county, Quebec, been rebuilt or repaired?
2.	Has traffic over highway No. 55 been renewed over this bridge?
3.	What was the total cost for the repair, restoration or rebuilding of this bridge?
4.	What portion of this cost was paid by the dominion government, and out of what appropriation was said grant made?


Mr. MICHAUD:: Return tabled.

Business of the House



PETROLITE CORPORATION LIMITED

Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	Is the Petrolite Corporation Ltd., of Wilmington, Delaware, registered to do business in Canada?
2.	Is the Petrolite Corporation the owner of patented or unpatented processes and, inventions known as the Petreco process of electrical dehydration and the electrical purification process for desalting petroleum products?
3.	Has the Petrolite Corporation erected or installed plants or equipment in Canada for the use of its processes? If so, where?
4.	Has the Petrolite Corporation entered into a contract or contracts, or agreements with any Canadian firms for the installation or use of its processes or equipment? If so, with what firm or firms?
5.	Were the Canadian firms to whom the use of the processes granted named or designated by the Minister of Munitions and Supply?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. SENN:: For a copy of all press releases dealing with the sale and/or the prices of clover seeds in domestic and foreign markets from August 1, 1943, to date, issued by the special products board, the seed branch of the Department of Agriculture or any other governmental body.



DAMAGING OF TUG &quot;BALLY&quot; BY THE &quot;SANKATY&quot;

Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: For a copy of all correspondence and reports between any officer of the tug Bally and naval authorities at Halifax, and between naval authorities at Halifax and any department of the government regarding the damaging of the tug Bally by the Sankaty, referred to in sessional paper 253, 1942.
For a copy of all correspondence and reports between inspectors or any other government officials and any department of the government regarding any inspection of the Bally following its damage by the Sankaty.
A copy of reports and correspondence by inspectors to the government or any official of the government concerning the inspection of the Bally in June, 1941, mentioned in sessional paper 253, 1942.
A copy of all correspondence between any department or official of the government and the owner of the tug Bally informing him of the damage caused to the Bally by the Sankaty.



CANADIAN FORESTRY CORPS

Gordon Knapman Fraser: For a copy of any memoranda issued in October or November, 1943, to the men of the Canadian Forestry Corps who returned to Canada from overseas; and in particular, a copy of a memorandum entitled "General Information", purporting to be instructions to the men of the Canadian Forestry Corps who returned to Canada.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-AIR TRAINING CENTRES-SPUR LINES AND SIDINGS

Mr. SHAW:: For a copy of each agreement entered into between the government, or any government department, or any official thereof and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company relative to the extension of spur lines into air training centres or the construction of sidings adjacent to such training centres.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the order, Government Notices of Motion:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: At this point may I say a word about the appointment of committees. As hon. members know, the government is anxious to have all these committees constituted at as early a date as possible. I think only two special committees still have to be appointed, the one having to do with radio broadcasting and the other with war expenditures. I am quite prepared to hand to the Clerk of the House a similar motion to that which appeared last year and the year before with respect to the war expenditures committee, just as soon as I can secure the names of hon. gentlemen opposite who are to be members of that committee. I understand that some names will be given to-day or tomorrow; at any rate what I wish to make clear at the moment is that the government would have placed a motion on the order paper before this had it not been that up to the present we have not been able to get all the names of hon. gentlemen opposite who are to be members of the committee.
Earlier in the session it was mentioned from the other side of the house that there was a desire to debate the report which was tabled by the war expenditures committee at the close of last session. I was asked if I would give an undertaking that this might be done when the war expenditures committee was being set up this year. At the time I mentioned that it was the custom to allow the reports of one session to end with that session. However, since I understand hon. gentlemen opposite wish to debate the last report made by the committee on war expenditures, I have handed to the Clerk notice of a resolution which will permit that course to be taken. I am only too happy to have- this done if it will expedite the appointment of the war expenditures committee for this session.


Major James William Coldwell: I think I asked the Prime Minister if something of that sort could be done. If it could. I think it would expedite the setting up of the
Business of the House

committee this year. I should be glad to discuss that report either by itself or when the motion appointing the committee this year is before the house. I might also tell the Prime Minister that we gave the name of the proposed member of the committee from this group to the proper authority I think the day the house opened, or the day after. We were all prepared with our nominee.


Gordon Graydon: The Prime Minister has gone to some pains to indicate that one of the reasons the war expenditures committee has not been set up is that the names of the members of this party who are to serve on it have not been handed in to the whip. I did not intend to raise this question at this time, but since the Prime Minister has been good enough to bring it up I want to tell him that one contributing factor which has made it difficult to hand in those names is the spirit of frustration felt by many of our members because of the fact that government members of the committee, being in the majority, have consistently closed the doors of the committee to the public and have kept the proceedings of the committee secret. It is a difficult position for us to be in. If the Prime Minister will rise in his place now and say that, so far as the government members are concerned, these committee meetings will be open to the public we can hand in the names this afternoon; but it is very difficult for us to get people to serve on a committee where the blinds are pulled down, the shutters closed and the doors locked. That is the story.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Each committee of this house manages its own business, and the government does not interfere.


Gordon Graydon: The business is managed by the majority of the committee, who are Liberals.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend seems to think the government has no obligation in the matter of carrying on the business of the country except what is granted to it by the opposition. May I say .to my hon. friend, and this is important, that the government has been sent here to carry on the business of the country at a time of war, and it is our duty to adopt the methods that we believe will achieve that end most effectively.


Gordon Graydon: Do you think that is the best way to carry on the war effort, to close the sessions of that committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment;
I shall answer my hon. friend immediately and effectively. No parliament on earth has more experience in matters having to do with war expenditures than the parliament at Westminster, and I am prepared to say

that this government will follow with respect to war expenditures exactly the procedure followed by the parliament at Westminster. My hon. friend knows very well that the reason the parliament at Westminster has not opened the doors, put up the blinds and done the other things suggested by my hon. friend is that it regards the war as far too serious a matter .to permit a lot of unnecessary discussion to take place in the nature of political controversy.


Gordon Graydon: I do not know whether the Prime Minister is or is not serious in what he says.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He is not only serious, but he would add that another reason is .that the government does not wish to have any information given to the enemy -which, apparently, my hon. friend is quite prepared to risk.


Gordon Graydon: On the point raised by the Prime Minister: Imagine his talking about comfort to the enemy over a question of wartime housing!


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this matter may I point out that I resent the leader of the opposition saying to the Prime Minister what he should undertake regarding the views, information and the stand taken by members in that committee. I as a member of the committee went there without dictation from anyone-and I refuse to take it from anyone, even from the Prime Minister. I decide myself what stand I shall 'take.


Gordon Graydon: Open the door and we will think more of you.



RECONSTITUTION OF COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS

Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with
the statement the Prime Minister has just made respecting other committees, would he tell the house whether the proposal to reconstitute the committee on the defence of Canada regulations has been forgotten?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Up to the
present time no request has been made for the constitution this year of that committee. If, however my hon. friend thinks it desirable to have a committee on the defence of Canada regulations constituted at this session, the government will be prepared to consider the suggestion.


Gordon Graydon: Our names for that committee have been in for some considerable time just so that there may be no doubt about the matter.

Wheat Exports



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a
question of the Minister of National Defence for Air based on an article in the Gazette of Glace Bay, of February 8. This article says that there has been a black market in supplies [DOT] to the airport in that area. Has the minister been advised of the charges appearing in that newspaper article? If so, can he assure the house that the proper machinery of his department will be used to conduct a thorough investigation into the alleged charges?


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend gave notice of this question. He asked first: "Has the article mentioned been brought to the attention of the minister?" The answer to that is yes. His second question is: "If so, is the matter under investigation?" The answer is yes.
His third question is:	"Will the investigation be followed through to its logical conclusion and appropriate action taken to assure the public that the taxes they are paying for military purposes are being protected by those responsible for the administration of military affairs in Canada?" The answer to that is yes. And the article bears on its face the assertion that appropriate action is being taken, in that a number were arrested, and are now in gaol.


Clarence Gillis: But action was instituted by the civil authorities.


Charles Gavan Power: Action, is being taken. I
would say. to my hon.. friend that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police act in most cases on behalf of the military services.


Clarence Gillis: The city police were the first to act in this instance.



FLAXSEED

[Stage Direction]
INCREASE IN PRICE TO CANADLAN FARMERS On the orders of the day:.
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a- question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, based on an article from, the Canadian Press appearing in the Ottawa Citizen under a Winnipeg dateline of February 12. The article reads:
The Winnipeg Tribune said to-day it had learned that the price of flax seed to Canadian farmers would be increased from $2.50 a bushel to probably $3.
Is this true?


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I have
been trying to get to my feet to make a statement on this matter. For the purpose of informing flaxseed growers in order that they may make their seeding plans accordingly, I wish to announce that it is the government's intention to pay a fixed price of $2.75 per bushel for No. 1 Canada western flaxseed, basis in store Fort William-Port Arthur, and for No. 1 Canada eastern flaxseed, basis in store Montreal, during the 1944-45 crop year. The present fixed price of $2.50. per bushel will continue in force until July 31, 1944, and the $2.7'5 price will take effect on August 1.



STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, on
February 9 the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) asked me if I would make a statement regarding sales of wheat to the United States.
In reply to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, I wish to inform the house that the United States war food administration, through the commodity credit corporation, is making tentative plans to import 175,000,000 bushels of wheat from Canada during 1944. Of this total, 40,000,000 bushels are intended to be moved by rail direct in United States cars from western country points, 30,000,000 bushels by vessel from Vancouver and other Pacific ports, and 105,000,000 bushels by lake during the 1944 season of navigation.
I wish to emphasize that this is a tentative programme and subject to change in the light of transportation developments and war food administration needs. Purchases by the commodity credit corporation are being made from time to time in amounts broadly corresponding to the quantities for which firm transportation commitments can be made.
With respect to the rail movement, between the dates December 13, 1943, and February 10, 1944, inclusive, the Canadian Wheat Board has sold 10,269 cars (approximately 18,000,000 bushels) of wheat for shipment all rail from country elevators in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to destinations in the United States. Of this total, 9,419 cars have been or will be shipped from country elevators in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and 850 cars from country elevators in Alberta.
Since December 13, 1943, United States railways have delivered to Canadian railways a
Wheat Exports

total of 5,561 freight cars owned by the United States railways for the transportation of this wheat. Additional United States cars are being delivered daily at border points to the Canadian lines by United States railways. The volume of future all rail sales to the United States will be largely governed by the number of additional United States cars delivered.
Prices asked for such wheat by the Canadian Wheat Board from December 13, 1943, to February 10, 1944, have ranged between low points for the grades of one, two and three northern of S1.41, $1.38 and $1.36 per bushel, respectively, and high points of $1.47, $1.44 and $1.42 for the same grades, all basis in store Fort William Port Arthur. These sales have been made from day to day and have been within these prices ranges, net to the Canadian Wheat Board basis in store Fort William.
Sales have been confined almost exclusively to the grades of two and three northern.
Since the importer and buyer of this wheat in the United Statest is the commodity credit corporation, a United States government agency, the question of duty does not arise.
All freight charges apart from those from the country shipping point to Fort William are absorbed by the buyer.
Here follows a list of exporting firms which have made the sales to the commodity credit corporation:
Alberta Pacific Grain Company Limited.
Bunge North American Grain Corporation, Canadian Agency, Limited.
Cargill Grain Company, Limited.
Continental Grain Company, Limited.
Hallet and Carey, Limited.
Kerr-Gifford and Company
Leval and Company, Incorporated.
McCabe Brothers Grain Company Limited.
National Grain Company Limited.
Norris Grain Company Limited.
Reliance Grain Company Limited.
James Richardson & Sons Limited.
Saskatchewan Pool Elevators Limited.
Searle Grain Company Limited.
K. B. Stoddart & Company Limited.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Is the wheat to be sold to the commodity credit corporation of the United States in this crop year or calendar year, or has a definite period been set?


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not think a definite period is stipulated in the negotiations; but it is anticipated that it will be during this crop year.



MAJOR-GENERAL CHISHOLM REFERENCE TO ADDRESS TO ROTARY CLUB AND TORONTO WELFARE COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the appropriate minister. Did Major-General G. Brook Chisholm, director general of army medical services for Canada, speak with the authority of the government in a public address delivered to the Rotary club and the annual meeting of the welfare council of Toronto last Friday, February 11? Was he reflecting the views of the government when he is reported to have said:
To adjust recruits properly to army life, that "the influence of mothers" has to be weakened. He felt that women "are not oriented toward society, they are oriented toward men."^ In times of stress, such as war, women become a liability.
Is that a correct statement?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: I shall inquire into the matter, and take what the hon. member has said as a notice of question.



CHRISTIE STREET HOSPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) : Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Pensions and National Health, based on information to the effect that amendments are to be made in connection with hospital allowances to -men discharged from- Christie street hospital. It is my understanding that there is some revision in prospect. Would the minister give, if not to-day perhaps at an early day, a statement indicating the extent to which these provisions will be amended and whether they will be made applicable to men who have been discharged three, four or five months ago?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): I shall be glad to look at my hon. friend's question and answer it later.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to draw to your attention a situation which I believe requires consideration. On Friday I asked three questions regarding the sugar situation in Canada and

War Appropriation-Army
Your Honour advised me to put those questions on the order paper, which I did. They appeared on the order paper to-day and I was told that they will be answered in the form of a return, which means a good deal of delay. I should like to point out two or three factors which bring about a certain degree of urgency in this matter.
Let it be borne in mind that the cost of producing beet sugar has increased considerably of late and that the number of crops which compete with sugar beets on irrigated land have increased, mostly because of the war. May I draw to your attention the fact that Canada is facing a sugar shortage and no one knows just what is going to happen with resp'ect to sugar. There is every reason why we should do everything in our power to stimulate the production of sugar. Not very long ago a committee representing the Canadian beet growers waited upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and asked him if he would give a further rebate of a half cent per pound of the excise on sugar. It seems to me that some statement should be made to let the country know whether the minister is prepared to do anything in this regard or whether this matter of sugar is going to be left to pure chance.
Let us bear in mind that men are signing contracts right now for the production of sugar and if this matter is not attended to within a short time it will be too late.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question on the order paper is
one which concerns two if not three departments. Because it concerns two or three departments it will be necessary to have a consultation about it, and for that reason it is passed as an order for return.


John Horne Blackmore: Can the minister give us an assurance that we will have a reply within the next two or three days?


James Garfield Gardiner: A reply will be given as soon as possible.


John Horne Blackmore: There were just three simple questions asked, it should be possible to give the answers in ten minutes.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 11, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

James Layton Ralston: I should like to finish my review of the activities of the department and my reference to the army in Canada and the various groups into which that army is divided. On Friday I gave particulars of the operational troops and mentioned that they had been considerably reduced as a result of the changed strategic situation and the disbandment of the seventh and eighth divisions.
I also gave the committee some details of the non-operational troops, which are the servicing units and the servicing personnel, not only for Canada but for overseas. There are two further groups I should speak of. One is the training stream, which is tremendously important, and the other is the reselective and disposal stream, or depots as we call them. In the training stream, as of only a few days ago, we had something over 75,000 personnel, of which a little over 15,000-


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is meant by training stream?


James Layton Ralston: That is a stream or group into which men go for training in progressive sequence. They go first to basic training, then to advanced training, then to special arm training, then to the training brigade and then overseas. In personnel, those not actually attached to units, we have something over
75,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not all are in that stream; some do not go overseas?


James Layton Ralston: A little over 15,000 are N.R.M.A. personnel. Regarding the depots or disposal and reselective stream, I am sorry to have to say that the number in these depots has increased. I do not know of any group which is more difficult to regulate than the group in the depots. To the depots come those who are on their way out for discharge, those who have been in a unit which has been disbanded and who have not yet been posted to some other unit, those who come from a unit or a training centre, posted for the time being to the depots until they go to a new job. Generally speaking these depots perform the function of employment agencies for soldiers who are temporarily not posted, either because of unfitness for the job they have had or for which they have been training, or because their unit has been disbanded.
Another function of the depots is the documenting and medical examination and taking care of soldiers who are being discharged.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it fair to say that it is a distribution centre?
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: I should think so. It is a distribution centre. I suggested that it was more or less a transient hotel for soldiers, but the department sat down on that title definitely. They said it was no such thing, that it is a place where men are actually posted to different unite, where training is done and where every endeavour is made to make the stay at that particular place just as short as possible.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Has there been any
change in the functioning of the depots since the war started?


James Layton Ralston: There has been a great deal more in the way of employment activity. More attention is being paid to selecting men for particular jobs, especially in the last year. As a matter of fact, we have at the depots placement officers similar to those of the Department of Labour. These men are there for the purpose of finding out the jobs in the different districts for which men are wanted, and also looking for men who can best fill those jobs.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Is that the only reason for the increase in the numbers at the depots?


James Layton Ralston: No; the increase in numbers is due to no small extent to the disbandment of the seventh and eighth divisions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And men returning from overseas, like the forestry corps?


James Layton Ralston: And men returning from overseas. They have to be discharged and the depots have been under additional pressure this year. I am convinced that generally speaking there has been an extra effort put forward to deal with these cases just as fast as possible. There may be some exceptions, but speaking generally those in charge of the depots are never satisfied with the progress being made. I know they are seeking honestly and sincerely for improvement in administration. We endeavour to terminate as speedily as possible the uncertainty which faces a man when he goes to the depot.
I have referred to the placement officers and stated that they fulfil the same function as the placement officers of the Department of Labour in the employment offices. Arrangements have been made to have representatives of the Department of Pensions and National Health at the depots to look after men for whom rehabilitation treatment is needed. That is to say, in connection with men on the way out an endeavour is being made to integrate the services rendered by the Department of Pensions and National Health with the services

rendered by the Department of National Defence. I am sure that hon. members have in their minds cases-there may have been a number of them-in which men seem to get out of the army and not into the Department of Pensions and National Health as promptly as possible. I can only say that both the Minister of Pensions and National Health and I have been constantly at work on that. We have tried to impress our officers with the importance of setting up a system whereby the men will be informed not only by the department of pensions but also by the army of what their rights are; and vice versa. The department of pensions will give to the man who is in the army, even though he has not been discharged, such information as can be given with regard to his rights eventually when he comes to be discharged. That is not merely his right as to pension but as to treatment, vocational allowance, unemployment allowance and all the different benefits provided under the department of pensions. Those depots will become more important as the war goes on and demobilization increases, because the problems of the post-war employment of soldiers will be first encountered and dealt with there. The depots will be the focal point.
Speaking generally with regard to the army in Canada, everybody wants to see it reduced and wonders why it is so large. I wish to speak of two or three features of administration of the army in Canada. We have endeavoured to make some genuine effort to reduce it. In this I point out, if it is any comfort to us, that we are at least as far advanced in this matter as our good neighbours to the south, and in some instances that I know of we took the steps considerably earlier than They did.


Percy Chapman Black: What is the total number as of this date?


James Layton Ralston: The total number of what?


Percy Chapman Black: Of the home army.


James Layton Ralston: I am going to summarize just as soon as I get through with these reductions. Hon. Mr. Stimson, Secretary of State for War in the United States, only a few days ago issued a statement in which he forecast what he called a drastic shake-up in the army in the United States. He spoke of comb-outs that were being made, of discharges and replacements of physically fit men by men less physically fit. I read his statement with a great deal of interest, and I think I can say that the policies which Mr. Stimson announced

War Appropriation-Army
are along the line of the policies which have been in force in the Canadian army for some time.


Gordon Graydon: The cases are scarcely
parallel.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, they are. Let me
give one or two examples. Our neighbours to the south are replacing physically fit men by members of the Women's Army Corps, soldiers unfit for service overseas, new recruits physically handicapped1 and short-term' enlisted men. Canada releases her physically fit men by utilizing general service personnel returned from overseas, general service personnel unfit for operational duties, the Canadian Women's Army Corps and N.R.M.A. personnel who cannot be absorbed in operational units. That was the great objective-to release men for operational service.
Mr. Stimson mentioned also that they were releasing overhead personnel, which. I take to be those in the non-operational units, which I spoke of the other day as servicing units. In Canada we have been doing exactly the same thing. We have been combing out general service personnel, physically fit. I stated last year that in Canada over sixty per cent of the general service personnel in the non-operational units were men who were below category "A" or over thirty-five years of age. That meant that a comb-out had already taken place. To-day this figure is close to seventy per cent.
Our drive was also to release general service men from operational units in two ways, by comb-out and by disbandment, with the result that during the present fiscal year, ending March 31, 1944, we shall have released probably 15,000 general service personnel from operational units, a large number of whom will be for overseas service.
Mr. Stimson mentioned another feature of the drastic shake-up in the United States, and that was the reverting to inactive status of thousands of commissioned officers over thirty-eight years of age for whom no suitable assignments were available. In that case also we can say that Canada is, to say the least, not behind the United States. Since last September we have had released numbers of officers who could not be suitably employed. We have not fixed a definite age limit in this respect. We have said that they shall be reverted to reserve status if they cannot be advantageously employed in the service in their present rank, and that is regardless of age, whereas in the United States apparently the general policy is limited to deal with officers who are over thirty-eight years of age.
In addition, the Canadian army some months ago inaugurated the retirement age limit; the retirement of officers who it is found cannot
be advantageously employed as well as those who have reached the age ceiling is not a particularly agreeable task. Those who have given good service are naturally anxious to see the war through; but it is obvious, when the peak of expansion is passed, that it is unwise in the interests of both the officer and the service, as well as in the interests of national economy, to continue in active status officers for whom no suitable employment is available or who have reached1 the age limit fixed. We have thought and still think-and it is working out that way-that it affords to the officer an opportunity to reestablish himself in civil life before the rush of demobilization comes. It also gives the younger officer a chance to make his mark in this war. The Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) expressed the same idea in announcing a somewhat similar policy for the air force a few days ago-that it would make the air force more dynamic, vital and virile. That is exactly what it does in the army, under the policies which we inaugurated some time ago.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is experience no factor?


James Layton Ralston: I want the committee to
follow along with me, if members will permit me to proceed; but I am glad1 that my hon. friend interrupted with that particular question. I can say to my hon. friend that there is just one exception with regard to the retirement of officers of sixty years and over. The officer must be retired unless the adjutant-general certifies that no other suitable officer is available to take the job he is holding, and in that case there may be an extension for one year.


Mr. GREEN:: Has the minister the figures on retirements?


James Layton Ralston: I am reaching in the air
for this figure. They have not been completed but I think we have in prospect something like 700. I am not saying 700 over age, but either over age or not advantageously employable in their present rank.
The third advantage is that it promotes efficiency in the service by increasing interest and enthusiasm by the enlargement of opportunity to the younger officers. The fourth advantage is that it releases for civilian occupation men who have had an established place in civil life and who can contribute much toward reconstruction in the transition period. I want to record here what I have already said publicly, namely the appreciation of the department of the services of those older officers and particularly those who served in the last war, who have relinquished their
War Appropriation-Army

civilian occupations without thought of personal sacrifice, and made a fine contribution in this war to help build up the Canadian army of to-day. Those men have done their bit and have now left the army better for their work. Their service is appreciated and they now are giving younger men whom they have helped to train an opportunity to advance.
Mr. Stimson announced also the putting of training camps, stations and other installations on a stand-by basis. We have done the same thing in Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What do you mean by that?


James Layton Ralston: Closing training centres, due to the fact that the peak of expansion was past and that the development of the armed forces was on a maintenance rather than on a capital basis. It is just the same as in connection with our munitions production. That was driven to a peak in order to get production and initial equipment for the formations. That equipment is now in very many cases being produced on a maintenance basis; that is, on a replacement or reinforcement basis. It has not to be furnished initially for further capital formations. We in Canada announced the same policy. That policy applied to both officers' training centres and to other ranks' training centres as well. Last spring I announced the closing down of officers' training centres at Gordon Head and Three Rivers, with the concentration of training at the officers' training centre at Brock-ville. That reduced' overhead and output. We had put forth an aggressive effort to build up the officer strength of the army, which during the days of 1942 was considered very necessary, and was demanded to meet the emergency that developed as a result of events following Pearl Harbor. Our officer strength was built up just as fast as it could be. We have now a reserve. There were two major factors which contributed to that; first, the improvement of conditions which warranted the disbandment of the seventh and eighth divisions making those officers available for other duties; second, the fact that operations in 1943 were not of the degree of intensity for which provision was made. The fact that we are in this comfortable position of having a reserve to meet officer requirements does not mean that officer training has ceased, or that those now serving in the ranks will have no opportunity for commissions. But the general policy is that recommendations for commissions will be made after a man has an opportunity of proving himself overseas rather than in Canada.

We have this reserve of officers, and we are utilizing it by making good use of the time and facilities which we have to broaden and to intensify their training; in other words, adding to their qualifications by giving to them refresher and advanced training to make them just that much more fit to undertake the responsibilitiqs which devolve upon commissioned officers. As I say, we have those facilities, and we are taking advantage of them to give these young officers training far in advance of what would have been possible in the last war.
Mr. Stimson did not speak particularly of officer training alone. He spoke of training camps, stations and other facilities, which would be placed on a stand-by basis. We have done the same thing with regard to our basic training centres.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask one question? Have you brought instructors back from the fighting fronts, such as Sicily, Italy and North Africa, to the officer training centres?


James Layton Ralston: From time to time, yes. I cannot recall names at the moment; we. are bringing them back from time to time. My hon. friend probably heard an officer by the name of Lieutenant Colonel Garneau on the radio last night. Lieutenant Colonel Garneau had been at Sicily and Dieppe and is in Canada now in connection with training.
So far I have spoken about officer training centres. I shall now speak about training camps and other ranks. This is another policy which we have had in force for a considerable time. I have not the date, but as I remember it, it was sometime last summer that I announced the policy of closing several of the training centres and the inauguration of a plan for linking up the basic training with the advanced so that men in a certain basic training centre would know they would be going to the advanced training centre and would not be distributed all over Canada. This made for liaison between centres. The officers in these linked centres knew what the conditions were in the centres with which they were associated and the proficiency which had been arrived at, and the general scope and quality of the training. That is to say, the advanced training centre would know all about the basic training centre, and therefore would be able to pick the man up in his training from where he had left off. It made for more speed and more efficiency than would be the case if the man had come from some basic training centre which the advanced centre did not know.


Gordon Graydon: Why was there such a wide distribution in the early days?

War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: Simply because they had to be put wherever they could be accommodated. The purpose of reducing the basic training centres and providing the link with the advanced training centre was to reduce overhead and to integrate basic and advanced training.
Since that time thirteen basic training centres have been discontinued and the capacity of eleven more has been reduced. This has permitted a reduction of staff. Some of the closed centres are in use for other purposes and others are on a stand-by basis so that the original capacity can easily be utilized if occasion should arise. In the meantime we have ample basic training capacity for the number of men we assume we estimate we shall require. The closing of the centres where only small numbers were in attendance, and the concentration in fewer establishments has helped the staffs in the training centres to do better work, and the staffs at the districts and at headquarters to give closer and more helpful supervision.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
training centre at Edmundston is very small; has it been closed?


James Layton Ralston: I do not know; I am not quite sure; I do not think it has.
I should now like to answer the question of the hon. member from Cumberland (Mr. Black), with regard to the army in Canada. Last year I said there would be a definite reduction in the number of troops in Canada. I said that would be largely effected by the dispatch overseas of units already earmarked for overseas service, and of some required for administrative service; that is to say, there would be a reduction by taking units which were in Canada and sending them overseas. The number in Canada earmarked for overseas at that time was about 11,000. As a matter of fact I said that the minimum reduction would be 15,000, I think. I also said that the strength as of March 31st would likely be about 235,000. I am glad to say, on the record we have, that I believe we have done very much better than that. We estimate that the army in Canada will be something over 215,000, as against 235,000 which I predicted last year; that is the active effective strength. We estimate that the reduction, instead of being about 15,000, will be nearer 35,000. Indeed, in the reduction are some 8,000 granted longterm-leave in agriculture, mining and industry who ought not to be charged to the army, since they are only nominally soldiers and have been on leave for months and months. We cannot treat them as soldiers and at the same time have them used in the national economy for something other than military
service. It might be said that we had men on leave last year, but we had very few last year as compared with this year.


Howard Charles Green: Are they included in the 215,000?	'


James Layton Ralston: I think the 8,000 are included in the 35,000 reduction. I should say also the C.W.A.C.'s were not included last year and were not included this year either, but there has been an increase of between three and four thousand in the Canadian Women's Army Corps this year. That increase is not counted in estimating the reduction. To me, the most satisfactory feature of the reduction is that in the process over 70,000 men will have been sent overseas by March 31 of this year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about those who have come back and are at the dispersal centres? I refer to the 2,000 foresters. Where do you put these; they are in Canada but are not being used.


James Layton Ralston: I shall give my hon. friend the distribution of the 2,000 foresters. I have not it here. They are being used. Some of them are still at the depots, and if they are there-


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is so small, it is ridiculous.


James Layton Ralston: No, my hon. friend is wrong. There were something like 2,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A good many of them have been disbanded.


James Layton Ralston: I will give the distribution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was the greatest fiasco of the whole thing.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Will the minister break down those figures?


James Layton Ralston: Under the uncertainties that have existed and the administrative difficulties involved in reorganization, that record of reduction is one in which the department has a right to take some satisfaction. I would remind the committee that included in these figures for" Canada are forces maintained by us on the outposts of the continent, in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in the Caribbean. Included in the figures are the
5,000	sent to Kiska. The break-down as at March 31, 1944, shows that we estimate the operational troops will be over 55,000,. the nonoperational troops something over 75,000, and those in training and awaiting disposal, something over 75,000. The total will be over
215,000.
War Appropriation-Army


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did the minister say that the non-operational troops exceed the operational?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Comb them out; that is all I have to say.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend does not appreciate what the non-operational troops are. They are, for instance, the veterans' guard at internment camps; I have mentioned 3,000 at Longue Pointe depot working for the British government, and there are the men in the units in the dental and service corps, working for the navy and the air force, and the staffs of the training camps. There are the Army Service Corps personnel, the ordnance personnel, the medical units and all these service units, which are not simply for the purpose of servicing the army of Canada in Canada, but for the purpose of providing a base for equipment and reinforcements for overseas.


Percy Chapman Black: Where is the classification with regard to the reserve army for home training, with no intention of going into combat overseas? They are known as the reserve army.


James Layton Ralston: I was going to deal with the reserve army. In reference to the matter of reinforcements-


Howard Charles Green: Before the minister leaves that point, how many of these men are N.R.MA. men?


James Layton Ralston: Some 70,000.


Howard Charles Green: How are they divided?


James Layton Ralston: Forty-seven per cent of the N.R.M.A. are in operational troops; fifteen per cent are non-operational troops; twenty per cent are in the training stream; eight per cent in the depot reselection and disposal wings and seven per cent are on leave.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is the total number?


James Layton Ralston: I believe it is 70,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does that include those absent without leave, deserters?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We ought to know about that.


James Layton Ralston: I cannot make a complete and comprehensive statement now. Perhaps the hon. member will allow me to continue and he can ask questions afterwards.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You know and we do not. We will ask questions.


James Layton Ralston: I will find out for my hon. friend. With regard to reinforcements, I have a very brief statement which will put the matter clearly. I am glad to be able to say that notwithstanding the fact that a part of the army has been fighting since July, the reinforcement pool overseas is well up to the planned original full strength. This pool was that which was estimated to be adequate to meet battle casualties, and the supply can and will continue to be replenished by the dispatch of further reinforcements from Canada as required. '
There is one qualification to be made. It is very difficult to match supply with requirements of all the different types of tradesmen. Thirty-five per cent of the army to-day are in the different trades, of which there are over 200, many of which are highly specialized. It is a constant battle to get from the population of this country, or for that matter of any country, so large a percentage of skilled men, particularly bearing in mind 'the needs of war industry. The adaptability of young men is such, and the presence of tradesmen throughout the army is so general that I think we can be confident we shall always be able in time of emergency to meet the need.
We have ample trade training facilities and we try well ahead to allocate men during training to meet the requirements which we forecast from the demands that come periodically from overseas. That reinforcement pool overseas will be drawn on as casualties occur; but we estimate that by sending 48,000 men overseas during the fiscal year, 1944-45, we would, on the basis of estimated casualties before us, still end the year with a pool sufficient to maintain the army at the height of its fighting efficiency. To provide that 4,000 a month, we estimate that we shall have
60,000	general service personnel suitable for overseas service in training centres and in units in Canada at the end of March of this year. These, less certain wastage which always occurs from training, will be sent overseas as they complete training or as they are made available by orderly withdrawal from units. That will deplete the number in the training stream. Therefore, to safeguard the future, we are budgeting for an intake of 48,000 general service plus 12,000 N.R.MA.. personnel to release general service personnel, or a total of 60,000 from the total Canadian manpower pool for 1944-45. If we achieved this intake of an average of 4,000 general service men per month it would see us at the end of the fiscal year with reinforcement pool overseas

War Appropriation-Army
maintained at adequate strength, and it would see us with sufficient men in training centres to fight on during 1945.
In the last three months our intake of general service men averaged a little over 3,700. For January it was almost 4,000. What the future will be I do not know, but certainly efforts will be steadily put forth to maintain this January rate. If recruiting should materially fall off it will begin to affect the numbers dispatched overseas in the later months of the fiscal year 1944-45, and should find us at the end of March, 1945, with the pool maintained overseas, but with the number of general service men in Canada reduced approximately by the amount of deficiency in that intake. As a further backlog we have in Canada well over 60,000 N.R.M.A. personnel, of which number perhaps 50,000 could be made available for overseas service if emergency arose and necessary action were taken.


Howard Charles Green: Has there been any increase in that number since last year?


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry I have not the exact figure. I gave the percentages a few minutes ago. In answer to somebody I said
70,000.	I do not think it can be 70,000. I fancy the explanation is that the 70,000 is the number projected as of March 31 while the
60,000	is the number now.


Howard Charles Green: What has been the intake of N.R.M.A. recruits in the same time?


James Layton Ralston: There will be plenty of opportunity to give those figures later and I shall have someone furnish them.


Howard Charles Green: You should have them in the general service statement.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend will permit me to make my statement; I cannot have everything at once. I do not think he quite means what he says, when he suggests what I should have and what I should not have. The reinforcement position always depends, of course, on the accuracy of forecast as to casualties and our officers have made a careful study of this factor. I think we have made ample provision in this respect, and therefore, I think I can say to the committee with considerable confidence that our reinforcement position for the fiscal year before us will be well provided for.


Gordon Graydon: Will the minister say that he makes that statement with full confidence?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot say with full confidence; I do not know what the casualties will be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the point of reinforcements, will the minister say, in the event of a second front in Europe, on the western front, whether we have adequate reinforcements.


James Layton Ralston: I will say exactly what I have said here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not say anything.


James Layton Ralston: I am saying what anybody would say who had any sense of responsibility.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have a sense of responsibility, and I resent that.


James Layton Ralston: I have a sense of my responsibility, too; and I say to my hon. friend and to the committee that the casualties have been estimated on the basis of the best information that can be obtained in conjunction with the war office, having regard to the operations which will be carried on, and that is the situation if those casualties are realized. I have said to the committee already that the casualties we have suffered in Italy were somewhat less than those that had been budgeted for.


Howard Charles Green: Are the divisions overseas-


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. The minister has expressed the desire to make his statement first, and then he will answer questions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are in committee.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We are just dealing with the resolution itself; there is no special item before the committee.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Can we not interrogate the minister at all as we go along?


James Layton Ralston: I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver South will recall that last year the practice was to allow the minister to make his statement; then there were at least four or five or six quite lengthy speeches, one of which was made by my hon. friend, before there was any thought of asking questions of anybody or getting down to business. I am glad we are getting down to business earlier this session.
There is another matter to which I wanted to refer; it is just in passing, but at the same time I feel that the armed services should indicate to the committee that they have not lost sight of it. I must say that I have hesitated to talk very much about rehabilitation or demobilization. Sometimes I have been a little concerned at people going overseas to talk to
War Appropriation-Army

our men about rehabilitation and demobilization, knowing as I do and as the country knows what is before us this year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That the war is not won.


James Layton Ralston: That the war is not won. I felt that it might give the boys an entirely wrong impression, that it might turn their minds from the job they have in hand or perhaps indicate that our minds were being turned from the job which is in hand. At the same time I know enough, from my experience in the Mediterranean area and in England, to realize that naturally the boys are thinking about these things. They are young men who are looking forward to coming back some day, and they want to know what is to be done for them. 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. Of course this is not the particular province of the three armed services; but I wish to say- and in this I am inspired by, and want to give credit to, my colleague the Minister of National Defence for Air-that quite regardless of the fact that pensions and national health, or the veterans' welfare department, or whatever it may be, eventually will take care of the matter, all three services intend to take and are now taking a definite and positive interest in the prospective rehabilitation of soldiers, sailors and airmen. It is not intended that the services should do this by way of providing rehabilitation grants, because those will come after demobilization; it is to be done by looking forward to the time when demobilization may come, endeavouring to plan the relative priorities of the various men who are now in the service, whether it be by length of service, by occupation or what-not. I would not want the committee to take it from anything I say that any policy has been decided upon-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.
So each of the three services is setting up a special directorate to deal with demobilization. I do not mean that each directorate is to deal only with the machinery, to decide
fMr. Ralston.]
where the medical examinations shall take place, what forms will be signed, where men should be sent for the purposes of demobilization and discharge, and things of that kind, but it is also to consider and work out what can be done while the men are still in the army, the navy or the air force, to assist in preparing them for their return to civil life. It may be the matter of vocational training, which is being talked about so much; it may be vocational guidance; it may be more education; it may be advice; it may be assistance in some other way to prepare them to return to their rightful place, the place they want in society. These directorates will be headed by men who have had experience in this war, and, I hope, in the last war; men who will understand the problems, the aspirations, the needs and the ambitions of these boys. The directorates will be coordinated by means of an interservice council, so that as nearly as possible we may have the same degree of assistance in the three services by way of vocational training and preparation for civil life, having regard to the facilities provided and the opportunities that present themselves in the service in which the men are engaged now. Further than that, we shall have an interdepartmental council composed of representatives not of the three services alone but of the three services, pensions and national health, labour, and reconstruction, when that department is established. I only mention this to indicate that the services themselves realize their responsibility to those who are still in the service, so that such spare time as these men may have when the active part of the war is over, if they are still retained for military service, shall be utilized in the best possible way, having in mind the desirability of assisting these men in order that they may be prepared to resume the functions of citizens.
Someone asked me about the reserve army. Just a day or two ago a statement was published in this regard, and I should like to give the committee the substance of it. First I want to say that the Canadian army can never acknowledge in too generous terms the work of the reserve army, or the non-permanent active militia as we knew it, and all it has meant in laying the foundation of the Canadian army as it exists to-day. Nearly every unit of our army is founded upon a former militia unit. The names may have been changed, but the personnel, the structure, has remained, and the foundations and traditions are there. If the non-permanent active militia had done nothing more than furnish that

War Appropriation-Army
foundation it would have performed not only a creditable but a vastly important service in connection with the great war of 1939.


Mr. STIRLING:: That was the original scheme of the non-permanent active militia?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: They do not always get the credit that is due them, and for that reason I am glad to hear the minister make this statement.


James Layton Ralston: There is no doubt about that. More than that, the non-permanent active militia not only furnished units and helped to mobilize them; it furnished officers as well to take posts not necessarily in their own units but elsewhere, particularly staff -officers in the beginning of the war.


Gordon Graydon: And the people in the non-permanent active militia went to a tremendous amount of trouble and expense.


James Layton Ralston: Not having been a militia man myself, perhaps I can express appreciation more freely than others. I have had occasion to marvel at the time, the energy and the money, as my hon. friend says, that commanding officers particularly, and other officers as well, have put into this work of keeping up the morale of the regiment, making it attractive for men to come in, giving what is perhaps more valuable than money to busy men, namely their time and interest, in order that these young men might have associations with the army, and the benefit of the riper experience of the older ones.


Percy Chapman Black: In that case
services have been voluntary.


James Layton Ralston: The service was voluntary, originally, but that could not be expected to continue forever. I think the country was asking too much.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The greatest asset was leadership.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, there is no doubt
about that. We did, as a matter of fact, provide for what we called small administrative and training staffs, for which we paid.


Gordon Graydon: We would have been in
a bad fix when war broke out, if we had not had them.


James Layton Ralston: We would not have had
an organization at all. The reserve army carried on and furnished these units for the active army.
There came a time when I had to come to the house-two years ago I believe it was- and make a statement. I was asked to say
what defence plans we had for Canada, and how we were going to meet the situation on the west and east coasts. I had to speak at that time about the organization of reserve brigade groups, in which reserve units were brigaded for purposes of preparing for actual defence, if defence should be necessary.
At that time, as everybody knows, there was a tremendous upswing in the reserve army, provided by way of additional training equipment, pay and allowances, and by way of extra facilities provided for these units. I think they tided us over, and saw us through at a time which was indeed a very difficult one, before we were able to get going completely with the active army, in full strength.
I believe I have had the opportunity of meeting the officers commanding in almost all districts in. Canada. I have been impressed with the interest, zeal, enthusiasm and selfdenial those men have shown in their desire to help, and in their eagerness to have young men join in order that they might train themselves for whatever task they might have to fulfil in the armed forces.
At that time the reserve army had four roles. One role was a basis of expansion for the active army, in the event of further mobilization. Another was the operational role in the defence of Canada. Another was that of continuing reinforcements to the active army, and the fourth was the duty to aid the civil power.
With that activity there has been strenuous and exacting work done by officers and1 men, including the older men and the boys. Night after night in different armouries they trained in order to see to it that they could do their part, or that they would be ready to do their part in case the need should arise. I know that from different reserve units I have had the request that they might be stationed at some point on the east coast or on the west coast to do their share of duty, as it weTe. Of course that meant a tremendous amount of dislocation in the work of businessmen and others who were members of the reserve units. It would have meant that for the time being the men in those units would have had to sever their connections with the ordinary enterprises in which they were engaged.
Fortunately the situation was such that we did not actually have to use those units for defence. Now, with their background of two years of intensive training and a general increase in efficiency, they are asking, "What will we do now?" It is possible to reassess the demands which we make on the reserve army during this year. It is of course a bulwark against any possible deterioration in the military situation.
War Appropriation-Army



COM'MONS

[Stage Direction]
Its role during the coming year is summarized in this way-and I put this first point very high. At the same time it may sound perhaps more psychological than military. The role I mention is that of maintaining throughout the country continued interest in the Canadian Army and its activities, and to set to all citizens an example of preparedness at all times. That is what they have done right through, and I do not think it was needed at any time more than it is now. Many of these men are perhaps working at work benches during the day in munitions factories or in stores or offices or on the farm, but in the evenings they give their time to training, and to fitting themselves for a possible emergency, should the time come. They serve in two ways. I do not know of any better example of "preparedness" than is found in the reserve army.
A second role is that of providing a continuing flow of reinforcements for the forces overseas, by training young men of pre-enlistment age. Another is to back up the civil authority responsible for the enforcement of law and order. Another is that it shall stand as a trained reserve to support the active forces available for the defence of Canada if the military situation should deteriorate, and the last is that it shall be a basis for . expansion of the active' army, should the necessity arise.
The reserve army is insurance against the uncertainties of war. It represents a substantial investment in time, effort and military knowledge on the part of its members. It is sound common sense to maintain that insurance while the risk continues to exist.
While the necessity for the reserve army remains unchanged, it is possible, in view of the improvement in the military situation and the increased efficiency that has been achieved, to decrease the intensity of its training during the coming year. It is therefore proposed: first, to reduce the period of training from forty to thirty days. This will permit a 15-day summer camp, with the remaining fifteen days training carried out at local headquarters, either as forty-five training evenings, or partly evening training and partly week-end exercises.
In addition, provision will continue to be made for the further training of officers, noncommissioned officers and specialists.
Since the reserve army has been operating with a liberal scale of full-time administrative and training staffs for some eighteen months, it is considered that units have now progressed to a stage where their officers and non-com-misioned officers are sufficiently qualified to carry out their training without the same degree of assistance. There will therefore be some reduction in the number employed on full-time training duty.

While no general change in the structure of the reserve army is contemplated, it is proposed that some measure of stream-lining will take place to ensure that all units maintain a satisfactory standard of efficiency. Units unable to maintain a satisfactory strength and efficiency will become dormant for the duration of the war.
In other words, the answer to the reserve army is this: "We want you to carry on, and we believe you are doing a service to Canada in the training which you have undertaken, not only in the record you have made, but because of the interest which you maintain in a community, and through your example of "preparedness." The reserve army assists the young men of sixteen, seventeen or eighteen years who spend their evenings in training with the older men. They are there for the purpose of providing a flow of reinforcements, and that flow has been a most generous one. It will stand back of the civil authority and act with the active force, if necessary. It will be a basis for expansion of the active army, should the necessity arise. We say to them, "You do not need to train quite as intensively as you have done. We have cut the training down by twenty-five per cent from forty to thirty days. We continue to make provision for the training of officers, non-commissioned officers and specialists. We ask you to carry on more of your training yourselves than you have done. And we say, in connection with tnose units which have become more or less dormant, those which are unable to maintain a satisfactory degree of efficiency, 'we will let them lie dormant for the present time'."
Gordon Graydon: Is there a very large percentage which would fall into that class?


James Layton Ralston: I am told there is not.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Why do they become dormant?


James Layton Ralston: I presume it is because of their location, more than anything else. They would be in the more scattered communities.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: Might it not be that all eligible men have gone from that district?


James Layton Ralston: Well, as the hon. member knows, the members are men of thirty-five years and over, and boys under age.


Percy Chapman Black: Would the
minister give the number in the reserve army?


James Layton Ralston: Although I have not the exact figure, I think it is around 100,000.
It is felt that these changes will give fresh incentive to all ranks of the reserve army to maintain the efficiency that has resulted from the past two years of intensive training. The continued support of employers in encouraging

War Appropriation-Army
their employees to attend annual camps will be of the greatest assistance in carrying out this objective. I wish to say a word of appreciation to employers who have planned so as to allow men to attend these camps.


Gordon Graydon: At great inconvenience to both the men and the employers, sometimes.


James Layton Ralston: A greater measure of responsibility will be placed upon those who have benefited from this training, and the shorter periods of duty will require that all ranks take full advantage of the available training time to maintain the high standard necessary to fulfil the roles allotted to the reserve army. Modem equipment and the latest methods of training will continue to be made available for its use. At the same time appreciable economies will be effected in its cost to the public. Let me emphasize again that the voluntary contribution of time and effort on the part of all ranks in the reserve , army is deeply appreciated and recognized, and it is the purpose of the department to ensure that the demands made upon the reserve army are matched to the changing requirements of the military situation. The standard of training already achieved and the improved strategic situation justify a reduction in the training time required during the coming year, provided full advantage is taken of the reduced period to maintain efficiency.
There is just one last item I wish to put on record before I conclude. I am not going to give any figures now, but I should like to say a word with regard to the Canadian Women's Army Corps. There has been an increase of about 3,000 in the corps this year.


Gordon Graydon: What is the .total now?


James Layton Ralston: I think it is about 14,000. Of the many endeavours which have been put forward to provide agencies to assist in the war none has been more successful, so far as the Canadian army is concerned, than the C.W.A.C. I want to voice the wholehearted and unreserved appreciation of the department for their work and the pride we have in their accomplishments. These young women are serving not only in Canada but in Washington and in the United Kingdom and they would like to serve in other places overseas as well. Where they replace men they are doing their jobs as well as the men, and sometimes better. I think the men will permit me to say that.


Gordon Graydon: There is nothing surprising about that.


James Layton Ralston: They are more nimblefingered and perhaps even more nimble-witted than the men. They have proved a credit to themselves, a credit to the army and a
credit to Canada. I am sure that the committee must take pride in them, seeing them at their work, and on the street. 1 am sure that hon. members would have got a tremendous thrill to have seen the parade I did in London when I attended the service at St. Martin's in the Fields, just before I came back from overseas. They are a great corps and they are doing a magnificent work.
In conclusion, I just want to sound one note of warning. I only wish I could make it. reverberate across this dominion from Sydney to Vancouver. People are being led to believe or they are leading themselves to believe that we have got on so well in winning the war that the collapse of Hitler's Germany is just around the corner. When I was in England there was some talk of the war being over by Christmas; now there is talk of finishing it this year. I hope we do, because every day by which it can be shortened will mean a saving, not just in dollars, but in precious lives and in distress in the homes of Canada and in every other country allied with us.
It is true that we have taken Italy's colonies in North Africa. It is true that we have captured Sicily and about one-third of Italy. It is true that a. small portion of the territory held by the Japanese in the southwest Pacific has been rescued from them. It is a fact that the Russians in their amazing fighting have retaken a lot of the territory which Germany had overrun. But it is also a fact that more than half of the territory taken by the axis forces in their drives of the last three years is still conquered territory. It is a fact that there is not much evidence that German military power has decreased and there is no sign that the Japanese troops have lost any of their willingness to fight and die to hold 'the outposts which protect their home base.
In both Europe and Asia great forces of well-trained enemy troops, well led and well equipped, are ready to fight-and they do fight. Germany dominates Europe. She controls a population of some 325 million. She draws on practically the whole of Europe's industries and economic resources. She has more than 300 well-trained divisions. She has millions of foreign workers in her war industries. It is true that if all the resources of the united nations were pooled we would have an advantage, over Germany in the European theatre. But if it were not for the enormous sacrifices of our Russian ally, who pays the price for magnificent victories, the odds would be roughly four or five to one against us, and these odds would be more unfavourable because of the network of fortifications which the Germans have prepared.
War Appropriation-Army

Let us face the facts. The two major reasons for our optimism for the future-there are others of course-are, first, the ability of our Russian ally to keep nearly three-quarters of the German army occupied in the east and, second, the ability of British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and United States aviators to keep up their tremendous raids on Germany's European fortress. Germany has shown herself able to stand prodigious losses. At Stalingrad last winter she lost some twenty divisions. Every one of these has been replaced by a new division, well trained and equipped with the latest and best types of weapons. The Germans lost eight divisions in North Africa. Those eight divisions have been replaced with new divisions armed with the most modern equipment. Even last year the Germans reformed, reequipped and raised more than sixty new divisions, each of which had approximately 600 machine-guns and 300 heavier weapons. Included in the armament of these divisions are new models of tanks, self-propelled guns, rocket-guns and other latest type equipment, which in some cases is equal to and in some cases better than anything the allies have.
I am not a pessimist, far from it, but I am a realist. I hope I can make this country realize just what we have ahead of us. It is true that good news has been coming, but remember that if that good news is to continue it can only be by continuous contribution of the matchless price which the men and women of the forces and the homes they come from pay, and only if we are willing to make our contribution in self-discipline and self-denial worthy of theirs.
Let us take a look back and a look ahead. It took three and a half years to clear the enemy out of North Africa. The war has been going on for four and a half years and it is only in the last six months that we have been able to overrun Sicily. The successes we are now having in Italy are just on the fringe of Europe. So far as our land forces there are concerned, we are nearly eight hundred miles from Germany with plenty of formidable opposition and tough ground on our way. The continent of Europe still has to be retaken. The superb fighting in Russia has still to be matched. China must be liberated and Hong Kong avenged. Burma, the Malay peninsula, Singapore and the Philippines must be regained and the southwest Pacific cleared. These enemies of mankind must be forced to unconditional surrender.
Canadians in that tough and heroic fight at Dieppe marked the first turn of the tide toward the land offensive in northwestern
(Mr. Ralston.]
Europe. Canadians in Sicily and Italy helped to mark the first turn of the tide toward the land offensive in southern Europe; Agira and Ortona, to mention only two of many, were epic battles in Canada's war story. But some of the greatest battles of the war are still to be fought, and Canada will be in the thick of it, on sea, on land and in the air.
The message from our troops in Italy and from our troops in England is, "Don't get the idea because good news is coming that the war is about won and that we can slacken a bit." If we were with them in either Italy or England we would not have any delusion that the war is nearly over. We would realize that there is a long way to go yet and that the going will be hard and rough. The way Canadians at home can help to shorten that road is, not by slowing up, but by trying to match the resolution and drive of our soldiers who are fighting Canada's battle in Italy at this very moment and who are at this instant preparing in England for the great offensive.
Their message is, "We are going to stick it; we are going to see it through, but we expect the folks at home to keep up the pressure, not to relax, not to let up." Not long ago we heard the story of the long, grim, stubborn, victorious fight for Ortona. Wounded men refused to be evacuated. Troops asked not to be relieved. They fought on. They won. We at home have to match their fighting spirit with our work, with our determination, with our self-denial, and with our endurance, to back these men of ours to the limit.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) asked me on Friday, with regard to General McNaughton, at whose instance the medical examinations were made. I told him that I knew the report was transmitted by General McNaughton's direction to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) by cable, and that I was not in London at that time, if I remember correctly what I said. I find that the first report, dated November 26, was procured by General McNaughton at his instance and was sent by him to the Prime Minister.


Gordon Graydon: At his instance only?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. I said with regard to the other one that I did not remember just when I received it. I said that I got it-


Gordon Graydon: That is the report of December 11.


James Layton Ralston: Yes-just after I got -back to England on December 10. I find on look-

War Appropriation-Army
ing over my letters that the same day, December 10, I wrote to General McNaughton this letter:
My dear General McNaughton:
As soon as I got in, General Montague-


Gordon Graydon: This is with reference to the first examination?


James Layton Ralston: -gave me your message. As man to man I want to say that I am deeply sorry to find that the situation regarding your health has grown more acute since General Stuart reported to me in Sicily.
That .refers to the first medical report. I received that in Italy.


Gordon Graydon: That is the November 26 one?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. The letter went on:
I do hope and believe that relief from work and rest and change will bring recovery and I shall help all possible to ensure prompt action to facilitate this. I take it that you will be sending me a note so that the matter can be dealt with expeditiously. I understand that apart from Mrs. McNaughton and the doctors, General Montague is the only one who is seeing you but whenever the ban is lifted and you can have it I should be glad to come to visit you at your convenience.
With sincere regret and my remembrances to Mrs. McNaughton and with every good wish to both of you.
Yours very truly,
J. L. Ralston.


Gordon Graydon: What is meant by "when the ban is removed?"


James Layton Ralston: I was told by General Montague that no one was allowed to see General McNaughton on business except the medical men.


Gordon Graydon: How long did that ban extend?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell you. I had just got back.


Gordon Graydon: You had seen General McNaughton in November.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, in November?
General McNaughton was not in bed when I saw him at army headquarters. On the 11th of December I got this letter from General McNaughton, dated December 10:
Dear Colonel Ralston:
General Montague has just given me your note of yesterday's date, and I do most sincerely appreciate your kindly consideration of the difficulties in regard to the exercise of the command of the Canadian army in which I am placed by reason of my health. I have spoken to our medical authorities, and it has been
arranged that they will make a further examination this afternoon. I will ask that they furnish you with a copy of their report immediately thereafter; also that the text be cabled to the Prime Minister.
My wife very much appreciates your kind message to her, and she and I will be very happy indeed to see you personally at any time, for I think the doctors are now inclined to let up a bit on the restrictions which they had placed on me.
Very sincerly yours,
A. G. L. McNaughton.
That gives my hon. friend the information with regard to the second medical report which I read to the house the other day.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Were there any other
examinations besides these made of the general's condition, on his own initiative, by civilian doctors or anything of that sort?


James Layton Ralston: I do not know.


Gordon Graydon: Can the minister recall
what was the last date he saw General McNaughton before he went to the North African area?


James Layton Ralston: It was a Sunday. I have this year's calendar in my pocket, not last year's. I think it was Sunday, November the 14th or the 7th; it was a Sunday in any event.


Gordon Graydon: The minister was good
enough to volunteer the information on Friday that when he saw General McNaughton at that time no question of the general's ill health was mentioned1 between the two of them.


James Layton Ralston: Yes; the only thing at
that time was that I recall General McNaughton speaking of the great strain he was under. I think I have mentioned that to the house already. That was the last time I saw him before I went to Italy.


Gordon Graydon: The matter of his health was not an acute subject between you at that time?


James Layton Ralston: I am not going to answer a question of that kind. He spoke of the very great strain which had been on him with regard to some matters-


Grote Stirling: When did the minister
reach London?


James Layton Ralston: Coming back?


Grote Stirling: The minister said on
Friday that he met General McNaughton on several occasions before the minister went to North Africa. He has told us that the last time was Sunday the 7th or the 14th.


James Layton Ralston: I have not my diary here.
War Appropriation-Army


Grote Stirling: Had the minister 'been in London for a week or a fortnight then? He saw the general on several occasions.


James Layton Ralston: I think I had been there altogether about eight or nine days. I saw him soon after I got there.


Gordon Graydon: What the minister says now is that the entire conversation that took place between him and General McNaughton with respect to his health was prior to the minister's having gone to North Africa?


James Layton Ralston: I do not recall now. I
have not attempted to go into detail as to what the general said then. I had a conference with him of an hour or more on that particular Sunday morning. I do not recall speaking of health in the conversations we had prior to that, after I had landed in London and before I went to Africa.
My hon. friend asked another question to which I wish to refer. He said:
My question is whether or not any factors other than that which he mentioned of ill health entered into the resignation of General McNaughton?
I deliberately confined my statement of Friday to the matter of the general's ill health and his own request for his being given leave of absence and relieved of the command) of the army, and I said that I could discuss all other matters connected with the subject but I preferred not to do so because it could do no possible good, particularly at a time like this.


Gordon Graydon: But you did not confine yourself to his ill health, and that is the reason why I asked the question.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know what my hon. friend means.


Gordon Graydon: You did not confine yourself entirely to ill health as the reason for General McNaughton's leave of absence. The minister immediately launched into a question which, I think, raised a doubt in the minds of everyone in the house that ill health was the only factor. The minister spoke about the strong wills of himself and General McNaughton.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. I was dealing with the matter of leave of absence entirely and the contribution that ill health made .to it. I do not follow what my hon. friend means at all. I mentioned, of course, strong wills. I said, "if anybody asked me if we always agreed I would say, 'no'".


Gordon Graydon: I think the general impression was there was some possibility of disagreement. I j.ust want to know whether or not that was a factor.


James Layton Ralston: What is that?


Gordon Graydon: May I explain what I mean? When 'the minister spoke he said he had donfined himself entirely to the matter of ill health. I then rose in my place to explain that he had not confined himself entirely to the matter of ill health but in making his explanation had gone on to refer to the strong wills of himself and General McNaughton. This left the impression, if I may say so, on most members of the house that there was a possibility of disagreement between the government, the minister and General McNaughton. On the basis of that possibility I asked a question as to whether or not there were factors other than ill health which entered into the leave of absence granted to General McNaughton.


James Layton Ralston: I think I can say to my hon. friend that if it had not been for General McNaughton's ill health, leave of absence would not have been granted at the time it was. He would not have been relieved of the command of the Canadian army at the time unless he had requested it. In other words, ill health was the proximate cause.


Gordon Graydon: 111 health was 'the proximate cause?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: The minister has not answered the question.


James Layton Ralston: I am going to deal with that question if my hon. friend will permit me.


Gordon Graydon: I do not want the minister to become angry about it.


James Layton Ralston: I am not angry.


Gordon Graydon: I am trying to get some information. Let us deal with this thing reasonably.


James Layton Ralston: I intimated that there were all sorts of rumours floating about. I said I could go into all of them but that I did not consider it opportune. I preferred not to do it, because it could, to say the least, do no possible good, particularly at times like these. I suggested to the committee, and I suggest to my hon. friend, that when we have a situation which is clearly set forth in the documents which I have read, there can be no question in the mind of anybody that

War Appropriation-Army
leave of absence was necessary and was requested by the general on the ground of ill health. Therefore, is not the supreme question whether General McNaughton was able to carry on at that time, and has anybody any doubt of his inability to do so after reading the documents to which I have referred? I suggest to my hon. friend that makes any other factor simply academic and not applicable to the case. In addition to that practical situation I ask my hon. friend in all sincerity, as I ask myself and the committee, do they think the morale of the Canadian people and the morale of the troops in the field would be promoted by discussions of factors which at the moment and in the circumstances can have no application? Would it not be bound to deserve the rebuke of the men who are in the battle lines at this very instant, or who are preparing to go into battle, if we were to use our time and our energy on a controversy over what might have been, instead of considering how we can train, supply, equip and reinforce these men?
I have already made a statement about our army in Canada and overseas, and the reasons for the dispositions. I ask, is that no more important than the hypothetical question as to whether, although General McNaughton was physically unfit to carry on, there might have been other factors which did not apply? In times like these does the committee think we should spend our time in that way? As I said before, I would prefer not to discuss any other factors. I think the one of health is sufficient. I say to my hon. friend that I am not refusing to do so. I am expressing this view because that is how I feel. I have some personal reasons why it would be far easier for me to go into a discussion of all sorts of things, but I suggest that in the circumstances no good purposes could be served, and I leave it to my hon. friend to decide whether or not he presses that question.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, the subject that is before the committee at the moment is the minister's statement with respect to the whole problem of the armed forces. At the last session this subject was proceeded with in a certain very definite way. After the minister had given his statement, item number one on the army war appropriations estimate was called and on that a general. discussion took place. I take it that the government is prepared at this time to follow the same procedure.
This afternoon I wish to avail .myself of the privilege that has been accorded in the past and follow the same procedure. I refer the 100-29
minister to certain questions which I asked on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Some of those questions have not been answered. Some of them have been answered to the satisfaction of the minister, but not entirely to the satisfaction, if I may say so, of the committee as a whole. One of the questions asked at that time will be found at page 19 of Hansard of January 31, and is as follows: "What is being done with our big home defence army?" As the minister has indicated, that is an army comprising some
70,000	people. The minister now shakes his head. The figures I jotted down are, "70,000 in the home defence army."


James Layton Ralston: No. If my hon. friend will permit me, the operational troops number something like 55,000. These people are distributed, as I indicated, in the home defence army. They are distributed on different jobs. The home defence army, so called, or the operational troops in Canada number about
55,000.	I think I said forty-seven per cent of the N.R.M.A. were in these units.


Gordon Graydon: I think that pretty well illustrates another point which I intend to bring up, namely, that in the discussion which occurs from time to time in connection with the armed forces, the average layman is confused by the conflict of terms of a military nature which he does not always understand.


James Layton Ralston: You invented that term; I did not.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps I did. I may invent some more during the discussion which I hope will be applicable to the situation. What the public wants to know is how many men are in uniform in Canada who are not available for overseas service or, in other words, fall into the category of those called under the National Resources Mobilization Act who have not volunteered for service outside Canada. My understanding is that that number is something like 70,000 men. If that is so, I should like the minister to take note of these supplementary questions. I should like him to answer the question I asked on January 31, which was, has the government given consideration to whether or not these men are going overseas or whether or not the personnel is to be directed back to civilian activities in Canada, or what actually is to be the final disposition of those 70,000 men? I think the minister ought to give us all the information in regard to the cost of these 70,000. I should like to know the yearly cost of maintaining that army of 70,000, because the question becomes very important from another angle.

War Appropriation-Army

Since Kiska the whole question of the army of
70.000	has been altered to some extent. In addition to that, the government has seen fit pretty well to withdraw and to abandon in many sections the whole A.R.P. activity, which would indicate clearly that the government is of the opinion that the whole question of the invasion of Canada and, in consequence, the whole question of the defence of Canada has undergone a major change. I wish the minister would give these figures when he speaks again in the debate.
The minister has referred to General Mc-Naughton. I approach the whole question with regard to General McNaughton with as serious a sense of responsibility as anyone in public life could have. I agree with the minister that the name of a great Canadian, the name of one who has achieved great things with Canada's army, should not unnecessarily form the subject of a mere political discussion in this parliament during the war.
I think all members of the committee will feel as I do this afternoon when I say that personally I have not made a sufficient contribution in the war to be able to say very much about' those in our armed services who have done so much more. In the early stages of the war many of us did apply for enlistment in the armed services, and some of us have tried, as far as it lay in our power to do so, to serve our countiy; but I am frank to say that I have always felt that my contribution is rather puny, measured by any yardstick, when contrasted with what has been done by those who are in far more dangerous fields of activity than we are.
From that point of view, I am very conscious of the whole situation with regard to General McNaughton. I think we ought to look at the government's problem, and the problem of those men and women who are in the armed services overseas and in Canada, with a mind bent upon doing the best we can for them and for the country at this time. Whatever may be the responsibility -and the minister assesses some responsibility to the opposition in this regard-I would point out to him that it was not the opposition or members of this house who created the situation upon which the public has been demanding so much enlightenment, particularly in the past few days. I would have felt a rather heavy responsibility if that situation had been created by us; nevertheless, as the Prime Minister very properly pointed out a few days ago, the opposition in parliament has an obligation to the people. Therefore, subject to security reasons and the whole question of the national interest, and subject further, if I may say so, to the desire that the names of

those men who have done so much to preserve and maintain this country during this time of war, and who are in our armed services, should not be made a matter of mere political discussion, it seems that the minister also has a heavy responsibility in denying to the country at this time as much information as he is actually withholding at this moment.


James Layton Ralston: I have not denied it.


Gordon Graydon: I asked the minister at the end of the sitting on Friday a question which was not designed to throw this problem into the arena of parliament; rather, I was hoping that he would then, by a simple answer, be able to clear up the whole situation. I tried to interrupt him on one occasion in order that he might have that opportunity in an early part of the debate, and I put the question again at the end, so that he would have notice of it for to-day. The question was a very simple one which the minister could have answered readily, but he has not answered it this afternoon. The question is this: Were there other factors, other than ill health, which entered into the whole problem of the resignation or leave of absence of General McNaughton?
* Mr. MACKENZIE KING:	Before the
leader of the opposition presses his question further, I desire to say that while I know that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is prepared to answer the question immediately, as Prime Minister I have very grave doubts whether it is not against public policy to discuss further at this time the matter which is raised by the question which the hon. gentleman has asked. I believe 1 am familiar with all the relevant facts and circumstances, and I should be pleased to meet with and to show the correspondence to the leader of the opposition and to the leaders of the C.C.F. and the Social Credit parties. Indeed, I have come to the conclusion that it is my duty to show it to them. Until these leaders have been afforded this opportunity, I hope that no hon. member will press the matter further. Sitting opposite me, in the person of the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), I see one who has been a former Minister of National Defence in a Conservative administration, and I would extend to him an invitation to accompany the three leaders, when I hope to have an opportunity of placing all the correspondence before them.


Gordon Graydon: I gladly accept the Prime Minister's invitation to read the correspondence and discuss the matter with him. I wish to say that it seems rather strange that only at this stage should a question so serious finally be discussed by members of the House

War Appropriation-Army
of Commons. Never since parliament rose on July 24 last has the Prime Minister asked me, as leader of the official opposition, for a consultation on the matter of General McNaughton or any other matter; I do not know what he has done in connection with the other parties. I want to point this out to the country and to parliament now. This is a very late invitation, but one which I feel should be accepted in the public interest. Perhaps it will provide some explanation as to why we who are completely in the dark in connection with these matters have asked for the information we have requested during this debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I have not asked my hon. friend to come and discuss this matter with me privately, it has been out of deference to what I thought would be his own feelings, in not wishing to discuss the matter with me privately until there had been some open discussion of the situation in parliament. I preferred to extend my invitation to him in the House of Commons at the time I thought it might become necessary. That is the sole reason I have not conferred with my hon. friend on this point.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee met at eight o'clock.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I had not quite concluded the observations I intended to make in connection with this part of the discussion on the war appropriation measure. I should like in my remarks this evening to refer to one or two matters mentioned by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) on Friday and again this afternoon.
I refer first to a matter which perhaps some who are not too familiar with the situation might regard as of minor importance, compared with other matters which were the subject of discussion. Nevertheless it seems to me that the matter to which I am about to refer is one of great significance and one which has assumed great importance. The fact that the Minister of National Defence returning from theatres of war overseas saw fit to use the House of Commons as a venue for the giving of information, to give a lead to the people of Canada, indicates the importance of the matter to which I now refer, namely, the delivery of mail to our men and women in the armed services.
I regard with some pride the fact that I have a heavy overseas correspondence. My
100-29J
experience indicates there is scarcely anything more valuable to our overseas troops than the maintenance of a regular mail service. Whatever we in parliament can do to arouse the people of our country to a point where they will keep closely in contact with those who have left our midst might be regarded as a signal service to Canada, and to those who serve overseas.
I am not sure whether it was the Minister of National Defence or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who said that in some instances men have spent their fifth Christmas away from home. I believe it was the Prime Minister who said that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: Just think of that! The fact of the matter is that because of the trend of the war our troops have been left for a long period of time without action. That fact has, in my view, made it even more essential for our people to assume the responsibility of seeing to it that our men and women in the armed forces are not disregarded, so far as keeping in close touch with them is concerned.
I said something this afternoon about the contrast between the contribution made by those of us in civilian life and that made by the forces in the armed services. Sometimes we are apt to put too much stress on what is done on the home front. The home front is important; and those connected with it have done a great job. But let us not in the same breath mention the service, the contribution and the sacrifice of those who are on active fronts, protecting us in the theatre of war. That being so, surely those of us in the civilian population can make sure that those boys and girls who have gone from our midst are assured, by communications from time to. time, that they are still part and parcel of the Canadian people. I make these observations to-night to emphasize a matter which, to my mind, is of greater importance than it may appear to be at first glance.
I was pleased, too, to hear the minister make reference to the work of the Canadian Women's Army Corps, and I join with him, in paying a well-deserved tribute to that branch of the service. I would couple with that observation a similar expression with respect to the women in the other two branches, namely the air force and the navy. No reflection is intended upon other branches of the service when I mention these three services specially. The reputation the womenfolk in the armed services have gained, and
War Appropriation-Army

the splendid work they have performed should not go unnoticed by a grateful country and parliament.
Then the minister touched upon, but did not discuss at length, the rehabilitation of the men and women in the services. I would agree with the minister, and I believe most people would agree with him when he says that the main emphasis must be placed upon matters more urgent and more acute than those connected with demobilization. I agree with him when he says that the winning of the war must come before demobilization. The seriousness of the job was impressed upon us this afternoon, when the minister pointed out that the war has not yet been won, and that we may be some considerable distance from that result. So that the whole problem of rehabilitation and demobilization must come in its turn.
However, while that may be, the government must be prepared for the possibility of a speedy ending, and it must not be caught unprepared for the peace. The fact that we were not prepared for the eventualities of war cost us a great deal in life, limb, property and finance. Let us make sure that when peace comes upon us we shall not be unprepared.
This brings up the whole question of the rehabilitation of our men. and women in the services. While I take my position with the minister in his statement as to the relative importance of rehabilitation compared with the immediate problems of the war, nevertheless I think he will agree when I say that we must not disregard the problems connected with demobilization. This has been the subject of many conversations. Much has been said about what is to be done for the man who comes back from the war by way of placing him in a peace-time pursuit.
I pass on to the minister-and also to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), who might lend an ear to this-what has been told to me by men who have returned from overseas. It is all very well to speak about putting our soldiers, sailors and airmen on the land. In itself, however, that is not sufficient. It is all very well to talk about giving them education. But again, that in itself is not enough. Our men and: women who will return must not be placed in a position where they will feel that those civilians who have been able to save victory bonds, war savings certificates and the like are placed in a better position, in respect of ready cash and security, than those who have done the fighting. The whole problem of gratuities, the whole problem of providing

for the men and women of our armed forces something in the nature of ready cash, if you want to put it that way, when they come back and when they take up their jobs must be considered so that they will not be penalized in favour of those who stay at home for various reasons or were unfit to go, but shall be placed, not only on an equal footing with our civilians but, if I may say so, on a preferred footing. That must be the position of the men and women of our armed forces in any demobilization and rehabilitation scheme. I want to caution the government to see that these plans have been completely worked out by the time they are to be put into use.
I have no intention to-night of taking up any undue time of the committee because when the resolution was originally moved into committee I indicated that it was the intention of our party to make a close scrutiny, investigation and audit of the expenditures of the government when we were in committee. I have simply outlined one or two points which I thought were of salient interest and importance to the public and to parliament. I hope that as the discussion progresses we shall be furnished with as full and complete answers to the questions that have been asked as is possible to give in order that we may have the information to which the public is entitled.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not propose to
speak at any length to-night because last Friday I expressed the opinion that we should be discussing the details of these estimates when the bill was before us. I still feel that the time spent in two debates, one on the resolution and one on the bill, is time that is-I shall not say wasted, but duplicated. I should like to see the house proceed with the bill.
However, there is one thing I wish to say to the Prime Minister. Just before we rose for dinner to-night he suggested that in view of the interest shown in and the questions asked about the retirement of Lieutenant-General McNaughton he would be very glad to have the leader of the opposition, the leader of the Social Credit group and myself meet him in the near future, to-morrow morning I believe, for the purpose of seeing the correspondence.
I am glad to accept that invitation, but I have a suggestion to make. It is that we Should have this . meeting and invite Lieutenant-General McNaughton to be present. Very often official documents and correspondence, because of their nature, need to be supplemented by personal explanations. I think in viewing this correspondence we could gauge the situation much more intelligently if Lieutenant-General McNaughton were present.

War Appropriation-Army
I do not know whether it would be possible to have him present to-morrow morning, but I think t'he meeting should be held at once and I am using the term "at once" to mean as soon as possible. In the interests of the government andl of those who have to read this correspondence and come to some decision in order that they may advise their colleagues I urge the Prime Minister to take steps to see that. Lieutenant-General McNaughton is present when this correspondence is examined.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
first meeting should be between the leaders of the different parties of this house and myself. When we come together and discuss the matter we can then consider the point raised by my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question since I was not present just before the dinner recess. If there is any correspondence in existence which has not yet been revealed and made public and which it is now proposed to make public to the leaders of the respective parties and I believe to my colleague, the hon. member for Yale, should that correspondence be kept private or are these gentlemen to be at liberty to divulge to their followers the contents of the correspondence? If that be so, is there any good reason why the correspondence should not be tabled? Why the secrecy about the matter? If the Prime Minister will say on his responsibility, not that it is not in the public interest, because that is the stock phrase, but that for reasons of security, having regard to the times in which we are living or for some other reason similar to that, it should not be made public, then I shall be content.
I know nothing about the matter, but the public mind has been raised to the point where they desire to know more about it. If the truth bears heavily upon someone, and I do not know whom, then the truth will not hurt anyone. I invite the Prime Minister to take us into his confidence. If he will say that because of national security or for some other good reason it is not wise that this correspondence should be made public, then I shall not question his decision. I do not rise in my place to make an issue because I do not know anything about this matter.
I have a sincere * regard for General McNaughton. I was associated with him for a brief period some years ago. I thought then he was a man's man, and I still think so. The government selected him to lead the Canadian troops overseas in November, 1939, and the whole country applauded that action and supported the government in its selection.
May I pause here to express my personal sympathy with General McNaughton if after four years or more of very strenuous life he finds himself in perhaps not as healthy a condition as he ought to be. I think every one of us will be sympathetic, but I am inquiring now if there is any good reason why the public should not know the truth about this matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: First of all, may I answer my hon. friend's question with regard to security. I am glad that he has raised the point. As he will be the first to know, telegrams come in cipher code and I have to consider the responsibility, and the government has to consider the responsibility of making public, telegrams or correspondence in the terms in which they come to the government and thus divulge what may lead to the government's code being deciphered and use being made of it by the enemy. That of itself is a clear reason why correspondence which has come in cipher code and which has been deciphered should not be made public, certainly not in the exact terms in which it appears. That "le real embarrassment and handicap the government is under in this matter. It has no desire to keep secret information the public ought to have, but it does desire to safeguard in every possible way great public considerations of which full account has to be taken. There is the further fact to be considered. Whatever is disclosed in connection with this subject cannot be other than of great concern, not only to the people of Canada but to the government of the United Kingdom, the government of the United States, and indeed to the governments of all the united nations. I am perfectly sure that when the hon. leaders of the different parties learn at first hand of the matters on which they wish to be informed, they will find little difficulty in agreeing with the government as to the best course which should then be pursued.
As to placing any obligation on the leaders of the parties who may see the correspondence or be advised of it, I need not say that all three leaders are honourable gentlemen and I place no restrictions on them whatsoever as to what they may wish to say or do as to informing or advising the members of their respective parties. I do not wish to impose any restrictions upon them, beyond those imposed upon each by his own conscience.
The government's action in this matter, as I have already said, is entirely begotten of a desire to protect the war effort not only of this country but of the united nations to the fullest extent possible and to protect all parties concerned therewith.
War Appropriation-Army

May I say to my hon. friend who has spoken of his admiration for Lieutenant-General McNaughton that I am one of those who had to do with the appointment of General McNaughton, and I have always held him in the highest possible esteem. I would be the last'to wish to have any step of mine in any way embarrass General McNaughton or deprive him of any privilege that he may wish .to have. I cannot, however, see that in taking the course which I am now suggesting of having the leaders of the different parties come together and consider all that may be before them, I shall be taking any step that will be prejudicial to anyone, let alone to General McNaughton.
, Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury): Mr. Chairman, one word more. I had intended to make reference to. the proposal of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that General McNaughton should be invited to meet this committee. May I say that, at first blush at all events, T deprecate that suggestion for 'this reason: it would simply be an invitation to crossexamine General McNaughton. I do not think the stage has been set for .that or anything like that, and I hope that will not happen.


Thomas Miller Bell: The purpose of my suggestion was not to cross-examine General McNaughton but rather because I know from experience extending over some years that public documents do not always contain all that there is to know, and to complete the picture one sometimes needs public documents to be supplemented by those who are involved in matters which public documents discuss. I think every member of this House of Commons knows the nature of official documents. Otherwise it seems to me that what we would be actually doing would be hearing one side of the story if we merely see the correspondence, and I do not think it is quite fair-if I may put it this way- 'to leave the party leaders to make a decision as to whether their colleagues in the house should be advised of all the circumstances or not. I do not think that is placing us in a proper position with regard to our colleagues or with regard to the house and the country. That is what I had in mind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that he will be at the meeting in the morning and I shall be very happy if he will see that his interest is protected in every particular.
In order that there may be no misunderstanding as to my attitude toward General McNaughton at this time or in regard to the
LMr. Mackenzie King.]
matters we are discussing, may I give to the committee immediately the telegram I sent to General McNaughton at the time he relinquished the command of the Canadian army. This was not in code. It was sent to the high commissioner to transmit to General McNaughton.


Grote Stirling: Would the Prime Minister give the date?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is dated Ottawa, December 26, 1943, and reads:
Dear General McNaughton:
As you relinquish your command of the Canadian army I desire, on behalf of the government and people of Canada, to thank you for the great service you have rendered. our country and other of the united nations from the beginning of the war. I sincerely trust that, freed from the very heavy responsibilities which have been yours over the past four years, your health and strength may speedily be restored.
The word that you have had to relinquish command of the army will be received throughout Canada with feelings of deepest regret. May it not be long before our country may again have the full benefit of your wide experience and exceptional abilities.
Yours very sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King,
Prime Minister.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps I misunderstood the admonition of the Prime Minister at six o'clock, but as I understand him, his desire was that this whole question of General McNaughton and his resignation should be a closed book until such time as the leaders of the different parties had an opportunity to discuss it. But now, first of all, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar interjects with new suggestions, and then the Prime Minister comes along and reads a telegram. If we are to heed the Prime Minister's admonition I think we had better end further debate on this matter at this time. I am quite surprised that the Prime Minister should have introduced that telegram; and if this keeps up I do not know where we are going to end. I have been trying to carry out the Prime Minister's wishes because I thought it was in the national interest not to prolong this debate now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend heard what his colleague the hon. member for York-Sunburj'' suggested, he would see it was a statement that seemed to me to necessitate or render advisable by giving to the committee the telegram I had sent in the open to General McNaughton at the time.


Gordon Graydon: It did not strike me in that way.

War Appropriation-Army


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope there is nothing in the message which anyone in the nouse will take exception to one way or the other at this time. I am only too ready to say nothing further about this matter at all until hon. gentlemen opposite have made their wishes known.


Grote Stirling: It seems to me without doubt advisable that nothing more be said at this stage on this matter until the meeting takes place, and I thank the right hon. gentleman for his courtesy in asking me to join with the three leaders. He does so, I know, because for a year or so I occupied the position of Minister of National Defence, and during that time Lieutenant-General McNaughton was Chief of the General Staff. I never can forget the admiration in which I held General McNaughton, the assistance that he was, the ability that he showed and the experience which he had, and it is a matter of no little sorrow to me that General McNaughton's health at the moment is not such as to enable him to carry on the arduous duties for which he was responsible.	*
I cannot find myself in agreement with the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, reiterated again to-day, that we should do well to cut short all debate in the committee stage on this resolution and that the debate should take place on the bill. I think he was in error the last time he referred to it when he stated that the bill would have the schedules attached and that they would come before the Chair item by item. That is not the case. War appropriation bills of recent years have had no schedules attached. I have always understood that one of the reasons for making it a different bill from the ordinary money bill was that the government sees fit-perhaps quite rightly so-to keep a certain amount of flexibility within its grasp with regard to these expenditures. The fact remains that on a bill such as this there is no schedule attached, and it appears to me that it does not make very much difference from the point of view of saving time or wasting it whether the discussion takes place at this stage or at that. There is a reason why I prefer that it should take place at this stage. In matters as complicated as this one, subjects frequently arise which have to do with not one minister or two but perhaps three; and when such matter is discussed we may, after hearing the first minister and his views thereon, have an opportunity of hearing a second minister, and it may cover the doings of three departments. It may very well be that after the discussion has taken place questions arise on which clarification is required. When the bill comes up
in the committee stage for second reading we have an additional opportunity to obtain more information if we so desire. To my mind that is the reason why it is well to have the discussion take place at this stage; and we are able to go back again to the bill if it is necessary. Last year it was not necessary. Hon. members will remember that the war appropriation bill was completed only two days before prorogation, and appears in a short paragraph in Hansard. The introduction of the bill, first reading, second reading, committee stage and third reading all took place in that short space of time. No advantage was taken of the opportunity to discuss the bill at that time. But if I remember rightly, in the year before when the war appropriation bill was brought down such discussion was of great value when the bill came up the second time. Therefore I prefer the method which we have found our way into in this war for dealing with discussion on these estimates. The government shows it is fully inclined to give us all the information in detail. The first sheet is before us. We can open it up for discussion, and I have no doubt there will be no impediment placed in our way in our endeavour to obtain the information we require.
There is a matter that I want the Minister of National Defence to refer to again in clearer terms than he did, because I am in just as much of a fog as I ever was with regard to this army in Canada, which some people call a home army and some call the defence army. I remember the minister said last session that there was no such thing as a defence army. I do not know what it is called to-day, but the description which the minister gave this afternoon has left me as much befogged as I ever was, and lest it be thought it is merely my dullness of mind, may I say that I find a considerable number of my fellow members are also quite befogged as to what this army consists of and what it is doing.
It is not easy, without Hansard of this afternoon before us, to follow the minister's description. The picture that I have is that in Canada there is a training stream which amounts to 70,000 men and which is looked upon in the main as the reinforcements which in due course will find their way overseas. These reinforcements, plus such reinforcements as exist in the holding units overseas are, in the minister's opinion, sufficient to meet the estimate of casualties for five divisions [DOT] overseas at the present time. At the other end of the scale, if I may so describe it, we find the reserve army. The reserve army consists of the units that were known as the non-permanent active militia. I am very glad
War Appropriation-Army

the minister took the opportunity to pay tribute to the officers and men of the nonpermanent active militia. It was set up twenty or more years ago. It was a skeleton force in my day and amounted to 55,000 men. It was to be the nucleus capable of being expanded into the necessary armed forces when war came. These officers and men stayed loyally with the reserve army, doing the drudgery through the years of depression and years of peace. I do not think too high praise can be given them. I have known them in the units in my particular neighbourhood. I have known them in other units, and I have always felt great appreciation for what these men gave up to keep their unit of the reserve army in something like its proper shape. The minister did not praise them any too highly and I know his words will be appreciated by many who have come in contact with them. That reserve army, he tells us, amounts to about 100,000; and it is in between these two extremes of the military forces that I want clarification.
Excluding the reserve forces, I understand that the remainder of the soldiery here or overseas, compose the active army. Certain of them, for reasons well known, will not under present regulations leave this country. They will be used in defence. Did I understand him to say that in the active army in Canada there were 55,000 operational troops and 75,000 troops rendering service to the operational troops and that it covered the veterans' guard, training establishments and the great number of incidental units? "What I do not understand is, will those 55,000 men be available for the training stream if and when need arises? That is one of my difficulties.
Another of my difficulties is to follow him in his description of how the national resources mobilization men compose forty-seven per cent of the operational troops here, and if that is so how can they be considered a part of that stream which may eventually be trained for overseas? To my mind there is considerable confusion with regard to those who are not reserve, those who are not in the training stream, those who are at the present time in Canada preparatory to defence, shall I say? Included in that is the contingent that went to Kiska and came back. What is happening to them? Are those units being broken up now that they are being distributed through the Canadian active army in Canada, or are they finding their way into the training stream?
It is commonly said that in a good many parts of Canada-I shall mention Petawawa for one-there are a very large number of men with their complement of officers, with

their necessary supporting supply forces, and there are unattached officers by the dozen. I do not know if that is an accurate statement, but the minister will be able to inform us. It is commonly believed that, scattered across Canada, there are a very considerable number of officers who do not appear to be attached to any unit at the moment and who are marking time or doing something or another or doing nothing at all. It is all these matters which I think the minister will do well to explain to us and through us to the people of Canada. *


James Layton Ralston: First, with regard to troops in Canada, I find it a little difficult to follow my hon. friend. He speaks of the number of N.R.M.A. personnel in Canada and talks about the home defence army. I have endeavoured to make it clear that there is no such thing as a home defence army. There is a Canadian active army, and in units of that army, in detachments of it, there are men who are N.R.M.A. personnel who at the present time are not liable without further action to service overseas. But they are serving in the Canadian active army; they are not hived or segregated. They are filling a place which is necessary at the present time in Canada, doing a job that somebody else would have to do if they were not there. That applies in connection with operational troops of whom 34,950 are N.R.M.A. personnel.


Grote Stirling: That is, of the 55,000?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. In the non-operational troops the proportion is very much lower, about 11,000, and in the training stream there are 15,000 out of approximately 75,000.


Grote Stirling: Have they volunteered for
overseas?


James Layton Ralston: No.


Grote Stirling: Then how can they be in the training stream heading for overseas?


James Layton Ralston: The training stream is heading both for overseas and for service in Canada. When you call a man up you have to train him whether he is to serve in Canada or overseas. In the depot, reselection and disposal units there are 6,400, and on extended leave, about 5.300. So that these men are scattered all through the services in Canada, and it is quite true that they are not available for overseas service until further action is taken. But there seems to be an idea that these men are sitting down doing nothing because they are not for overseas service at the present time. If you did not have them, however, you would have to have some other men in their place.

War Appropriation-Army


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why does the minister say that? There is no danger of invasion.


James Layton Ralston: I have heard that so often.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It will bear repetition.


James Layton Ralston: I heard it from this part of the house when I was minister in 1926-30; "What are you preparing for? There is no war." I maintain that we do not have these operational troops just for fun. They are on the east coast and on the west coast, in coast defence batteries, in close support battalions, searchlight companies and in all the posts which are necessary for the purpose of taking care of the scale of attack which has been agreed to, not simply by our own chiefs of staff but by the United States chiefs of staff as well, and the 55,000 form a comparatively small number. That is what these troops are for.
The hon. member for Yale asks with regard to troops going overseas, and reinforcements. He wants to know what the situation is. I said that the reinforcement pool overseas is well up to the planned strength; that is to say, it is a pool over there to be drawn on as casualties occur, and as that pool goes down it is refilled by men sent from here. If the casualties are heavy at a particular time the pool will go down considerably, but the general dispatch is more or less in regular monthly shipments, with the result that at the end of the year you will have averaged up and the pool will be back to what it was at the beginning, provided the casualties have not exceeded the rate at which the reinforcement pool was at first built up.


Grote Stirling: And that pool overseas amounts to the estimate of the casualties that may be anticipated for the five divisions overseas?


James Layton Ralston: For a certain period, based on a certain number of months intense activity and a certain number of months of operations of varying degrees of intensity, as is figured out, having regard to the operations which are visualized.
There has been some statement about divisions sent to Italy in order to avoid or to lessen the necessity for reinforcements. There has not been a single change of any kind in the scales of casualties for which we have estimated, owing to the fact that we sent divisions to the Mediterranean-no change whatever.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I never heard that, but you have reinforcements there, I hope.


James Layton Ralston: It has been said. The suggestion was that the corps was sent to Italy because the government had not reinforcements sufficient to keep them up at the rate which was estimated, taking cross-channel operations into account. The estimate of casualties has been based on the iftost careful computation possible in view of the experience our men have had, and the figures I gave out this afternoon are figures in which my officers believe. They have been overseas themselves consulting with the authorities, and they anticipate that if these estimates are based on sound grounds, which they have every reason to believe is tire case, the reinforcement situation will be as I have stated.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister did not give the figures on reinforcements.


James Layton Ralston: Yes; my hon. friend did not hear me. -


Percy Chapman Black: What is considered an adequate reinforcement pool in percentage in relation to the active army overseas?


James Layton Ralston: Of course I cannot give that information. I have been asked for it before. It is regarded as one of the most secret pieces of information from the point of view of security, but I assure my hon. friend that it is based not simply on a Canadian estimate but on a British estimate as well.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the estimate based on-on the history of casualties in this wTar? If that is so, it is very small for Canada.


James Layton Ralston: I can only say to my hon. friend that it is based on what competent officers think is a scale which is not likely to be exceeded in connection with the sort of operations they visualize, and that applies not simply to the Canadians but to the British as well. I have already explained that that reinforcement pool is there, and as it is lowered by casualties it is filled by troops sent over. These troops are in the training stream at. the present time, being trained, they are also in operational units. We are withdrawing these men from operational units from time to time, retraining them when necessary, and sending them overseas, replacing them with N.R.M.A. personnel. That in short is the situation. I was frank with the committee and pointed out that if recruiting went down perceptibly, if it did not keep up, it would

War Appropriation-Army

mean that at the end of the fiscal year, 1944-45, 'towards the end, the pool in Canada would drop, although the pool overseas would [DOT]have been kept up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has not that contingency arisen now-that recruiting has dropped and dropped materially, and that an effort is being made now, through the draft boards, according to recent instructions, to increase the number of men to be taken in?


James Layton Ralston: I do not know what my
hon. friend is referring to. All I have to say is that I believe the number being requested from the draft board has remained constant for the last six months, at least, and I am sure there has been no effort as far as the Department of National Defence is concerned' to have any increased number called.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Before we proceed further I would suggest, not for my own sake but for the sake of preserving order, that hon. members address their remarks to the chair.


James Layton Ralston: I have a suggestion to
make, if it is agreeable to the committee. We have 'here the statement and the various headings under which these expenditures are being considered by the committee. Would it not help us all; would it not enable us to formulate our questions better and perhaps let us make better preparation to answer them, if we did as we do with ordinary estimates, that is, proceed with the items as they are set out here, in the order in which they appear? I may say to anyone who is interested in the mobilization act, for instance, that this matter can be taken up very easily under pay and allowances, which includes national resources mobilization personnel. The first item on the list is civil salaries and wages. I am' in the hands of the committee, but I think this procedure is generally understood to be the best to follow, and perhaps we might make better progress; I might be more informative, and perhaps be a little more ready to answer, if we proceeded in that way.


James Arthur Ross: While we are discussing this question of organization and this reinforcement pool, I should like to ask the minister whether these divisions

I think he referred to three in Britain and, I suppose, the two that are in Italy-are up to war strength now'. Are all these divisions fully manned and up to war strength at the present time?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: From what the minister said I gathered that the training stream, or whatever term he applied, included' the men (Mr. Ralston.]
who are in the defence army of Canada, so called by the public, the men staying in Canada-


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is starting his question with an assumption which is not correct. I understood- him to say that he gathered that the training stream consisted of the defence army in Canada. The training stream consists of all the men who are in training either for overseas or for Canadian service.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I think in the minister's statement he said that training stream numbered about 50,000; I believe that was the figure used.


James Layton Ralston: It is about 75,000 altogether. [DOT]


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: That included others as well, but we will use the figures, fifty to seventy-five thousand. Does the minister feel that this is the number that will be maintained as a training stream or whatever he wishes to call it? Does he feel that this will be the approximate number that will be held here in Canada?


James Layton Ralston: No. As I was saying, the training stream is drawn upon from time to time as dispatches are made overseas; and as recruiting is carried on the training stream is refilled. I said that if recruiting went dowm in July or August, for instance, it would mean, that the output of the training stream perhaps next January or February would be lower, due to the fact that fewer men had gone in.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The minister misunderstood me. Do I understand, then, that in practice, according to the minister's ideas, that number of fifty to seventy-five thousand must be maintained in order to carry out the policy which has been adopted bs- the department; in other words, that this many men will still remain inactive in Canada, in a sense, possibly in preparation for going overseas if they ever go overseas? It keeps fifty to seventy-five thousand men static in Canada; that is what I mean.


James Layton Ralston: They are not static.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Well, that is what it amounts to.


James Layton Ralston: They are not static; they are being trained.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Trained for what
purpose?


James Layton Ralston: Trained for overseas.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: But fifty thousand or more of them are not going overseas?

War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: I interrupted my hon. friend to tell him that I thought he was labouring under a misapprehension. In the training stream at the training centres there are about fifteen thousand who are National Resources Mobilization Act personnel. At the present time these men are not going overseas, but they are being trained for the purpose of taking the place of general service personnel in units, to release those men so that they may go overseas. But those units have to be kept up. I have explained some of the functions of the operational units, and I have gone into the functions of the non-operational units as well. These units have to be kept up in order to supply the ordnance and so on, and to supply the personnel to do all the work of a base for the provision of our army overseas.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Then are we to have only fifteen thousand men in Canada who are not going overseas?


James Layton Ralston: No. We have 15,000 in the training centres; we have 34,000 in the operational units, and we have 11.000 in the non-operational units.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: That is 50,000 or more.


James Layton Ralston: Altogether it comes to over
70.000	men. Included in that number are 5.300 who are on extended leave, that is to say farm leave, mining leave, forestry leave and so on. They are all included in that number.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister give the committee a statement of the number of men in Canada, in all capacities, drawn to the colours under the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act, at present in the training stream or in units, operational or otherwise? How many of these draftees have we on the payroll in Canada to-day, where are they and what are they doing?


James Layton Ralston: This is the third time I have given that information, but I will give it half a dozen times if the committee wants it. In operational troops, that is in units, there are roughly 34,000. In non-operational troops there are roughly 11,000.


Mr. TUSTIN:: What are the duties of those
11.000	men?


James Layton Ralston: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is that?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend asked for the information; surely he will give me an opportunity to furnish it. These men are in ordnance depots. I think of the central mechanization depot at London; I think of the Longue Point depot; I think of the training centre at Barriefield; I think of hospitals all over the country; I think of district headquarters; I think of camp staffs; I think of army service corps. All these men are nonoperational troops. In the training stream there are 15,000 being trained.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
60.000.


James Layton Ralston: Then in the depot, the rc-selection wing I spoke of, where they arc being moved from one place to another, posted to a new place and so on, there are 6,400; and on extended leave there are 5,300.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is approximately 70,000, all told.


James Layton Ralston: And as I pointed out to the committee, if they were not there somebody else would have to be there, drawing the same money.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We heard all that. These 70,000 men are all in good military categories, capable of fighting?


James Layton Ralston: No, they are not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
categories are 'they in, then?


James Layton Ralston: They are category "A", category "B", and some as low as category "C".


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many in categoiy "A"?


James Layton Ralston: I could not tell my hon. friend; I could only make a rough estimation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps my hon. friend can give that later on.


James Layton Ralston: At a rough guess I would say probably 50,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I may as well tell the minister now that the public want 'to know how many men there are among these zombies, as they are commonly called, who are in category "A", the highest category, and who are not fighting, who are not intended to fight and who do not. intend to fight.
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: Like the Kiska troops, for example?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: I expect they are part of it.


James Layton Ralston: They were part of it. They seemed 'to have some intention of fighting.


Mr. WHITE:: In the break-down the minis-fter has given he has placed the number of recruits called under the National Resources Mobilization Act at around 70,000. I should like to draw his attention to the table which .appears in the January, 1944, issue of Canada at War, at page 22. It shows the total number called as 125,640, from which number there is subtracted the number of men who transferred to the other various forces, numbering 37,930. That leaves a remainder of 87,710, as of September 30, 1943. Since that time no doubt many thousands of others have been, called, which brings the number up to -around 100,000. Would the minister explain where these 30,000 men are, between the
70,000	he has given, and the total to date of 100,000.


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend has the explanation right in that book. I think the footnote in the book will tell him that. 1 have not the book in front of me, but I think it is the case that the figures he has given are intake, and they have made no allowance for discharges. The difference lies in those who have been discharged. I think if my hon. friend would read the note he would see if it is not what I say it is.


George Stanley White: Which note?


James Layton Ralston: I have not the book here. Is not the first note one which says that-certain figures are not included?


George Stanley White: It says:
Figures of intake do not represent actual strength of the armed services, as they do not take into consideration men discharged for medical or other reasons.


James Layton Ralston: I am talking about actual strength. My hon. friend is talking about gross intake.


George Stanley White: But I would point out to the minister that if these men are called up and enrolled under the National Resources Mobilization Act, it is doubtful that there would be any number up in the thousands discharged.


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry if my hon. friend is doubtful, but I am giving him what the strength is. And there are discharges. I think if my hon. friend has the figures he will see these enrolments began in 1941.
fMr. R. B. Hanson.]


George Stanley White: It is up to September 30, 1943.


James Layton Ralston: Those are enrolments since the beginning of the war?


George Stanley White: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: And there have been those
discharges.


George Stanley White: Well, then, would the minister be good enough to complete this statement, and show us the number of discharges?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot give it in that way. The only way to do is to give my hon. friend the strength. I have given that to him. My hon. friend is doing what others are doing who take the total enrolments in the last war and treat that as the strength of the army.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The last war?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, the last war. They are comparing this war and the last war, and saying there were 619,000 in the last war, when it was 619,000 men enlisted and conscripted. It was not 619,000 on the strength of the army.


George Stanley White: Is it correct to say that of these 125,000 called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act there have been some 30,000 discharged?


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member is correct in assuming that the difference between the strength I give him now and the total or net figure that he has there are discharges or are transferred, or have been struck off strength for some other reason.


George Stanley White: When it says in the book that men are called up and enrolled, that actually means that those men are enlisted and attested on the army's strength.


James Layton Ralston: I beg my. hon. friend's pardon.


George Stanley White: This list which shows enrolments of men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act actually means that these men have been called and have passed the medical examination, and later have been discharged for some reason.


James Layton Ralston: Not all those have been discharged.


George Stanley White: The number who are here.


James Layton Ralston: The numbers have not been discharged. That shows the number who have actually been enrolled.


Howard Charles Green: The minister said this afternoon, if I understood him correctly, that there are about 50,000 men called up under the

War Appropriation-Army
National Resources Mobilization Act, commonly known as home defence troops-I understand that they are known as such erroneously-that there are that many men called up under the act who are of a category such that they could be sent overseas, from either coast, to take part in the fighting. In other words, there is an army in Canada of 50,000 of these men who, under the present policy of the government, will never fight unless that fighting takes place on the shores of Canada. This is a question on which there is a very wide difference of opinion between the government and the members of the official opposition. I say that because we believe that these men should be available for fighting wherever they are required. What happened to the Kiska force brings out the point very well. Here we had a force of approximately 5,000 men who were practically all called up uhder the National Resources Mobilization Act. Those men were sent to Kiska. They went there to fight. Everyone has agreed that they carried on in a splendid fashion, and made a very good name for themselves. Of course, there was no actual fighting.
Now, these men have come back to Canada. Kiska has been occupied and these Canadian troops have come back to Canada. I understand they are still on the Pacific coast. Besides that task force there are one or two [DOT]other similar task forces on the coast. All of those troops have been trained for jungle fighting, or in other words, to fight the Japanese. They are thoroughly qualified. I believe some inquiries were made among the units as to whether or not the men were willing voluntarily to go to fight the Japanese, as distinguished from fighting in Europe, and that the majority of men agreed to do so, and said they would be perfectly happy to fight the Japanese. The minister can correct me in that if I am wrong.
But there is the position. Why is it that those men cannot be sent to fight the Japanese? Why do they have to remain in Canada, while the Americans, Australians and New Zealanders are doing the fighting in the Pacific area, and Canada is not represented at all? That seems to me a very unwise position for this nation to be put in. Apparently we are in that position because of the policy of the government in refusing to send any of these men abroad to fight.
The minister said on Friday, referring to the Kiska force, that these men were trained not only for home defence, but for special duty in the Pacific, should action make that necessary and should the decision be made to send them there. Will the minister explain the position with respect to forces such as the
Kiska force? Why cannot that force be sent to fight the Japanese? Why must it stay at home in Canada?
Mr. RALSTON; I wonder if my hon. friend will permit me to get an understanding of his policy. Supposing the Kiska force were to-day general service personnel; would my hon. friend advocate sending them to fight the Japanese?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: You would?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Even with the man-power situation as we have it in Canada, you would advocate that?


Howard Charles Green: Well-


James Layton Ralston: Just a moment.


Howard Charles Green: You have asked me a
question.


James Layton Ralston: You would advocate fighting a third front-Canada fighting the Japanese, too?


Howard Charles Green: The minister cannot evade the question in that way.


James Layton Ralston: I am not evading it.


Howard Charles Green: If the policy of this government were a proper one, and all these 50,000 men were available for fighting, there would be men to send to the Pacific and to Europe. The objection is that you have 50,000 men you cannot send anywhere under your foolish policy.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is generally pretty clear, but I think if I may say so he is not thinking very clearly in this instance. In the first place, at the present time I do not see this parliament authorizing the sending of a force to Japan-


Howard Charles Green: Not to Japan.


James Layton Ralston: To fight the Japanese. The first person to object to it would be the hon. member for York-Sunbury.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say that.


James Layton Ralston: Or his leaders, who may be keener than my hon. friend about reinforce-' rrients. That is one thing they are always talking about, that if these men are there we should leave them for reinforcements.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister does not know what is in my mind, at all.


James Layton Ralston: All right. My hon. friend may contradict it if he wishes. These men at
War Appropriation-Army

the present time are, as I have indicated before, a second line of reinforcements. I do not think my hon. friend would be standing on his feet for a single moment advocating the sending of a force just at the moment from Canada to fight the Japanese.


Howard Charles Green: Why did the minister send them to Kiska, then, if they were not to fight?


James Layton Ralston: That was simply a brigade, and that was before we sent our second division to Italy. That was at a time when there was no such activity on the western front such as there is to-day. They were sent there because there was an opportunity to send them to do a job and we did it. My hon. friend seems to think that there are strings on the 50,000 men who are in Canada, that they cannot fight outside Canada. They are trained; they are fit for reinforcement purposes, and they can be sent if the action is taken. They are to-day a potential force for reinforcements as well as for the defence of Canada or for operations on the Pacific.


Howard Charles Green: Why cannot the Kiska force be sent to Europe if the minister does not want to send them to fight the Japanese?


James Layton Ralston: Canada has reached the peak so far as the sending of new capital units overseas is concerned. A year ago we took that stand, and that policy was endorsed by this house. The suggestion has been made to me that I am simply crazy to build up the army, that the army overseas is big enough now. My friend now suggests that we send another brigade in the shape of the Kiska force.


Howard Charles Green: Why cannot they be sent to Europe as reinforcements?


James Layton Ralston: If there is any necessity of sending them overseas, they can be sent if the proper action is taken. I pointed out that at the present time there are in Canada about 60,000 men who will provide feeders for the reinforcement pool overseas. That pool will be filled up again by recruiting. If recruiting does not go on fast enough, then the pool in Canada will be down and we shall have to consider what to do. There is nothing lost through the fact that at the moment these men do not happen to be subject to overseas service.


Howard Charles Green: The plan is to keep these
50.000	fighting men in Canada who have not volunteered for service anywhere, and if next
f\lr, Ralston.]
year more men will be required, others will be sent and these 50,000 will remain here doing nothing.


James Layton Ralston: We must have some men in Canada. These men are serving in Canada and are doing the jobs I have spoken of. If a man wants to volunteer to go overseas, I would rather have him. If we can get it, I would rather have a volunteer army. If the time comes when it is necessary to do something else, then, as I have said to this house before, as far as I am. concerned I shall be ready to make the recommendation. In the meantime these men are trained and they can be used for service in Canada. The}- are available as a second line if action is taken for reinforcements, should the occasion arise.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister wants volunteers to go to Europe and these Kiska men have volunteered to fight the Japanese, why cannot they go to fight the Japanese?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is talking
about these men wanting to fight the Japanese, about our sending a certain force to fight the Japanese. I do not know what my hon. friend is talking about, but I am delighted to hear that the Kiska men are prepared to volunteer for general service.


Howard Charles Green: To fight the Japanese.


James Layton Ralston: I understood that they
volunteered if they were sent as a unit. My hon. friend asks why they" are not sent overseas as reinforcements. They have an opportunity to volunteer and I am sure that some of them are volunteering. As they volunteer they are sent into training.


Howard Charles Green: What does . it cost to keep
these 50,000 men?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I think we should have a certain amount of decorum and all remarks should be addressed to the chair.


James Layton Ralston: It costs exactly what it
would cost for any 50,000 men who were needed for service in Canada. For approximately 70,000 men I think the figure would be $100,000,000 a year. That would have to be spent whether it was national resources mobilization personnel or general service personnel so long as the job had to be done here.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has emphasized the necessity of keeping .the units overseas reinforced, and with that I heartily agree. Apparently he is quite satisfied that there are sufficient reinforcements available. Have the

War Appropriation-Army
five divisions overseas been kept up to strength?
I ask that question because on November 25 the following appeared in the Vancouver press:
Indications are that the following changes are being made in the reorganization-
Referring to the army overseas.
1. Withdrawal of troops from the second division to meet requirements in other divisions, thus eliminating that division as a combat force.
It has been reported that some second division units are now classed as training battalions with the task of supplying reinforcements to units on the fighting fronts.
I hope that report is incorrect. The second [DOT]division fought the battle of Dieppe, and this report is to the effect that they aTe not now at full strength as a division and have never been since the battle of Dieppe. Will the minister tell us whether or not that is the situation?


James Layton Ralston: No, it is not true. I heard of that report when I was in England. The second division has a definite task to do in connection with certain operations, and I have no knowledge whatsoever of the second division not being up to strength or not operating as a division. I am sure they are operating as a division.


Howard Charles Green: Just the same as the other
divisions?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I do not wish to press the point unduly, but there is something I should like to draw to the minister's attention. He has said that this force of upwards of
70,000	men must be retained to keep the training stream flowing. There has been some criticism of this action in my area and I should like to give the minister an illustration or two. Some young men have bought what have been classed as non-essential businesses such as shoe stores. I know of one case in a town of two thousand where a man bought a business and carried the only up-to-date stock in the community to take care of the farming population. This man was to be forced out of business, and there are other cases I could give the minister. This particular man developed a physical weakness of which no one knew anything, but he received his notice and transportation and had to go to Toronto. He was to be forced to sell his business. The feeling is growing about these cases. People think there could be some reduction in these men who are being retained in the defence army described by the minister. Surely it is not necessary for a married man with three [DOT]children to have to sell his business which
was bought three years before the war started. As I say, there are other cases of which I can give the minister particulars. Apparently if the war goes on one or two more years this force wall still be maintained.


James Layton Ralston: The Department of
National Defence does not call up those men; it simply makes a requisition on the Department of Labour, and national selective service decides whether or not a man is eligible for exemption or deferment. The case cited by my hon. friend does sound like an appealing .one, but it is something the army cannot do much about.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Just so that the minister may have a clear picture, I may say that the young man went to Toronto to the selective service office and explained the circumstances. His whole savings were at stake, but by the time he got back home his notice to report was in the mail and within four days he was to report for service in the army. By a stroke of good luck or otherwise he happened to have some physical1 defect which he had never known of, and that was all that saved him. He had told -the selective service office the position he was in but got nowhere. I give that as one case. You are maintaining a large group, some 70,000 men, in a more or less static state-I know the minister disagrees with that-and when these men plead their case and explain what they are up against to the selective service officers it seems to make no difference. They are called into the army in spite of everything.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Am I to understand from the minister that these men are afraid to go overseas? You can call them by any name you please, but that is what it really amounts to, and they are not from British Columbia. Y^et some of these men who are afraid to go overseas are acting as non-commissioned officers instructing active service men who have volunteered to go overseas.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know of any of them instructing in the training centres.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not care where they are instructing. I know that in British Columbia we have men from the province from which the hon. member for York-Sunbury comes, men who have not done an honest day's w'ork in the last six months, who are telling active service men in British Columbia who have volunteered for active service overseas to pick up a cigarette off the sidewalk, or some other order.
War Appropriation-Army


Richard Burpee Hanson: The men from my county all went active.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Right in ,British Columbia we have men from your province.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury)':	Name
them.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think it is a disgrace that an active service man who has volunteered to go overseas should have one of these men who have not volunteered for service overseas but have two or three stripes telling him what to do. I know what would have 'happened in my battalion if anything of that sort had occurred. If the minister wants instances, I can give them.


James Layton Ralston: I should like to have them.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The minister says that these men are taken into the stream. If they are in a stream, all I can say is that they are trying to run uphill. These men from eastern Canada are not getting infantry training in British Columbia. There are active service men from British Columbia who are building roads and these other men are doing nothing but lying around camps. Some of them could not dig a post-hole in three days. If that is what he calls a streamlined service, I do not know where the minister gets his advice. The minister cannot keep track of all this, I know, but some steps should be taken to see that these men from eastern Canada who have not volunteered for active service are not put in a position to order a volunteer from British Columbia to pick u.p a cigarette from the playground. Yet there they are, sitting around the sidewalk in North Vancouver, and it is a disgrace that these men from eastern Canada are not doing a type of work or undergoing a type of training that would 'be to the good of the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I take objection to any suggestion that these men come from my riding.


James Arthur Ross: I think there is a lot to be said about the home defence army. It is most unsatisfactory. I should like to get a broader picture of the general situation. The minister tells us that we have 240,000 troops overseas, and he has said that we are to maintain our army headquarters staff. To most of us this is something new. We do not know what establishment is necessary for an army headquarters staff and all the necessary ancillary troops. Could the minister give us an estimate of the numbers necessary for the present army headquarters staff and ancillary troops? We know how many are required in a division, and I understand that for a 
corps the numbers are almost double those required for the two divisions contained therein. I should like to know the extra percentage required for army headquarters staff and the necessary ancillary troops. I think that has a distinct bearing all the way througft on our reinforcement pool and home defence army.


James Layton Ralston: I explained on Friday to my hon. friend that it is difficult to say how many troops you need when you have an army headquarters, because the corps does provide a proportion of army troops to go to whatever army headquarters are supervising and directing that particular corps. I have not any figures here to-night, but I remember tabling a return showing the number of officers at army headquarters and the number of other ranks required. I do not recall the number of officers, but if I remember correctly the number of additional ranks was shown as something like 7,000 men. I would have to look up the return to be sure of that, but that is my best recollection. The army troops, generally speaking, are provided in large measure by the corps which the army is supervising. The corps provide the army troops for whatever army they may happen to be directing.


James Arthur Ross: Out of present
personnel?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. The army headquarters has no method of recruiting or organizing a unit. It gets its men from a corps and they become army troops and are always under army command.


Mr. WRIGHT:: There are approximately
100,000	men called up under the N.R.M.A., and the present strength is approximately
71,000,	which would indicate that about 29,000 have been discharged or transferred or died.


James Layton Ralston: Or enlisted, or become general service men.


Percy Ellis Wright: What is the present policy with respect to discharging men in low medical category who have been called up under the N.R.M.A.?


James Layton Ralston: They are discharged when they can be spared. We are endeavouring to have as large a percentage as possible of "A" category men in the army, whether N.R.M.A. or general service.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is any different policy followed with respect to the discharge of those called up under the N.R.M.A. if they are in a low medical category?

War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: If it is a matter of requesting a discharge, certainly the general service man would get the preference. That is, where a man would like to get out and is in a low medical category and can be spared the general service man would get the opportunity first. But if it is a case of a man wanting to stay in, the N.R.M.A. man of low medical category would be discharged first.


Mr. QUELCH:: Can the minister state whether our estimate for necessary reinforcements is at a higher or lower rate than in the last war? In the last war we had a considerable amount of difficulty in maintaining a sufficient flow of reinforcements, and our units were usually below strength. The strength of five battalions would pass as reinforcements through one battalion. Naturally, people are puzzled. They wonder how we are going to maintain a sufficient volume of reinforcements when we have so many men in the armed forces, in the navy, army and air force, and at the same time so many more on the production line.


James Layton Ralston: I beg your pardon.


Victor Quelch: On the production line. Just exactly how many men have we available for reinforcements in Canada, England, Italy and Egypt? What is the total number, or do you not care to give that information?


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry, I could not give that.


Victor Quelch: Can you tell us how the estimates compare with the estimates of the last war? Is it higher or lower? It seems to me it must be very much lower than the estimate we had in the last war.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think any comparison can be made. I do not know what the basis was in the last war, but obviously the composition and employment of the forces are entirety different in this war. The forces are entirety different. I do not think any useful or intelligent comparison could be made.


Victor Quelch: On the other hand, you would not say that the casualties will be lower, surety. You would expect the casualties to be higher, if anything, if we are to have many more Dieppe raids, for instance.


James Layton Ralston: I hope we shall not have any more Dieppe raids.


Victor Quelch: We have to be prepared, nevertheless. Could the minister say what the policy is in regard to the appointment of officers in the filling of vacancies in the field? Have the commanders the right to fill vacancies of officers in the field by appointing men from
the ranks, as they did in the last war? At that time men were taken from the ranks and given a commission on the field.


James Layton Ralston: I can say to my hon. friend that is a matter which is under discussion at the present moment. There is some discussion as to what is best to do; that is to say, whether an officer who has had officer training should be used when there is a surplus of officers, or whether the appointments should be made directly on the field without further training. The matter is under discussion now, as a matter of fact, with Canadian military headquarters. Obviously there are many advantages in having a man who is battle-trained. He has been a non-commissioned officer, he knows conditions; at the same time there are certain qualifications which are required by commissioned officers which can, I think, best be obtained by longterm training which we endeavour to give them. There is something to be said for using officers when you have thorn rather than making ad hoc appointments on the field. The matter is under consideration.


Victor Quelch: The minister knows that a lot of hard feeling was caused in the last war by sending green officers over to take charge of men who had had two, three or four years service. I think it took a lot of pressure on the part of the commander in the field before they were given the right to make these appointments on the field. I think further consideration should be given to that.


James Layton Ralston: I happened to be a commander myself on the field in the last war. I remember one or two circumstances at that time, but I always did this. I do not think I ever appointed a man on the field; I recommended him to go back to England and take an officers' training course, if he had all the qualifications and all the equipment that a man should have in order to take that position.


Victor Quelch: In the early stages of the war there may be men appointed on the field who were not given the chance of officers training.


James Layton Ralston: I know that.


Mr. MUTCH:: May I suggest to the minister that it might be advantageous and help to clear the picture if he explained briefly to the committee the practice of selecting men to be trained as officers. Only those men who have had a very considerable amount of experience in Canada, or in field units overseas are selected as officers. I have had an oppor-
War Appropriation-Army

tunity in recent months of seeing a considerable number of those who are passing through the officer training period in England, and I do not know of anyone-I may be open to correction in this-who has come to the officer training centres from the field forces in England in recent months who has not had field experience. They are not building up their reserves any more with inexperienced people from civilian life. They are building them up from men who have been in the service a minimum length of time under the regulations and who have complete training or experience overseas. They are men who have trained in the arm of the unit from which they come.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Go to a barber college and get a commission.


Mr. BRUCE:: I have one or two questions to ask the minister with respect to reinforcements. He stated on Friday that although we were maintaining our army headquarters we had only one corps, and that the other corps would be supplied by Britain. My first question is, if our three divisions are in action I presume that the Canadian pool to which he referred would supply the reinforcements for our own divisions.


James Layton Ralston: Correct.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Second, in the event of an invasion of the continent, can the minister give us any estimate of the percentage of reinforcements that might be necessary within the first two weeks?


James Layton Ralston: I would not attempt to give any estimate of that kind. I say to my hon. friend that provision has been made for reinforcements on a scale which is regarded as adequate. We had exactly the same situation in Sicily. This is not the first time, you know. We had an invasion in Sicily and we sent reinforcements which were regarded as adequate for the first two weeks, and much longer than that.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: We have been told that there is a reinforcement pool in Canada and a pool in England, and if the pool runs out in England it will be reinforced from the pool in Canada. It would take a considerable time to move these troops from Canada to England, and if we have very heavy casualties in the first two weeks or month of the invasion, then I think the people of this country would like to be assured that we have sufficient reinforcements available immediately to take care of the situation. I should like to ask the minister if he can give that assurance.


James Layton Ralston: I think I can.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The criticisms that I have heard wherever I have gone regarding the home defence army is that we are sending men overseas with considerably short periods of training, and we shall probably be sending others if the emergency arises, with still shorter periods of training, while we have in the home defence army men who have had much longer years of service and more years of training. That is the chief criticism that I have heard regarding the home defence army in my ramblings around the country. The minister has indicated that the government does not think it advisable at the present time to have Canadians engaged in war with Japan but that our forces should be concentrated in the war in Europe. I think it is generally understood that the war with Japan will continue possibly for some years after we hope the war in Europe will have finished. Has the government formulated any plans regarding the use of Canadians against the Japanese when the war in Europe has been completed. That requires, I am told, a Large number of attendants, men who know Japanese, know Japanese customs, men who have worked with the army. I understand the Americans are doing a great deal in the way of training men for that work. Is anything of that kind being contemplated in Canada at the present time?


James Layton Ralston: In the first place, what I said with regard to Japan or what I wanted to say was, that no commitments have been made at the present time as to the nature or extent of Canada's participation in the war against * Japan. At the same time I wish to say, as I said last year, that the army recognizes fully that we are at war with Japan- and we are making plans accordingly. I cannot give my hon. friend any statement with regard- to policy.


Mr. ROSE:: I believe there is a good deal
of uneasiness among certain people with regard to the army's role in strikes. I was in Shaw-inigan Falls at the time of the strike, having been invited by -the unions to go and speak, and while there I found quite a number of soldiers who had been- sent from Famham. They were French-Canadian soldiers, it is true, but they were parading the streets intimidating the workers and they did not create the best impression upon the. people. I do not think it is the best thing for the morale of the soldiers, who believe there is a greater enemy for them to fight than their fellow Canadians at Shawinigan Falls. Who ordered the soldiers there? In the Montreal strike of policemen and firemen there were, I understand, one thousand men sent from Farnham.

War Appropriation-Army
It is true they were not paraded but were kept in barracks, but here again they were men who had been sent for the purpose of dealing with the strike. Many of these men expressed regret at being used for that purpose. The reserve army is another organization that was ready for action in connection with the Montreal strike. A colonel-I cannot say what his name is-said after the strike that he was sorry he did not get the chance to come to grips with the strikers. The reserve army officers, especially some of the older men are through and' through reactionary. They still think of the good old days. I would suggest that some of the older officers of perhaps thirty-five or forty released from active service, be placed in the reserve army instead of having men of between fifty and sixty, old men, who as I said before still think of the good old days. They are jingoes; they do not understand the new spirit of Canada and of the world. There have been a number of occasions when men in the reserve army have been told, "It is true the danger of attack is over, but after the war we may have to be used in case of emergency." What emergency is contemplated? We are not planning for trouble. If we mean to plan for a peaceful post-war there is no necessity to arouse people who join the reserve army by telling them that they may be used in case of emergency.


George Stanley White: Are all officers liable for
overseas service, or is it necessary for an officer to volunteer for overseas service? Are officers still trained for the reserve army?


James Layton Ralston: All officers are liable for overseas service. Do I understand the hon. member to ask whether officers are still being trained for the overseas army? Does he mean, are reserve army officers being trained at Brockvillc?


George Stanley White: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I cannot be sure, but I think that is so. I have not inquired in the last month. There is a very small number.


Clarence Gillis: The question I have to ask is along the line of that asked by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White). What is the policy with respect to non-commissioned officers and commissioned serving in Canada who desire to proceed overseas? Is it necessary, in order to proceed overseas, to revert to the rank of noncommissioned officer or to take a lower rank if one is a commissioned officer? Second, with respect to N.R.M.A. forces, is it not true that whole units of these forces have volunteered their services generally, provided the
unit be not split up, and that if it was necessary to send them to any theatre of war, provided they could be sent as a unit, they were prepared to proceed on that basis? I think myself, that, with respect to the N.R.M.A. forces, they are receiving a good deal of abuse which they do not deserve. We must remember that when the war broke out the great majority of these boys were young fellows who were roaming the streets, who had very little to fight for, and with absolutely no knowledge of the military set-up. But they were called up to report for military duty, and in many cases they were sent to camps where, after considerable training received since going into the services, they have had names hurled at them and everything done to discourage them, though they might have tended otherwise to take their place in the legitimate army and proceed overseas. I find no fault with them.
The Minister of National Defence, in summing up the general situation at the time he began his report to the house at this session, made it quite clear that it was necessary to maintain in Canada an army for emergency purposes, that it was necessary to fortify our coasts at both ends of the country, and many of the men of that army who get such a ribbing have been doing duty in outlying sections of the country and have undergone considerable hardship. They have been posted out there and have had to stick to their posts, and they have done a very useful service. There is no doubt about that. At the last session I said, and I say it again, that anyone who takes the position in this house that every man in uniform in Canada during the past three years should have been routed overseas is taking a very unrealistic position.
The main difficulty we have had to contend with in the past two and a half years has been to get something overseas for those who were already there. Shipping has been our difficulty. And what was the soldier in Britain doing during the past two and a half years which the soldier in Canada was not doing? He was kicking his heels waiting for action. One of the main difficulties facing those charged with the responsibility of maintaining the morale of the troops over there was to keep them busy doing nothing until such time as there was somewhere to send them into action. I hate to sit back listening to armchair generals who are quite comfortably seated in Canada, prepared to carry on the war until the last worker is killed. I am not interested in that line of argument. I
War Appropriation-Army

think these men are badly abused.. They were boys picked up on the street who knew nothing but starvation under the regime of those who now take the position that they should all be prepared to die for a country that disinherited them while those persons were themselves in power. I think these boys have performed a useful service and do not deserve the names that have been hurled at them and the abuse they have received during the time they have been doing a very valuable job in Canada, standing, on guard on all our coasts, while at the same time unit after unit have been volunteering, provided they could go overseas as a unit. The position taken by many in the house is completely unjustified, and I am certain of this, because these boys, by and large, are the brothers or sons of men who to-night are in Sicily doing the fighting. If the time comes when they need reinforcements over there, when our army is in action, there will not be found any difficulty getting most of them to volunteer to go there.
I think national defence has been well advised, although I do not agree with them in every thing, in maintaining that army on that basis until such time as it is needed over there. To suggest that this force should have been sent to Britain during the past two years, to load upon the British government the burden of feeding and looking after them, was a completely unrealistic position to take. I have sufficient confidence in those boys as Canadians to believe that when the time comes they will make their contribution where it is most needed.
I did not intend to speak at any length at this time. There are many things that could be said with respect to the army overseas, but I do not think this is the time to say them. However, I should like the minister to answer the question with respect to officers and non-commissioned officers who desire to proceed overseas, as to whether or not they are compelled to relinquish their rank. I know there are officers in Canada who are anxious to get over, who have volunteered from the army to the air force, from the army to the paratroops and so on, in an attempt to get a shift out of Canada, but they have been held here, I do not know for what reason.


James Layton Ralston: With regard to the necessity for a non-commissioned officer or an officer to revert in order to go overseas, there is an agreement with Canadian military headquarters and with the army that a certain proportion-it is a small proportion-of reinforcement troops can be particular ranks; I think there are some sergeants and even some as high as warrant officers class 2, but not a great many. To answer my hon. friend's question directly, it is not an absolute rule [Mr. Gillis.J
that every non-commissioned officer has to take off his stripes before he goes overseas; it all depends on the need for non-commissioned officers over there and of course to some extent on the qualifications of the man here. With regard to officers, captains have been taken as such, though not a great many. Generally speaking, we would very much prefer to have subalterns there, in order that they might work up, but occasionally captains are taken.
With regard to N.R.M.A. personnel volunteering as units, that is a very attractive proposition for the recruiting officer; it means that he fills up his month's quota pretty quickly if he can get a whole battalion to volunteer, but I may say it is a headache for the administrative officers because it means arranging to have that unit go overseas as a unit. The formations overseas are already constituted, and in order to keep faith the unit volunteering it might be necessary to break up another unit which has been overseas for a good while. That has never been done, although offers of that kind have been made. Generally . speaking, the matter is explained to the men in the unit. We endeavour to keep them together as much as possible, and we have had arrangements under which platoons and even larger subunits of the unit have gone over together. We endeavour to keep theili together in the reinforcement centre, but I do not know of any case in which an entire unit composed of N.R.M.A. personnel has ever volunteered and gone over as a unit. As my hon. friend can see, it would mean adding to the capital overseas, which in turn would mean adding to the reinforcement liability here, and putting an extra unit on a formation that is already complete.


Clarence Gillis: I agree with the minister. I was not arguing the merits or demerits of the scheme; I was trying to correct the impression created by some hon. members and others that the N.R.M.A. men in Canada were slackers, that they wore the uniform but did not want to fight. That impression has been created, and I agree that the mechanics of the situation as outlined by the minister are such that it is not possible to do these things. It is only natural that after serving for two or three years most of these boys should want to go overseas. They are not all slackers.


Mr. ISNOR:: I want to support the thought that has been expressed by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. Coming as we do from the Atlantic coast, he and I have had an opportunity of coming in contact with the men who have been serving in the coastal defence units. This question has been raised on more than one occasion, and some criticism

War Appropriation-Army
has been offered in regard to the so-called home service men. The same criticism was expressed during the last war when, as now, - men were obliged to carry out duties which were considered necessary on both the eastern and western coasts. I am glad to join with the hon. member for Cape Breton South in voicing my objection to the opinion so often expressed by unthinking members of this house as well as by citizens at large, that the man serving in the home forces is not performing a necessary duty. On more than one occasion the minister has expressed his appreciation of these men on the floor of this chamber. Last year he stated that the men on home service were absolutely necessary; and we all know, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South said, that for the past three or four years they have been receiving training. Perhaps it has not been as extensive as the training given those who were proceeding overseas, but very important training has been given our home service men to prepare them to take their place either overseas or in defence of the shores of our country, if that should be necessary. I thought I should like to add my word of commendation for those who are obliged, quite often against their own wish and desire, to serve on our eastern and western shores.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If the hon. member would permit a question, why are they obliged to serve in Canada?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: That is a question that perhaps neither the hon. member nor I can answer. I leave that to those with more experience in these matters.


Grote Stirling: I wonder if the minister would deal with the matter I brought up, concerning the statement which has been made to me not once but many times, that scattered across Canada-I mentioned Petawawa as an instance-there are said to be a very considerable number of officers who apparently are not attached to units or taking courses: perhaps *"unattached" is the proper term to use, but they are officers who do not appear to have any definite work to do. They are to be seen not only at Petawawa but at Vancouver and various other places in Canada. To what extent is that an accurate statement?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell my hon. friend to what extent it is an accurate statement. I did say that we had a reserve of officers, so that we are pretty comfortably off. As a matter of fact, at the present moment an arrangement is under consideration for the employment of quite a large number of officers, which will reduce that surplus very considerably. I am surprised to hear my hon. friend suggesting that these officers are simply in camps, unemployed. I had understood that they were taking these advanced courses and refresher courses, not only at Brockville but at the schools of instruction being held at the advanced training centres as well. I can only say to my hon. friend that I shall inquire about the matter at once and shall be glad to give the committee the information. I know what my hon. friend wants is action, not information, but I shall try to give the information and get the action as well.


Grote Stirling: Then has the minister any information to give the committee with regard to deserters, how many there are, how many are being pursued, and how many he anticipates will be apprehended?


James Layton Ralston: Could I make a note of that and give the information to my hon. friend to-morrow? I have,in mind that there is pretty nearly a constant number. There are recaptures; then somebody else deserts, and so on. I cannot tell my hon. friend the rate of inflow or output.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister deal with it as far as possible, so far as their origins are concerned? That is to say, would he tell us from what part of the Canadian active army they come?


James Layton Ralston: According to districts?


Grote Stirling: Yes.


Mr. MacINNIS:: While we are under this heading I would draw to the attention of the minister the case I took up with him some little time ago. I am quite satisfied with the action in that part of it in which the minister interested himself, but I must point out that if this case is typical and if the information I have is correct, then there would appear to be many men in the home defence army-if I am using the correct term-who are receiving very little military training, and most of whose time is taken up in working for private employers.
I have a letter from the parents of a young boy who was inducted into the army on March 8, 1943. He was taken first to Little Mountain barracks, and was there for only a short time when he was sent to Victoria. He then went to Alberni where he worked for three months in the bush. His parents state that while there he was pulling telephone poles through the bush with ropes, for a private contractor. That lasted for three months. The rather peculiar circumstance in this instance is that the parents of the boy say that an army officer had said he was not strong enough for ordinary military training.
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: Is this the boy who went to the hospital in Vancouver?


Angus MacInnis: Yes, he went to hospital, mentally deranged. Further, after working at Alberni for three months he came back to Victoria, and from there went to Patricia Bay, where he had about a week's training. Then he came home to Vancouver for a week's leave, I believe. From there he was sent to Port Hardy, where he was handed a pick and shovel and started to work at digging ditches. Whether this was for a private contractor or for the army I cannot say, nor could his parents.
He worked there for a while ,and then was sent to Vernon, staying there for a little more than a week. From there he was sent to work for the Canadian National Railways at Blue River. For a person who is not physically strong, track maintenance work is one of the heaviest types of work a person could do, and is particularly hard for a person who is not used to that type of work. He was there for a short time when his parents were notified that he was back again at Little Mountain barracks, mentally deranged.
How many of the men in the home defence army are doing work for private employers such as the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway, or other employers of that type? During the three months the boy was at Port Alberni was he doing army work, or working for a private employer? These are questions to which the fathers and mothers of young lads in the army would like to receive answers.


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell my hon. friend how many are detailed. It is some time since I looked at the order in council. There was an order in council providing that personnel under the National Resources Mobilization Act could be detailed in units or subunits for civilian work. Then there was a provision under which they could be given leave and could go to a private employer. I am sorry I cannot tell my hon. friend as to how many are in each class, but I shall have the information to-morrow.
Although my hon. friend did mention that feature of the matter in his letter, I must say that I do not think I dealt with it, because I w'as more concerned with the boy's health, and as to whether he was going to get along all right. I do not think I dealt with that matter, did I?


Angus MacInnis: No; the minister dealt very quickly with the matter of the boy's health, and the other feature was not men-

tinned in the correspondence which passed between us. Had it been explained to my satisfaction I would not have bothered mentioning it to-night, because I discuss in the house only those questions which I cannot settle in another way.


James Layton Ralston: Did the hon. member give me the boy's name?


Angus MacInnis: I have given the name to the minister.


James Layton Ralston: What we wish to do is find out the circumstances under which he did that particular job, and also the number of men in that class.


Angus MacInnis: I want to know if this boy was working for a private contractor for three months when he was at Port Alberni, and how this affects other men in the army.


James Layton Ralston: I believe there was an order in council authorizing the detailing of men to do railway work at a time when the railways vcere short of help. I believe that would be the class in which he would come, but I shall look into the matter.


Percy Ellis Wright: Under what arrangements do men work for private employers? Are they paid by the army or by the employers?


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry I have not the order in council with me. However, if it is the same as the regulation with respect to work on farms, it w'ill be recalled that they were paid a flat rate per day, depending on the zone in which the work was done. However, I shall find out about this particular man, because he will be representative of the class.


Clarence Gillis: The matter is not confined to that order in council. Just a few. days ago I received a letter from London, Ontario, protesting-


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has extended his constituency.


Clarence Gillis: I think I am elected to represent Canada as a whole, with the exception of the constituency of the Minister of Pensions and National Health. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) looks after that.
In this particular case a charge was made that through some arrangement with the authorities in that area carpenters were released and were employed on jobs, thereby displacing regular carpenters.


James Layton Ralston: Where did this happen?

War Appropriation-Army


Clarence Gillis: London, Ontario. There was
considerable controversy with selective service in the matter. No progress was made, and it was suggested I should take it up in the house. I have written the department, but have not yet received a reply. That seems to be a pretty general thing all the way through.


James Arthur Ross: Supplementary to the question raised by the hon. member for Yale with respect to surplus officers throughout the country, I understand the minister's department conducted a survey during the past months to see how many such officers were in Canada who were not now rendering useful service. When the minister brings down his answer, would he give us the number of these officers, and also the number who have been discharged? I know several officers who have been notified of their discharges without any reasons being given. No doubt some of them had passed the age limit, but the newspapers have carried articles about this.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend refers to
officers being discharged without any reasons being given. I am very particular about that, and if he knows of any case I wish he would bring it to my attention. There is a most strict procedure laid down. I try to see the files myself. I would be disappointed to know if there were such cases. If there are any I should like to know of them for administrative purposes. An officer who has served and served well is certainly entitled to know the reason why he is being reverted to reserve status.


James Arthur Ross: One man showed me
his papers from the department and they did not give any reason. I know this man personally and I believe he is over age, but I shall let the minister have his name.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I appreciate that there
are officers who are over age and are being retired, and there are others who cannot be usefully employed, but I wonder whether the department has considered the advisability of an opportunity to resign being given to some officers who are now usefully employed. Perhaps it could be intimated to these men that their resignations would meet with approval. There are three or four cases that come to my mind at this time. These men held good positions or conducted businesses before they entered the army three or four years ago. They have done an excellent and worth-while job in Canada in training men for overseas. In each case the man is a veteran of the last war in which he served with distinction. I believe they would all be glad to return to civilian life and make way for other men less fortunate
or for men who are coming back from overseas. They hesitate to take the step because of the reflection that might be cast upon their devotion to duty. I feel sure these men would be glad to tender their resignations if it were indicated to them that that would be agreeable and acceptable to the government and that there would be no question of their patriotism.
There is another matter concerning the treatment given to officers who are retired because they have reached the age limit-I understand the principle is that these men must be retired unless a certificate is made to the adjutant-general that another suitable man is not available-and to officers who are asked to retire for other reasons. In the first case the officer is given a gratuity on retirement of one day's pay for every twelve days of service, or one month's pay for each year of service, whereas the officer who is asked to retire receives only the bare gratuity of one month's pay. I consider that this is an injustice.
An officer may be a veteran of the last war, he may have served Canada for three years, but when he is retired he is given a gratuity of one month's pay. A brother officer may be-retired because of age, and if he has served the same time he will receive a gratuity of three months' pay. If I have not a true appreciation of the facts perhaps the minister will correct me, but if I am correct then I think this matter should be reconsidered. Personally I do not think it is fair to have a man serve two or three years and then be told that he is out on thirty days' notice and will receive only one month's gratuity.


James Layton Ralston: The first point raised by my hon. friend was with regard to permission being given to officers to resign. I have no doubt that the officer in question would prefer to revert to reserve status because, if he resigned, he would have to resign his commission, whereas if he reverts he could go back on the active list again if the occasion arose. I am sure that the boards which discuss these matters would consider that point in those cases where officers cannot be advantageously employed. I shall see that the idea is transmitted to the boards.
The other point raised by my hon. friend was with regard to the apparent discrepancy between the case of the man who had reached sixty years of age and was being retired a,nd the case of the man who had not reached that age and was being retired because he was not advantageously employable. There is a difference between those two cases which may sound technical. The man who has reached sixty years of age has a job and most likely
War Appropriation-Army

he is fit to fill that job. The job is there for him but suddenly because of age he is out. That regulation was not in force at the time he entered the service and it was thought that he should have some compensation. The other man had held his position subject to his being retired if he could not be advantageously employed. That situation came about and he svas paid a gratuity. As I say, the distinction may be somewhat technical, but there is a real distinction between the two. However, the matter is under active consideration, and I shall take note of what my hon. friend has said with regard to it.


Manley Justin Edwards: The Minister of National Defence for Air made the statement the other day that negotiations were going on between the R.A.F. and the R.C.A.F. with a view to allowing Canadians who had enlisted in the R.A.F. since the beginning of the war to transfer to the R.C.A.F., and I was wondering whether similar discussions might be going on with respect to Canadians who had enlisted in the British army at the outbreak of the war and might want to transfer to the Canadian army. The two men that I have particularly in mind enlisted in the British army in a specialist capacity on the understanding that when the Canadians came over they would be transferred to the Canadian army; but from that day to this, despite their best efforts, they have never been permitted) to transfer to Canadian forces, despite the fact that they are Canadians. Are similar negotiations going on with respect to the army such as the minister for air indicated were going on as between the R.A.F. and the R.C.A.F.?


James Layton Ralston: Very recently there arose a case of one particular officer, and there was a discussion tljen on general principles. I shall make inquiries and see how far those discussions went. The British pay us a compliment in wanting to keep Canadian officers when they get them, and they do not meet with any great enthusiasm the suggestion that they transfer. I will see how far the discussions have progressed.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: A soldier in the Canadian army on discharge receives $65 as clothing allowance. I understand that in the United States on discharge the soldier receives from $100 to $300. Has this government any intention of increasing pur allowance?


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend is mixing up two things. The $100 to $300 in the United States is what they call mustering-out pay, a sort of war service gratuity.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It is the same thing.


James Layton Ralston: No; the $65 clothing allowance is paid to enable a man on discharge to get a civilian outfit. I presume the United States also have a clothing allowance for their army.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: And the Canadian soldier gets one month's pay as well.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. The United States army, I presume, has also a clothing allowance, but what it amounts to I do not know.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Can the minister tell us how many recruits have enlisted voluntarily month by month during the past year? There is no doubt that immediately after the passing of the National Resources Mobilization Act, recruiting for the air force and navy speeded up; I do not know how it affected recruiting for the army. But the government have now got a tiger by the tail, and do not know what to do with it.
I have another question to ask while the minister is looking up those figures. I have no doubt that to-morrow he will answer my question on the orders of the day in connection with the speech made by Major-General Chisholm in Toronto from which I quoted. There are one or two other quotations I should like to give now from that same speech. He is reported to have said:
Too many women are bringing up too many boys on women's values, without relation to their obligation to the community. The result is that the army has to do a lot of unnecessary "growing up" of recruits.
I think that is a terrible castigation of our womenfolk. I do not blame the women for that at all. I do blame one woman who used to be a member of this House of Commons and used to rise in this house and ask for the cadet corps to be wiped out, and who now belongs to the national socialist party, and who was always asking in this house to have the defence estimates reduced to one dollar, and so on. But there were also many other gentlemen now sitting on the opposite side who in years gone by refused to have the defence estimates raised. It was that sort of thing, the education given by such people- and I include some of our friends on the opposite side-that is responsible for what Major-General Chisholm complains of. Then they were for no commitments; there was no danger at all; they were isolationists, and so on. So I say you cannot blame the women of Canada for the consequences.
This national selective service is now a half idea: it is neither fish nor fowl. As I say, the government have a tiger by the tail

4T3
iVar Appropriation-Army
and do not know what to do with it. Just imagine trying to put 75,000 of these zombies on a boat going overseas. What good would they do? And would you ever get them there?
Major-General Chisholm makes another pertinent statement. He says:
The Canadian army has had to reject large numbers of men, and the British, United States and Canadian armies have found it expensive to train men who find it difficult to reorient themselves from a position of thinking of the privilege of the individual to the general security of the group.
Do they discharge them for that reason or just let them sit here at home? Is there any educational process being applied in that situation? What are we going to do with these people? It is all' very well to continue to talk about having these people, but something should be done about it.
I see recruiting posters all around the country addressed to the women, and by the way these are the women of whom Major-General Chisholm says:
In times of stress, such as war, women became a liability.
As I say, these posters are appealing to the women of the country to join up and release men for active service. It is true that we want more women to release men for overseas service. But I ask, why should we appeal to women to release men for overseas service when we have so many men here who are doing nothing at all? The minister said that they are on non-operational duty. The hon. member for Fraser Valiev told us what these men are doing in British Columbia. I am glad that there are none from my riding among those he spoke of in British Columbia. But that is a situation that has been brought about by the National Resources Mobilization Act. It is simply ridiculous. The' enforcement of the act is all crazy. I know a number of men in the army who would have been far more useful in Canada, and we have people taking their place here who would be far more useful in the army. I know of many instances like that. We have no national mobilization or selective service in Canada at all. We have the National Resources Mobilization Act which is neither one thing nor the other. A little while ago there was a certain amount of pressure brought to bear on these people to have them go active, but you cannot get them to go active any more. What we have to do now is to depend on recruits. Suppose you need these people and you have to bring in an act to make them go active so that they may be sent to any place in the world. That will be all right, but what
good are they going to be? That is the situation. I have finished my statement and I hope the minister will answer the other question to-morrow.


James Layton Ralston: In reference to Major-General Chisholm's speech I have told my hon. friend I would reply to-morrow. I do not think I can add anything to what I have already said other than to correct my hon. friend once more with regard to the employment of these men in Canada. My hon. friend says they are doing nothing. I told him what they are doing as reported to me.
I get these reports from the district officers commanding. The hon. member for Fraser Valley seems to have a situation in his part of the country which needs to be corrected.
I am going to have somebody on the job and if he will give me some information about it we shall see that it is cleaned up. These men are not loafing by any means. The work is there for them to do and they are doing it. I am glad to have this opportunity to endeavour at least to dispel in the minds of those who will listen and who will accept the fact as it is given to me, the idea that these men are doing nothing, because my information is that as operational troops and as nonoperational troops in these two service units they are doing work that has to be done by somebody, and would have to be done by general service personnel if these men were not available.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Shall the item carry?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I should like to ask this question: Have we in Canada men who are being discharged all the time, as Major-General Chisholm says here, because they cannot reorient themselves from the possibility of thinking of the privilege of the individual rather .than the general security of the group? He says they are being discharged, and I am perfectly sure that I could give instances.


James Layton Ralston: They are going back to civil life. My hon. friend says they are needed there. The country' is not going to lose them because they are being discharged from the army.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Are they useful, and could they take the place of some of these fellows who are doing service in Canada who might very well do service in other places? That work could very well be done by men in category "E."


James Layton Ralston: What do you suggest, keep the men-
War Appropriation-Army


Douglas Gooderham Ross: May I finish before the minister replies? We have men being discharged from the army for mental reasons. The minister is laughing. I will take the laugh off his face in a minute. Men are being discharged from the army for mental reasons. They have been taken into the army as category "A." They are then examined by psychiatrists and are then discharged for emotional instability, constitutional inadequacies, as psychopaths and mental defectives. They are placed in category "E" and are not pensionable. They could be doing useful work. Are they to be a charge on the community for the rest of their lives? They have that stigma attached to their names for the rest of their lives. Could they not be kept in the army to take the place of some other men in category "A" who are doing work that these discharged men could do? One does not need very much intelligence or be very bright to do some of these jobs. I think these men could very well be used for that purpose. You are going to have a lot of these men on your hands, and something should be done about the matter. I do not think the thing is very well run at all.


James Layton Ralston: I can say to my hon. friend that I have seen quite a number of these men that he speaks of and who he says do not have to be very bright. I am thinking of the Longue Point depot, for instance. I think some of these men and women would qualify as members of parliament. I do not think they are devoid of grey matter.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We have been talking all around item number one. Last year the item amounted to $8,832,000. This year it is $16,000,000. I should like to ask the minister why the item is almost double this year and just what it covers.


James Layton Ralston: The increase is due to the fact that we have very much increased the number of civilian employees as we have *decreased the service personnel. The total increase, as my hon. friend will see, amounts to about $7,000,000. Soldier's were replaced by civilians, and that accounts for about $2,000,-
000.	Included in that also are the hourly paid employees who were included elsewhere in 1943 and 1944. That amounts to $3,000,000. In other words, that $3,000,000 is taken from another place and is cut off another item.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Do the people who are employed wear uniforms?


James Layton Ralston: No. I inquired about this item. I said, how is it we increased the pay and allowances of the civilian employees, and increased the pay and allowances of the army and still, at the same time, were reducing the
"Mr. Halston.]
army? As a matter of fact, I found the actual decrease in the pay and allowances of other ranks is $17,000,000 as compared with 1943-44, but various increases total $24,000,000 altogether in pay and allowances. Of this, $17,000,000 is accounted for by the decrease in pay of other ranks, while the increase in the pay of civilians is about $7,000,000. Therefore, on this basis, you will see there is a saving of about $10,000,000. There is one more item, reclassification of positions, $552,000, which is another part of the $7,000,000. The growth of army administration shows an increase of $2,000,000, due to increased number of employees.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is that a reclassification of civilian positions?


James Layton Ralston: Civil Service reclassification. Reclassifications are taking effect now, a certain number every year.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They did not get the cost-of-living bonus.


James Layton Ralston: That is a reclassification of twenty-three hundred positions since the 1943-44 estimates were prepared.. The total is $552,000 altogether.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Shall the item carry?


Grote Stirling: Can the minister give the committee some information with regard to the organization that is being set up to take over administrative duties in reoccupied countries? I have had several inquiries made by officers who are at the present time in the army in Canada. Some of these men, it would seem to me, are well suited by their experience for suc-h work. Is it an international organization that is being set up, of which Canada supplies so much, or is Canada setting up an organization of her own for that purpose? Can the minister give the committee some information with regard to that organization?


James Layton Ralston: I have a memorandum here, but I shall not read it all. The situation in North Africa was the first immediate situation which required attention in the way of civil administration. The necessity for some measure of temporary jurisdiction being established by the military over the large number of civilians in territories freed from enemy control was indicated. The commanders in chief first appointed officers for that purpose. These were known as civil administrators or military governors, as the case might be, and the work was carried on by military personnel. The civil affairs officers were employed, first, on staffs of formations and, second, as civil

War Appropriation-Army
affairs detachments. I remember, if I may interject the observation, that a member of the tariff board of Canada, Major Hebert, is a member of the civil affairs administration in Italy at the present time. During an advance the formation staffs -tackle the problems as they arise, and detachments are established when important towns or centres are taken. The detachment then guards every t-own or centre under direction from formation headquarters and in cooperation with the local authorities if available.
Following on .the opening of -civil affairs schools in Britain and the United States it was decided to conduct a two-months' course along similar lines in Canada and we have established a course at the Royal Military college. The first group of twenty-four ^officers graduated recently. That is a joint undertaking covering the three services, the Department of External Affairs acting in an advisory capacity. A number of Canadian officers overseas have attended the civil affairs school in England and a few have taken the course in the United States. Our people who have established the school at the Royal Military college and are in charge of it have been at the school in England and also at the school in the United States to make themselves familiar with the syllabus provided and to ascertain the different kinds of training given in Britain and America. Canadian officers will be available for the staffs of Canadian formations for work at various times in which there is intermixture of British and American. The civil affairs administration is a temporary measure to be maintained in any locality only so long as it is required.
My hon. friend has inquired with regard to an officer friend, and I may tell him that commanding officers were asked to make recommendations of those who had qualifications, who had some knowledge of municipal affairs, town planning or general administration, or public utilities, water works, light systems and matters of that kind. Linguists are also useful, though not unless they have some training or experience in connection with civil administration. As my hon. friend quite understands, there is very little in the way of military training given, because it is a military officer who is being dealt with. If anyone in whom my hon. friend is interested wishes to do so, anyone who might be qualified for this work, he ought to apply to his D.O.C. and have his name sent in.


Grote Stirling: What numbers does the minister expect to obtain-scores or hundreds?


James Layton Ralston: I do not know how long we shall maintain the school here. There is
also a school in England. I expect there will be two or three more courses, and the number may be a hundred or more.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Will the minister give those figures about which I inquired?


Mr. CHURCH:: Last session the Minister of National Defence for the army laid before the house a schedule recording pay and allowances for all ranks. It would surprise members to know of the different inequalities that exist, starting with lieutenant-colonel and major right down to private. The return showed a rate per- day of SI HO and in some cases SI .50, and it went straight across the blueprint, giving the total for the year. There were a great many inequalities in that schedule of the lower-paid men, and I should like to find out what is being done to remove them. The minister for the navy and . the minister for air followed and gave a similar statement, a blueprint which was published in Hansard. It caused a great deal of dissatisfaction among the returned men and those overseas, because some received certain allowances, while others did not get anything. It may not be altogether in the minister's department, but I think some explanation ought to be given while the minister's estimates are before us, because the same thing applies throughout. Young men have joined up from the high schools of the country. The high schools of Toronto alone have given (XK) men in casualties to the air force. I suggest, therefore, that the inequalities that appear in the schedule should be removed.
In the matter of allowances, some receive them and others do not. Section 11, subsection 3, of the Pension Act applies to the army, and last week a deputation appeared before the board of control in connection with this matter. One section relates to the necessitous circumstances of soldiers coming home. They do not get a grant at all and some are practically on the street. That section as applied to the army means simply charity. As I say, a deputation appeared before the board of control of Toronto last Thursday, and I will send the information to the minister. As regards clothing allowances, the $65 for a returned man should be marked up. The officers have been marked up and I do not see why the privates and non-commissioned officers should be forgotten. They are largely doing good work in the camps. I receive many letters from the returned men. There are many in my constituency and throughout Toronto. I do not like to bother the minister, but I hope that- something will be done to remove the inequalities between the private soldier and the non-commissioned officers as
War Appropriation-Army

compared with the men at the top of the ladder. There should be an announcement, and I hope it will come shortly, with regard to this whole matter, which will give to these people who are coming home some additional allowance for clothing and so on. The minister gave an elaborate statement last year about the matters to which I have referred, and I should like to find out if anything additional in allowance is to be done about the large number of men who are coming back from the front.


James Layton Ralston: What I shall try to do is to get the statement made last year and make a comparison to see how much ironing out there has been of the inconsistencies in the different classes. I believe a substantial change has been effected since that schedule was filed. I should like to see what it looks like this year. We might prepare a new schedule and see how it compares with the old. With regard to the other matter, rehabilitation and the announcement of a policy with respect to what assistance is to be given, that announcement will be made in due course. I will take note of what my hon. friend says and see if we cannot get a new statement to see how it compares with the old, and what suggestion my hon. friend has to make.


Thomas Langton Church: Regarding pay and allowances, there is a good deal of complaint in the camps about leave, and the amount of money the soldier must pay to get home over the week-end. This applies to Camp Borden and many other camps, but little is done about it. The other day in Toronto we had an announcement by Major-General Chisholm which has caused a great deal of dissension and dissatisfaction in the Toronto district among women whose men are at the front or at the camps. Something should be done to find out from the railway companies what they intend to do with regard to a reduction of fares at week-ends for men at the camps. As you know, Mr. Chairman, down to the end of 1940 the railways had made more money than during the entire four and a half }rears of the last war. Surely something should be done by the government and the minister to see that these men are allowed cheaper fares to get home.
Apparently there is a rule now in force that the men are not allowed to write letters to the newspapers about these matters. If that rule applies to privates and non-commissioned officers it should apply also to Major-General Chisholm, who in his talk has caused a great deal of disunity among the families of our soldiers. If it were not for the women who

are doing such magnificent work at home, I doubt if we would have had such success as we have had in connection with recruiting. I hope the rule will apply to Major-General Chisholm and the rest of those at the top who are spreading these rumours about leaves and doing a great deal to hurt recruiting.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member for
St. Paul's asked for the enlistments in 1943. The figures are as follows:	'
January	 12,366
February	 8.896
March	 8.231
April	 6,650
May	 6.609
June	 5,485
July	  4.805
August	 4,884
September	 5.029
October	 4,306
November	 3,565
December	(estimated) 3,500
This book is a little old, and I have just obtained an estimate for the month of December from the officer who is before me. This makes an approximate total of 74,000 for the year.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Are these voluntary enlistments?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: I do not want to hold up this resolution, but I should like an answer from the minister with respect to the low-category men who are discharged after having been called up under the mobilization act, or who have returned from overseas as casualties. I do not know whether the information is correct, but I have had at least two letters from military district No. 6, written by men who recently returned from overseas. They complain that the camp is literally blocked with category "C2" men, who are performing no useful service in the camp.


James Layton Ralston: Is this depot at Halifax?


Clarence Gillis: Yes. I have received complaints from men who feel that perhaps they could make a better contribution outside, since they are not fit for regular military duties. That complaint also has come from other places, but the two specific complaints I have had came from military district No. 6. I should like to find out from the minister just what is the policy of the department when a man is boarded, his catgeory is lowered and he is classified as unfit for regular military service. What is he assigned to do in the military district; what duties is he required to carry out, or what service does he perform when he is kept in the army? Would it not

War Appropriation-Army
be 'better to discharge that man and send him out so that he might be able to make a useful contribution in some civilian capacity? I think it would be good business if men like that were routed' 'back to civilian life and given an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves now, before we have the general demobilization. I think it is a mistake to keep any large number of men of this kind in any camp.


James Layton Ralston: I must confess that I agree with my hon. friend. Of course there are some jobs, such as orderlies and things of that kind, in which low-category men can be usefully employed, but. generally speaking I see no point at all in keeping a man of that kind in the army, unless he is absolutely essential and no one else can be obtained to do the work. I indicated that our depots are very full at the present time, though the number of men in them, is going down quite rapidly. However, in talking with my colleague, the Minister of Pensions and National Health, I have inquired into the matter pretty carefully, and I may tell my hon. friend that one reason which is given to me is that the procedure fol-* lowed this time in connection with the discharge of a man is really terrific, in the number of forms that have to be filled out and the examinations that have to be gone through. You may ask why. Well, it is for the purpose of seeing to it that pensionability or otherwise is established at the start, instead of having a man come in two or three years from now saying, "Such and such a thing happened. I was stripped to the waist and examined; out I went, and nobody looked at me to make any notes of how I was." The examination does take a considerably longer time than formerly; they have specialists and so on, as my hon. friend knows.
In my judgment, however, there is no reason for these men being kept at our depots for any long time, except that of course medical officers are none too plentiful, and they tell me that a board can only handle properly something like fifteen men a day. So that it takes a number of boards if you have to deal with three, four, five or six hundred men, or perhaps a thousand or more as they may have at Halifax. It does take time to get them out, but I really think that is principally due to the necessity of taking time in order to see that the examination is properly carried out. As a matter of fact, we are putting someone in charge of all these depots, having him go around to see if he cannot smarten up the procedure. I know one depot in particular which is extremely efficient. We have had officers in command of other depots visit this one to see how it is run, and they have worked out something in the nature of a belt-line procedure.
There is another thought that has just come to me. We had an investigation made of our examination system, our reception system and our discharge system by officers of the United States army, and I must say that the result put our people very much on their toes. Perhaps they became a bit complacent following the compliments they received from these visiting officers because of the care that was taken in connection with the discharge of personnel. I remember writing a memorandum at the time congratulating them on the record they had made, but adding that I hoped this would not lead to complacency. Coming back to my hon. friend's statement, I say that by all means these men ought to be out of the army. We try to work just as hard as we can, in order to get them out just as quickly as we can, and the procedure is being improved just as much as it possible can, always having in mind the examinations which are required in order that pension cases may not arise in the future, and that men may not be deprived of evidence which they would have had if they had undergone a proper examination.


Victor Quelch: Recently I have had brought to my attention several cases similar to those referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. The complaint I hear is that these men get tired of hanging around and apply for their discharge. Invariably the discharge is given, but then these men are barred from receiving the one month's pay and the clothing allowance. For instance, I have before me a letter from the Edmonton branch of the legion-


James Layton Ralston: Was the man discharged to
accept civilian employment?


Victor Quelch: Let me read part of the letter:
I think this is one of the grievances that certainly should be rectified, as men who have been overseas and are returned to this country certainly get fed up hanging around not doing anything, and they naturally after a time make application for discharge, which is inevitably granted.
Then, due to the fact that the discharge was granted: at his own request, the man is refused his one month's pay and the clothing allowance. I have referred these cases to the department but so far have received no reply. It does seem to me that when a man has been overseas for two or three years and returns to this country he should be granted a discharge and should be eligible to receive the one month's pay and the clothing allowance.


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon. friend mind giving me one name?
Wartime Wages Control


Victor Quelch: I am referring to the case of Corporal J. R. Wallace, and also the case of Private Jossul. I believe in the latter case, however, the allowance has been granted, though at the time the letter was written it had not. Of the four oases referred to in this letter, the allowance was granted in only one.


James Layton Ralston: What was the second name?


Victor Quelch: The first case is that of Corporal J. R. Wallace, No. R-93837. The second case is that of Private Jossul, but in that case I believe the allowance has been granted, because there is a postscript to the letter which reads:
I am very pleased to let you know that_ I have been successful in having Jossul's rehabilitation granted, so maybe the others will come through.
Apparently Jossul's case was an exception to the rule.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has sent a copy of the letter to the department?


Victor Quelch: Yes, I have written the department.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 15, 1944