1944-02-15

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 5, to revoke the wartime wages control order, 1943.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall said bill be read
a second time?


Mr. CHURCH:: By leave of the house I would ask for second reading now.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: That cannot be granted.


Thomas Langton Church: By leave of the house I would ask for second reading.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Vien: There is opposition to it. Standing order 73 provides that two readings cannot take place on the same day.


Thomas Langton Church: I would ask for leave of the house. When five members rise the question of leave must be put to the house. Five members must rise.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Who invented that 'rule?


Thomas Vien: There is no motion before the Chair. First reading is passed in the ordinary way, and second reading takes place at the next sitting of the house. When shall the bill be read a second time?


Thomas Langton Church: I would ask for a recorded division.
Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw) [DOT] A recorded division on what?


Thomas Vien: There is no motion before the house. Second reading at the next sitting of the house.



CHRISTIE STREET HOSPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): Yesterday the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) asked a question of me in connection with veterans' treatment allowances. I find I tabled P.C. 1/602 on February 1 of this year, and I have had the pleasure of sending a copy of that order in council to my hon. friend, with an attached memorandum. The order is not retroactive, and is effective from February 1, 1944..


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I was not able to give notice to the Minister of National War Services of the question I am about to ask, but it is the kind of question, as I think will be indicated, of which notice is really not necessary. When may we expect to have an announcement respecting the other appointment to the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? A vacancy has existed there since last November. At the same time will the minister tell the house when we may expect an announcement in connection with the appointment of a general manager for the corporation? I do not like to raise these questions so often, but this broadcasting corporation is getting into-a terrible state because of the delays.

Border Crossings
Hon. L. R. LaFLEGHE (Minister of National War Services): Mr. Speaker, while I welcome the first question, I do not like what was added at the end of the second one, because what was said was quite unfair.


Mr. HOMUTH:: No one thought the minister would.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: It is too bad if the minister does not like it.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Each one speaks for himself in the house.


Gordon Graydon: That is right.
Mr. LaFLECHE: In regard to the question respecting the vacancy on the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I cannot say just when an announcement as to the appointment will be made. I assure the house that very careful attention is being given to the matter, and my hope is the same as that entertained by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). I can answer only that it will be done as soon as possible. With respect to the appointment of a general manager, I have not yet received a recommendation from the board of governors. I know they are giving the matter careful consideration, and I hope very soon to have the recommendation in this respect.


Gordon Graydon: Has the failure of the government to appoint a full board of governors held up the appointment of a general manager?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I cannot see that that could possibly be so.



BORDER CROSSINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) felt that he was a lawbreaker because he did not have his national registration certificate. I am glad to return to my hon. friend his certificate, thus putting him in good standing in the eyes of the law and allaying any fears that he may have about being picked up by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am sure that none of us would want that to be done.
I should like to explain to the house, if I may, that an arrangement was made in June, 1943, whereby customs officers at all boundary points and Royal Canadian Mounted Police security officers at seaports collect the registration certificates of persons who are leaving Canada permanently or for more than thirty days. However, the customs officer or whoever picks up the certificate is supposed to give the person a receipt for the certificate, a sample of which I have in my hand. On the back of this receipt appear the following instructions:
Upon returning to Canada the registrant should immediately mail this receipt to the chief registrar for Canada, national registration, Department of Labour, Ottawa, and request delivery or his or her certificate. When writing to the chief registrar please state clearly the address to which the certificate is to be sent.
In addition the traveller is given with his passport a notice explaining why the certificate is being lifted, and I hold in my hand a sample of that notice. The same information as appears on the notice given to the traveller appears on this card which is posted in the border offices. I have in my hand a copy of the card.


Mr. REID:: What are the reasons for lifting
the certificate?


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall come to that in a minute. The notice to each traveller instructs him-I speak now of those leaving the country temporarily-to make application for the return of his certificate to the chief registrar under the national registration regulations, 1940, upon his return to Canada. All certificates are sent to the office of this official in Ottawa, and it was in that official's office that I obtained the hon. gentleman's certificate this morning.
Hon. members will understand that the collection of certificates of persons leaving Canada permanently is done as a safety measure and because such persons naturally would be in possession of better personal identification. The authority for picking up certificates of persons leaving Canada for thirty days or longer is contained in section 28 of the national registration regulations, 1940, which reads as follows:
For the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of these regulations or supplying any deficiency therein, the minister may issue such directions not inconsistent therewith as may be deemed necessary to give effect to these regulations according to their true intent and purpose and any such direction shall have the same force and effect as if enacted in these regulations.
The mam reason, for requesting that direction was a growing epidemic of loss of certificates by registrants and theft of certificates from them when outside of Canada, particularly Canadians visiting in the United States and merchant seamen in foreign ports, both of which are definitely dangerous in war
4S0
Border Crossings

time. Each postmaster in Canada has been notified of this arrangement and instructed to issue a temporary fourteen-day certificate to any returned registrant who applies through his office for the return of his or her certificate. From June, 1943, to date, many thousands of certificates have been picked up and returned under this procedure, with a surprisingly low minimum of complaints or trouble.
Special forms of certificates bearing a full physical description of the registrants are issued to a few officials and others whose duties may require them to leave and return to Canada several times a year. This saves them the necessity of surrendering and obtaining return of their original certificate on each such occasion. I may say that the necessity for this safety measure was thoroughly discussed by my predecessor in office and the legal assistant of the branch with the 'Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the foreign exchange control board, the chief passport officer and others before being decided upon and put into effect.
I now table the form of receipt for the certificate, the notice given to the traveller, the card posted in border point offices, and a copy of the national registration regulations of 1940, as amended to December 31, 1943.
Hon. R. R. HANSON (York-Sunbury>: First of all, I should like to thank my hon. friend for the celerity with which he moved to get back my certificate. I should like to say also that it takes a jab in the back to get this government to move in connection with anything. I should like to make another observation. 1 would not like the young officer at the border to get into any trouble, but no receipt was given to me for my certificate and none of the formulae which the minister has indicated was gone through with. I doubt if the young man had been supplied with the necessary forms, but of course that is pure conjecture on my part.
This whole thing has served a useful purpose, not only for me personally but in drawing the attention of the public to the situation. I do not share the view that any great national emergency would arise through the loss of my registration certificate should it be taken into the United States. I think this is another case of over-regimentation of the civilian population of Canada by this government.


Mr. LOCKHART:: May I direct a brief
question to the Minister of Labour to clear up one point in connection with this matter

of permits for leaving Canada? I understand the minister to say that the permits to which' he refers are for thirty days and more. Will he be good enough to make sure that no officials are taking up permits for those who are leaving, perhaps just for overnight and coming back the next day? Therein lies confusion, because I have been informed that such things have happened.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to look into that.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) referred to a press report of a statement or an address which had been delivered in Toronto by Major-General Chisholm, director general of medical services. I regret to say that the report would seem to indicate that there was some reflection upon Canadian women in connection with the war. I took the matter up immediately with the director general of medical services and I have his statement which I should like to read to the house. It is as follows:
I regret that the remarks which I made to the Rotary Club in Toronto in a professional address last week-and representing only my own personal views-were misinterpreted as a reflection on the women of Canada.
My theme was the emotional adjustment involved in the transition from civilian to military life and vice versa. I endeavoured to trace these emotional relationships from tribal stages to modern times. It is unfortunate that certain remarks, removed from their context, conveyed impressions which would not have been conveyed had the full text of my address been quoted.
For example, the statement that "in times of stress, such as war, women became a liability" had no reference to the present situation or to the present war, but referred definitely to the women of developing tribes who were unable to fight along with their men when the tribe was threatened. This obviously has no reference to modern times wrherein-in warfare as in peace-women generally are an enormous asset to society.
In so far as references to the present day are concerned, my address was an interpretation of professional findings to an intelligent lay audience. In our professional research we make careful studies and statistical records of cases investigated representing a cross section of the population. Among these are found certain abnormalities, some of wrhich I referred to and described.
It is regretted that the specific cases referred to were given general application to all women in the published report of my address.

Doukhobors
I was deeply concerned about this matter when it came to my attention, and I hope that this statement by General Chisholm will be accepted with the genuine regret which I know he feels that any words of his should be construed as a reflection upon our women folk.
It almost seems to be emphasizing the obvious to try to stress the value of the contribution which the women of Canada make in war, as well as in peace. But in my department we are so conscious of the devotion and the Spartan courage which the women of this country are showing in this time of stress and anxiety that this incident impels me to add a word of my own. Nobody could administer the affairs of the army without knowing that our war activities would have small chance of success if it were not for the fortitude and consecration with which the mothers and wives and sisters and sweethearts of this country encourage their men in the forces and in other tasks of wrar. Here is an extract from a letter written by a mother who acknowledges with thanks the Memorial Cross, which, as she says:
-I received on the anniversary of my son's death. The just pride one feels in being a Silver Cross mother does in some small measure ease the feeling of irreparable loss. David, who W'on the D.F.M. in November 1942, and his commission, was one of three brothers in the air force and one with the navy. One boy has been in Africa since May 1942. A daughter is with No. 15 Hospital in Africa and lately moved on. One boy is in Iceland with a coastal patrol, and one at Victoria. We are the parents of to-day who are looking to a future Canada that will justify the sacrifices being made.
The members of this house know, I am sure, that the spirit of that letter is multiplied in hundreds of thousands of cases across Canada, and I know that they will join me in this simple tribute of grateful appreciation to these noble women of ours whose inspiration challenges every man of us.



DOUKHOBORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, so that I shall not trespass on the rules of the house I wonder if I may have the consent of hon. members to preface a question to the Prime Minister with a very short statement of facts. On Sunday last, as hon. members may have noticed by the press, more than 400 Doukhobors from my district 100-31
of West Kootenay staged a nude parade. Last Friday they burned a school. Two months ago they burned over $100,000 worth of government buildings. It is a way they have of emphasizing their defiance of Canadian law. Most of the older people, the men and the women, dominate and inspire and influence the younger generation to follow the traditions of this religious sect. Ever since they came to Canada in 1898, every federal government has been unable, and has had to admit the humiliation of being unable, to cope with these Doukhobors. All under forty-five years of age are Canadian citizens. Those over forty-five years of age, with the exception of a few who have been naturalized, have no claim to Canadian citizenship.
My question is this: Will.the Prime Minister, through the hon. Mr. Tounkin, the Soviet ambassador to this country, endeavour to arrange with the Soviet government for participation in the deportation and settlement of these Doukhobors-that is to say, of all members of what is known as the Sons of Freedom, and of all other Doukhobors who violate Canadian laws; and will the government negotiate for the settlement of these people in any portion of the Soviet or in any one of the Soviet republics?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has just indicated, Doukhobors who are not citizens of Canada are nationals of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He has suggested that by conference with the Charge d'Affairs of the U.S.S.R. to Canada I might seek to arrange to have these nationals of the U.S.S.R. deported or repatriated to Russia. May I say to my hon. friend that the question is one of what is practicable. To-day it would not be possible to secure the means of transportation or the means of entry into Russia of Russian nationals who are residing in Canada at the present time. Some other means will have to be adopted of controlling them at least until the war is over.



REFERENCE TO PROSECUTION OF ORANGEVILLE DEALERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Finance based on an article appearing in the Orangeville Danner of February 10. The article states that proceedings have been taken by the Guelph branch of the wartime prices and trade board against the

Coal-Orangeville Dealers

firm nf R. D. Bryan & Co., Orangeville fuel dealers, for selling coal above the ceiling price. I quote from the article:
The evidence disclosed that the ceiling price had been broken only when the Toronto suppliers boosted their price 75 cents a ton. When this was done the Bryan Company raised its prices 50 cents a ton, thereby undertaking to absorb one-third of the price increase on its own account, but passing the other 25 cents on to its customers.
The evidence showed that as the Bryans were not importing directly, they were not receiving the dominion coal subsidy of $1.40 a ton, which would have enabled the firm to keep within the ceiling price.
It has been rumoured that the wartime prices and trade board will investigate this case. In the meantime this company, which supply sixty-five per cent of the coal used by the citizens of Orangeville, cannot operate except at a loss, and they have notified their customers and the citizens that they are forced to discontinue business. I would ask the Minister of Finance to investigate this matter immediately and avoid a possible crisis in the fuel supply of Orangeville district.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I shall look into the matter. I am not just sure what the hon. gentleman wants done. Does he want an increase in price authorized for this company?


William Earl Rowe: The company has already been fined $50 for exceeding the ceiling selling price of coal, and without the permission of the board they cannot raise their prices. If they cannot raise their prices they cannot continue in business, which leaves the citizens of Orangeville faced with a serious fuel situation. The coal comes by truck from Toronto.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will bring the matter to the attention of the board.


Gordon Graydon: May I add that this is a matter of great concern to the citizens of Orangeville, and I think an investigation should be made immediately.



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two-Mountains):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). Has the Department of Justice received a letter, dated January 26, 1944, in which Mr. Camillien Houde requested to be released by order in council from an internment camp, in view of the fact that his internment was carried out by means of an order in council?

Hon. LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, the internment of Mr. Camillien Houde was not carried out by means of an order in council. I shall look over the file, in order to see whether we have received from him a letter containing such a statement, and I shall then reply to the hon. member.



WESTERN STOCK FEEDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture relating to the present emergency with respect to fed cattle at Lethbridge which are now ready for market. What steps are being taken to prevent the producer from being compelled to sacrifice these cattle at the "below floor" price at present offered by the packers?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, the provision that is made for the handling of beef cattle was arranged about a year ago. That provision is that there is a floor price under beef and a ceiling price on beef-not on cattle. The ceiling price on beef is set at one level throughout the year. The floor price varies from 2i cents below the ceiling price in the fall to one-quarter of a cent below in the summer. I think the variation at the present time is about three-quarters of a cent. When beef gets down to that price, the board representative of the government purchases the beef and puts it in freezers, freezes it for export to Britain. That is the present arrangement to take care of floor prices in connection with beef. Then there are certain prices which bear a proper relationship, for cattle, to that floor price of beef. My understanding is that in Alberta for about a month's time there has been difficulty in marketing one kind of fed cattle, that is cows; and my information is that there has been considerable improvement in that position recently. The immediate action taken was to examine all the cold storages across Canada that are in proper relationship to killing plants-vegetables, fruits and other commodities have been moved out of storages to take care of some millions of pounds of beef which could be put into those storages- in some of them, now, and in others, very shortly. This arrangement is intended to take care of the situation until such time as sufficient shipping can be secured with which to ship out the meat which has been accumulating in Canada. That is the provision made up to date.

4S3
War Appropriation-Army



SEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I desire to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture based on an announcement made in the legislature of Saskatchewan by the premier of that province. By the way, that legislature met a week ago to-day. The premier announced that the seed grain debt of the farmers in Saskatchewan in respect of grain supplied in 1938 would be reduced to the extent of forty cents per bushel, and that the debt for seed oats would be reduced by eighteen cents per bushel. He also made the statement that this was being done with the approval of the dominion government, and that any farmers who had paid for their seed grain would receive rebates on the basis of forty cents for wheat and eighteen cents for oats. I see that the Minister of Agriculture is pointing his finger at the Minister of Finance; will the Minister of Finance state what portion of this amount will be absorbed by the federal government and what part by the provincial government?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The federal government is not assuming any part of that reduction. I have not seen the statement of the Premier of Saskatchewan, and I do not know, therefore, what he said; but if there is to be a reduction, it is a reduction by the government of Saskatchewan.


Ernest Edward Perley: The premier stated definitely that the dominion government was a party to the arrangement and was assuming part of the cost. The report appears in the Regina Leader Post, which is in the reading room. I will send it-to the minister.


James Lorimer Ilsley: He could not have said that. WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
PROVISION FOjR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR



NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 14, 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. Usley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN:: Item 2, pay and allowances.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We did not pass No. 1.
100-31J


Gordon Graydon: I thought there would be a misunderstanding about this. When the committee rose last night, you, Mr. Chairman, stated that the item would be carried. One of the members of our party made it very clear that we were not allowing that item to carry, and then you called it eleven o'clock. I think we had better have this matter cleared up, because there has been far too much of this "carried" business on the part of the Chair. As soon as anybody sits down, or a moment of silence intervenes, the chairman always calls "carried". It must surely be reasonable to assume that these items 'require a lot of discussion. My only reason for referring to this is to see if things cannot be made a little easier for the Chair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The understanding is that No. 1 is not carried.


Gordon Graydon: No; No. 1 is not carried.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I believe I was on my feet last night at eleven o'clock when progress was reported. I was seeking an answer to a question which, I assume, I can ask to-day.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: While I have no objection to dealing further with item No. 1, I should point out to the committee that I thought the item was carried and that the committee would agree to avoiding the repetition of the general discussion we have had. I believe even the leader of the opposition will agree with me on that score.


Gordon Graydon: It is on the first item
that the general discussion must take place, and that general discussion is not yet completed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I call
attention to the fact that only under item I can there 'be general discussion, and it is open to hon. members to ask any questions and make any speeches under this heading. When we leave No. 1 we are pinned down by the rules to concentrated discussion of the particular item. I think it is well to allow latitude on the first item.


James Layton Ralston: I want my hon. friend to be sure about that. I think he will find that there is a place for everything, and I am sure that "civil salaries and wages" was not intended as a catch-all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
question was asked yesterday, and I understood the minister's reply was that this would be the proper item under which there would be a general discussion. I think I can find it in Hansard.
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: No, there was no suggestion of that. I did call the committee's attention to the fact that we were proceeding item by item, but that we were wandering all over the lot, on the matter of the so-called' home defence army, on questions of medical treatment, and other irrelevant matters, all under this item "civil salaries and wages," although the discussion did not 'belong there at all. I suggest to the committee that if possible discussion be confined as much as may be to the item of "civil salaries and wages." "Pay and allowances" is the widest term, or at least as wide as any, under which almost anything can be discussed provided it has to do with the army-I mean the uniformed men.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
what I understood' the minister to say yesterday.


James Layton Ralston: I think "civil salaries and wages" is a limited item. One hon. member, I believe it was the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), asked why there was an increase in this item of civil salaries and wages, and I was giving an explanation about the time the committee rose.


James Arthur Ross: 
James Layton Ralston: With regard to the first question, whether or not men in "A" category as my hon. friend calls it, are being called, I would point out that there is a difference between being called, that is to say, notified for medical examination, and being enrolled in the army. Requisitions on the Department of Labour by the Department of National Defence are for men of what would be called, under the old classification, "A" category. It may be quite possible that registrars are sending notices to men who are below that category, because they cannot of course determine the category until they come in and are medically examined; but in no cases are we accepting anyone below the equivalent of "B-l" category, which, as my hon. friend knows, is a very high physical category.
With regard to deserters, there are at the present time about 11,000 altogether. I have not the record by district's, but we are getting it. However, there seems to be about an even flow out and in in the months. For instance, in May, 1943 there were 8,958. In June there were 619 who deserted and 560 apprehended; July, 769 deserted and 546 apprehended; August, 822 deserted, 475 apprehended; September, 1,008 deserted, 699 apprehended; October, 716 deserted, and 444 apprehended; November, 913 deserted, 800 apprehended; December, 801 deserted, 316 apprehended; January, 635 deserted, 307 apprehended.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are getting ahead of^you pretty fast.


James Layton Ralston: From May there is a gain of 2,000.


James Arthur Ross: Were those all in Canada?


James Layton Ralston: They would include a few overseas. I wish to give a statement on procedure with reference to absentees and deserters:
On the eighth day of absence the officer commanding the unit issues a descriptive report, showing all details of the man, his physical description, information regarding his home address and places he is likely to visit, etc. This is circulated immediately to:
(1)	N.D.H.Q.
(2)	Provincial and municipal police in the immediate vicinity of the soldier's unit.
(3)	Active units, depots, which might be able to assist in locating the man.
(4)	Civil police in the area to which the soldier may have proceeded.
FEBRUARY 15, 1944	4S5
War Appropriation-Army
(5)	In the event of its being thought that he may have gone to the U.S.A., to the Military Attache Washington, D.C., who attends to circulation through the F.B.I.
(6)	Provost Marshal, District Headquarters.
The return is also circulated to all district and command headquarters in Canada.
Steps Towards Apprehension
(1)	Inquiries are made locally in areas to *which it is thought the deserter may have proceeded.
(2)	Provost personnel work in close cooperation with provincial and municipal police and the R.C.M.P.
(3)	Provost companies have special apprehension squads to apprehend absentees and deserters.
(4)	Provost personnel may be granted permission to wear plain clothes for the purpose of pursuing their inquiries.
(5)	Where considered desirable the next-of-kin are communicated with and are informed of the consequences of continued absence, and that it will ultimately result in the stoppage of dependents' allowance and assigned pay.
Inquiry sometimes show's that a man has reenlisted in another force, in which case consideration is given to the question of which force he shall continue to serve in.
It is impossible to detail the steps taken in each individual case, since each case presents to some extent a special problem and the answer to which is dependent on the extent to which the community can be expected to assist. The methods used in one case will not produce results in another ease, and methods used in one district will not produce results in another district.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about the number of absentees?


James Layton Ralston: After eight days they are all deserters.


James Arthur Ross: I asked the minister about those who had not answered the draft call. It would not include those.


James Layton Ralston: That has nothing to do with my department.


Thomas Langton Church: There are one or two matters I want to discuss with the minister; they relate to several questions that were brought up last year. One of them, has to do with the first and second items regarding pay and allowances and administration. May I refer the minister to a certain matter that came up in the British House of Commons on December 14 last, when Mr. Anthony Eden, speaking for the government on the Cairo conference, made a statement regarding the commitments of Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States in the Pacific in connection with Japan. He said in that debate that while the Pacific being looked upon somewhat as the territory of the United States, which had been looking after that particular work with some assistance, the
Cairo conference had been attended only by Mr. Churchill, Mr. Roosevelt, and the representative of China. He emphasized that the fight with Japan was a fight to the bitter end, whatever the cost might be and howeve' long it might take. I wonder if the peopl of Canada and of Great Britain and of all America are aware of what that will entail in the future, seeing that Russia is not at war with Japan and was not represented at Cairo. That is one matter which I think we should make clear to the people. We should let them know what our commitments will be as to Japan, because even if the war with Germany came to an end, there is no doubt that this other struggle will continue for a considerable time, and we are committed to it on the principle that when Britain is at war Canada is at war; and also we have separately declared war on Japan. We are therefore a belligerent so far as Japan is concerned.
Another question regarding which I should like to get some information from the minister is the matter of embarkation leave, cheaper fares and cheaper meals and berths on trains, better transportation facilities, week-ends in the camps, and the question of bonus, equality of treatment for all ranks and dependents not as a matter of charity.
With regard to the chaplain service, the Lord Archbishop of Huron, who was elected metropolitan of Ontario yesterday, Doctor Seager, made a sensible suggestion recently. At the exhibition camp in Toronto the different branches of the armed services have separate chaplains, and he suggested, as something that would make for economy, that in the larger cities the soldiers should be allowed time off on Sunday morning to attend the church of their own choice instead of one to which they are compelled to go every Sunday. Not only would it be economical but it would be satisfactory to the men themselves. I think that this suggestion should be taken into consideration in revising the regulations with regard to the chaplain service. So far as civilian status goes, the soldier loses all his rights as a citizen once he enlists in the forces. There is no doubt about that. If a soldier is killed the civil authorities cannot hold an inquest. It is prohibited. The soldier cannot even write a letter now. He has to be a major-general to write a letter or make a speech, as was shown yesterday. There seems to be one law for the private and the noncommissioned officer and another law for the other ranks. I am not criticizing the fine officer to whom I referred' last night. I was not able to be here yesterday until very late and did not want to hold up the item. I wish to see the item carry. I do not desire to cast
War Appropriation-Army

any reflection on General Chisholm. He has given his view on leave for soldiers, but he also gave his views last Christmas. He said, in the language of the children, "there ain't no Santa Claus." If he had waited two months and heard the speech from the throne he would have found there was a Santa Claus for every day of the year. I do not believe though that there should be one law for the privates and another law for the other ranks.
I believe there should be better and more holiday leaves and week-end leaves, and there should be no deduction for the time taken travelling from the training centre to the homes of the soldiers. Women are charged $2.05 to go up to Camp Borden and if they have two or three children it takes all the money that the soldier makes in a week to pay the fare. There should be some revision. The railways are making fabulous sums out of this war, and for that reason there should be some reduction in the fares charged the men. When one takes into consideration all the money they are making out of the government surely they can do something to help the soldiers in the camps across Canada. In addition to that, hospital services should be improved and better housing provided.
Mr. Morgenthau, the able treasurer of the United States, went over to Italy last month. When he came back he told a committee of congress what he found there. He said that the soldiers asked him if they were to do the fighting over there in Italy and pay for the war when they came back. He struck out a great many items for home defence. I was surprised to read in the December issue of the report of the National City -bank about the huge reduction in the United States in the home defence items. Hundreds of millions of dollars were cut out of some items. Millions of dollars that appeared in the past fiscal year have not yet been spent and they have been reduced 50 per cent. I appreciate that a home defence army is sometimes necessary, but the camps are filled all over Canada. They are talking about curtailing leave, but some of them from the city of Toronto cannot get home at all as they are in camps all over Canada. A great many in the home defence army could be better employed in industry under selective service, because they are not going overseas. Most of -them are unfit -to go overseas. I believe there should be some reduction.
I am surprised something has not been done about the inequalities in pay. It costs a private just as much for rent, board and food as it does a junior commissioned officer or a senior officer getting $15 or $20 a day. I should think there should be some revision (Mr. Church.]
in so far as selective service is concerned. Nearly three years ago I sent the ministers a copy of the Sparkman bill which was introduced in Washington. My friend from Vancouver South referred to it several times last session, and has taken a great interest in it. I can find no relief along that line at all. Some of the service men will find themselves turned out of their homes on May 1, and -they will not be able to get a house anywhere. I should like to see something done in regard to the housing situation in the city of Toronto. They have been successful to -a certain extent in getting some of these large places converted into apartments for the Wrens and others. I see no reason therefore why the soldiers should be living under such awful conditions as those that exist there at the present time. Counsel should be provided in the law courts for those who get into trouble. I read- in the press that soldiers are appearing in police courts all over the country. Nobody appears for them. An officer may say lie has been a good soldier. Without hearing him at all the accused is sent down. Some of these men are in gaols in the province of Ontario that have been condemned as unfit for civilians. Why should they be used for soldiers.
I have pressed now for four years or more the matter of a national system of insurance for soldiers. If it was successful in the United States in the last war, I am sure it would be successful in Canada. If it were not for the opposition of the insurance companies I believe we would long ago have had a national system of insurance which would take care of unemployment after the war and provide some remuneration for the soldier. I brought this matter up three years ago and it was frowned on by the Minister of Finance. I have also referred to the matter of a records office. I think it is too bad that we cannot obtain from the records office the number of men who have enlisted from the different municipalities in Canada. The municipalities will require that to deal with unemployment after the war. The victory loan people can tell you how much money has been contributed daily by every municipality in Canada. Why can we not cooperate with them and have a similar system of records? I admit the minister has done some good work, but it is almost an impossible task to do it all. I admit he has made some improvement. It is too bad we cannot get this information. Soldiers from all over Canada are enlisting in the city of Toronto. When the war is over they will head for Toronto. Our military district gets no credit for it in the records. The municipal authorities are entitled to know what men have enlisted and their place of

War Appropriation-Army
abode. How can they get that if there is no records office? There is no doubt about the contribution of Canada to the war effort, but I should like to point out that last June I asked the minister if he would give some explanation why, when General Montgomery marched across the desert to meet the American forces, there were no Canadians along with him. The minister was going to reply when the Speaker interrupted him on the orders of the day, saying that it should be put on the order paper, and it was never answered. I believe the people of Canada are entitled to have some information about the Cairo conference. This committee does not know one thing about what happened at Cairo; neither does anyone else in Canada.
Mr. Churchill made changes in British generals in the darkest hour of the war in Africa. General Wavell was transferred, General Auchinlech and General Ritchie were removed, and Generals Montgomery and Alexander were put in charge and then marched nearly 3,000 miles across the desert. There were no Canadians with him. I asked the minister where they were. Were they tied up in the old country? I do not wish to criticize the minister; far from it. I know he is a hard-working minister. I do not wish to bring into the debate anything that is not regular. I believe the people of Canada should know something about it. After all, who is paying for the war? It is the people of Canada. Why should this information be kept in the secret office of some minister and some deputy minister and not given to parliament, as in England?
I have read the debates of the British House of Commons. Last year I sent a copy of the British Hansard to the minister. Major-General Markland, V.C., had returned from the front. He criticized the government of which he is a supporter. Mr. Churchill replied the next day in the house giving a full statement of the facts. I urge the minister to take note of these matters and make a statement on them before the resolution passes. In these days the rights and privileges of the private members are curtailed, so much so that if, under the political system we have in this country, a member rises and criticizes the government, he has not much chance. He is a marked man, if he criticizes it at all, and in so far as any promotion is concerned, it is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for him to look for any relief or get any information in the house.
The minister, as I have said, is a hard-working man. I hope he will give some attention to the matters I have raised. I trust that he will give relief such as that prvoided by the Sparkman Act, which I proposed three years
ago. I sent a copy of that act to the minister, and my friend from Vancouver South gave an elaborate explanation of it to the house last year.


James Layton Ralston: I shall take into consideration what my hon. friend has said on a number of subjects. I promised him last night that I would see if I could not get him a new comparative statement with regard to pay and allowances and benefits, similar to the one which was furnished last year. I think v.hen I do that, the matter of inequalities in pay, and some other matters to which he has referred, will perhaps appear in a form which would render discussion of them somewhat easier. We will see if inequalities still exist.
I am referring my hon. friend, for the purposes of the record, to a return made to an order of the House of Commons. No. 151, dated March 26, 1942, and I would ask him if that is the form in which he wishes to have a further return and a further comparison and compilation.
My hon. friend, too, has discussed very often the matter of leave. There was one matter I promised last session to take into consideration. I have in mind the suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Casselman) with regard to reductions in railway fares. A suggestion was made that there should be some sort of ceiling on these fares. What the hon. member probably had in mind was a zone system under which anyone moving m any part of a certain zone would pay a certain flat rate. That did not commend itself to those who were discussing the matter, because it meant that one soldier would really be paying for another soldier's fare. Perhaps I might have misunderstood her suggestion, but arising out of her representation, we have been working with the railway companies-and I cannot say more than that-on a variation of the same idea, to see if there is any possibility of establishing a ceiling for these one-third fare leaves, that is, a maximum above which no soldier would have to pay, regardless of distance. This would mean a contribution by either the railway company or the government toward making up the deficiency created by such underpayment. I say that matter is under discussion, and I may add for the benefit of the hon. member who has just spoken that that is the only thing now under discussion in connection with a reduction in railway fares.
As a matter of fact, as my hon. friend probably knows, in the United States fares are paid by the soldier. There is no contribution made by the government in respect of fares on leave warrants. We are considerably
War Appropriation-Army

ahead of that in Canada, and I think generally speaking the system we have has worked well.
If I understood correctly my hon. friend's suggestion in respect of chaplain services, it was to the effect that instead of there being compulsory church parades the men should be allowed to attend the churches of their choice. Speaking for myself, and having regard to my experience in the last war, I am not so sure whether I would have attended church very often if left to my own volition. As a matter of fact I thought church parade was a pretty good sort of moral and disciplinary measure. At the same time I would say to him that in Toronto, and other places where there are many churches, I am sure a man would have the'right to go to any church he might select, and that compulsory church parades in depots or establishments where there were large numbers of men might be held at certain stated periods. That is so in Ottawa, and I believe ii is so in Toronto. Where there are church parades they are generally just Protestant or Roman Catholic parades. The different Frotestant denominations do not divide up and have different parades.
The matter of housing is a bit out of my bailiwick, but- I am tremendously interested in housing for soldiers' dependents. My hon. friend pointed out that the navy had such housing accommodation in Toronto. I think he must have meant the barracks on the lake shore front. In that respect the army has exactly the same sort of provision in its establishment at the Exhibition grounds, Toronto. Regarding houses for soldiers' dependents, in every case where it has been brought to the attention of the government I have endeavoured to take an interest, and I have been able to get from the wartime housing commission a certain number of houses for the use of municipalities. I refer, of course, to municipalities where wartime housing is taking place. That is the sort of municipality in which there is likely to be a scarcity of houses. We have been able to get from the commission a certain number of houses for the use of such municipalities in order that they may be put at the disposal of soldiers' dependents.
The matter of legal aid has been mentioned. May I at this point express a word of appreciation to the Canadian Bar Association for a very forward and useful step they have taken in providing legal aid for soldiers. Committees have been appointed in the larger towns, and a routine has been established whereby if a man wishes legal assistance he speaks to his commanding officer, or the officer next in charge, and the matter is looked into. Immediately he is put in touch with some member of the Canadian Bar Association who 	'	.	1
has volunteered to do that kind of work. It is something the same as legal aid which is provided in the United Kingdom.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And a very commendable step on the part of the bar association.


James Layton Ralston: I might say-and perhaps this is an advance announcement; it has just been authorized, although I do not think it is yet in orders-that the Canadian Bar Association have offered to go further and provide legal aid for dependents as well. That offer has been accepted by the department. I would expect it to be ratified and the arrangements completed at a meeting to be held shortly by the Canadian Bar Association representatives.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister might also add, for the benefit of the public,, that this is a gratuitous service offered by a profession which is often accused of being very mercenary.


James Layton Ralston: I am glad, on behalf of my hon. friend's profession and mine, to add that word. Of course, if a millionaire were to come along and ask for legal aid, I would imagine that in such circumstances an honorarium, let us say, would be accepted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a good term.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is quite right when he says that this is a gratuitous service furnished for those who are not in a position to provide legal aid for themselves, or who do not have the money necessary for that purpose. This is done by men of standing in the profession, who give exactly the-same service in these cases as they would give to their regular clients. As I say, they have been expanding, rather than contracting, in this very worthy and helpful service to men and women of the armed forces.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
correct.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Does the soldier who is brought before a civil court have to request the military authorities for legal assistance, or is that provided under K.R. & 0?


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend referring to a criminal case?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes, where a soldier gets into trouble, and is apprehended by the civil authorities.


James Layton Ralston: The bar association provision does not deal with criminal cases.

War Appropriation-Army


George Hugh Castleden: If the soldier makes a request for legal aid, does he get it?


James Layton Ralston: Well, I cannot tell my hon. friend' there is a system in that respect.
I know that in serious cases that is so. If my hon. friend is referring to the ordinary police court case, then I am not in a position to say what the situation is. I can say however that he would be provided with a soldiers' friend in the person of a member of the service who is a barrister. He would not be provided with a civilian lawyer at the expense of the government.


George Hugh Castleden: Does he have to request that?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. In some way information would have to be given to the commanding officer that the assistance is required.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps I might add a word, because in my own office I have made arrangements for assistance to soldiers in connection with court martials and charges laid in the civil courts. I understand arrangements are being completed whereby a man who needs legal assistance will get it. I refer, of course, to a man who cannot pay. I am glad to add my word of commendation to the legal profession. Many of the members of the bar who are offering their services are veterans of the last war and understand the situation very well. Although they may be busy men, they are glad to assist.
I had intended to take some part in the discussion on this resolution, from the general point of view, but I regret to tell the committee that I do not feel physically capable of entering upon any extended remarks. However, there are a few specific subject matters which I wish to call to the attention of the minister and headquarters. They may require some explanation and perhaps some remedial measures or changes in the future.
There is one matter which I should like to deal with at some length if I were capable, but I just cannot do it. I refer to certain courts martial which were held in my city a few weeks ago. The minister was good enough to order that investigation at my request, but I must express surprise at the outcome. I would point out to the minister that some change is necessary in the methods adopted for the examination of men, similar to the one known to us. I am not going to mention the name of the man or of the officers or of anybody else. The fact would appear to be that there were not enough officers to go round, that the panel of doctors operating at the military district depot in question was small in number, and under the system in vogue, 100-32
I believe it is called the Pulhems system, there were not enough doctors to do the necessary work.
I am afraid that in a desire to get in recruits there was not sufficient attention given to all the medical aspects of this man who had been drafted into the army. The result in the particular case was certainly disastrous. I am not going to attempt to allocate the blame, because I could not possibly read all the evidence. The sad part is that the man left no dependents, and there is no remedy in civil law, because there is no one living who sustained any damage. I suggest that if the authorities have not changed the practice and system, it should be done at once. I understand from a newspaper * report that because of the incidence of the case in question the practice has been changed, and I shall look for specific improvement. This man was inducted into the army and he notified the officer he was diabetic. The officer disregarded the warning and this man was dead within thirty hours. The officer was acquitted. I am not going to refer to this again; I am not asking the minister to do anything, I am only hoping that his officers may draw a lesson from what has happened.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer briefly, and that is the withdrawal from the Canadian army overseas of some 2,000 foresters who were volunteers. The alacrity with which the young men of New Brunswick who were experienced woodsmen acceded to the call of the government to join the forestry corps reflects nothing but credit upon them. I assume that the purpose of this corps was a useful one, that they did useful work overseas and that as the war is not yet won there will be necessity still for cutting timber. This would seem to be so because a large number are still being retained on the other side at that work. I do not think we can make any other assumption.
One day last autumn the men in certain camps in Scotland were paraded1-I cannot vouch for the truth of the report, but I think there is a large element of truth in it- and 2,000 of them were told they would have to come back to Canada. As I understand it, not one man wished to return to this country. However, the 2.000 men were brought to Canada in the fall of 1943 along with their full complement of officers. I suggest to the minister that no matter how meritorious or good the object of this move may have been, it has failed. There has been a useless expenditure of the taxpayers' money, and there is great dissatisfaction over what happened

War Appropriation-Army

among the personnel. They cannot understand why 2,000 of them have been withdrawn from overseas service. They feel that if they were not required in forestry work in Scotland they could have done useful work as auxiliary troops, thus avoiding the necessity of transporting men and women from this side to do that sort of work overseas. That is one of their complaints. However, their main complaint is the manner in which they were used after they came to this country. I want to be frank with the minister and the committee and say that I have not been able to obtain corroborative evidence to support the statements contained in a communication which I received from a non-commissioned officer and from which I intend to quote. This man came back to Canada against his will. I understand he asked for and received his discharge and is now in civilian life. Unfortunately his communication came to me while I was absent from home and I did not see it until the end of January. On December 27 he wrote me, approaching me as the representative of the constituency of York-Sunbury; I received his communication in -that capacity and I now present his position to the committee. This is what he said in the opening paragraph:
As the representative for York-Sunbury I would like to draw to your attention some of the salient facts re the return of a part of the Canadian forestry corps to Canada. To my mind, and I have every reason to believe that this is the opinion of a great majority of the men, we have been given a deal since returning to Canada that the citizens of this country should know about, so that in future men returning to Canada will be used as men who volunteered and went overseas to do their humble part have the right to expect, and which we are sure the vast majority of our citizens expect them to have.
I approach the consideration of this matter on the basis of this man's declaration that they had not been used properly on their return to this country. I continue:
We landed in Canada in October after a good trip, with good food, and so forth, aboard ship. We were entrained for Debert camp. We arrived there around six thirty in the evening to find cold huts, no hot water in the huts and no rations drawn. Mind you, sir, this is a body of nearly two thousand men without rations.
Just imagine that situation!
After a time blankets were drawn and men were detailed-
Mind you, this zombie army in Canada was detailed to have this camp ready for these hungry men coming from an eastern Canadian port late in the day, and when the men came in to the camp they found it cold and empty.
After a time blankets were drawn; men detailed to get fires going. About nine o'clock we were told supper was ready. Personally I
[Mr. R. B. Hanson.1
did not go to the mess hall, as like many more the inner man called long before this and I had gone to the war services canteen and had a good lunch. I might just mention here that officers had -to eat there as well as on the first night.
Of course I do not think that hurt the officers a bit.
We had been split up in strange companies overseas and were more or less unacquainted with the personnel of our company.
He just mentions that in passing.
We were there from Tuesday until Saturday night. During Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday it was as near a mob as one could ever hope to see.
I can visualize the situation of these men, and I call the minister's attention to this:
First you would be called for a parade. No sooner on parade than ordered to return to your huts for further orders. And so it continued the whole time. They were at that time trying to get us broken down from companies to our military district depots. As an example, No. 7 district depot %vas called to parade at 7 a.m. in the drill hall with our blankets to turn in. We were then very much in the way of the various district depots west of military district No. 7. However, by moving us from one corner to another many times the other districts got formed up and moved out; this was around 12.00 noon. We were told then to break off and return at 1 p.m., which we did. From 1 p.m. till
3.30	p.m. we did get our blankets turned in and formed up in formation. We were to move off that evening.
I suggest that there was very bad management on the part of those administering this dispersal.
I have cited this one instance, which is true and can be verified by any man there, as an example of the start we made in Canada. Also to just let you think how the men were feeling after four days of absolute inefficiency from start to finish.
That is the charge of this non-commissioned officer.
Through it all the men were remarkably well behaved and they had far more than their share of grievances.
And now for a brighter side of the picture. We left Debert on Saturday night between 8 and 9 o'clock after four hungry days. We left. I might add, with no regrets, and with a feeling of being badly let down by the powers that be.
We arrived in Fredericton the next morning, and this was a treat; for we were taken right to the depot, given a good breakfast, and by
8.30	a.m. they had us on first parade. From that until 3.30 p.m. we went through the various branches, medical, pay, quartermaster, etc., were given our fourteen day leave and any that could got to their homes that day. Personally my pride returned a good deal to see at least our own depot handled in such a highly efficient manner.
I pause here to say to the minister that I believe the administration officer at No. 7 depot, Fredericton, is a first-class administration officer. I have heard no complaints about

War Appropriation-Army
him. I believe he endeavours to do his level best under circumstances that at times may be very difficult and trying, and I have never heard any complaint against him. I am glad to pay him that tribute.
On our return from leave, we were in Fredericton a week and each day made us forget Debert and appreciate district depot No. 7. We were informed we were going to Sussex, which we did on November 15.
I suppose this is all military routine, but just mark this. In order to get to Fredericton they would have to go through Sussex. Now if they were going to Sussex for dispersal, one would think the business-like thing to do would be to stop at Sussex instead of going on through Sussex to Fredericton and then being brought back to Sussex again. That would have meant a considerable saving of money. He goes on; speaking of the camp at Sussex:
The camp was ready and rations drawn. But imagine our surprise to find not only the maritime and Quebec men there but some from as far west as Winnipeg. Altogether there were between 700 and 800 men.
I call the minister's particular attention to this next statement:
The next morning we were called together and an unsigned document was read to us. I enclose this unsigned document minus paragraphs 6 and 7.
My curiosity is piqued as to what paragraphs 6 and 7 were. I have before me a copy of this unsigned document. It is headed "General Information," and reads:
You have been returned to Canada to assist in increasing the production and export to the United Kingdom of vitally needed lumber.
2.	It is the belief of the government departments concerned that you can probably make the best contribution by returning to lumbering operations, with civilian firms.
Very good. If the conditions were right, that was a proper objective, assuming that the men were needed in Canada.
3.	You may apply for and receive leave of absence without pay-to be known as "forestry leave." If you do this you will have to proceed to such lumbering operations as national selective service officials may direct. National selective service will explain conditions of pay and employment to you and will give consideration to placing you with your former employer, if you so desire, or in the locality for which you express a preference. You will understand that this will not be possible in every case. They will endeavour to secure the most favourable conditions of employment for you.
4.	If you accept forestry leave you remain on the strength of the army but return to work on a temporary civilian basis, taking your own chances in regard to earnings.
Note that, please.
109-32i
You will be given an initial free outfit of outer clothing and footwear as required by your employment. You will, while on such leave cease to draw any army pay and allowances (including dependents' allowance).
Note that. These men are still in the army, but at the same time they are not in the army. They must take' their chances. They are brought back to help the war effort as soldiers. That is my appreciation of the situation, and if I am wrong the minister will correct me. I am simply giving my own interpretation of the position. They are brought back as soldiers, as enlisted volunteers-not draftees, remember-to assist in a vital war effort. But then the army tells them: While you are in the army you will return' to work on a temporary civilian basis, taking your own chances in regard to earnings, and you will be given thus and so.


James Layton Ralston: If you ask for leave.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is what it says in the "General Information."


James Layton Ralston: I know, but you are not in the army if you ask for leave out of the army and you get civilian pay.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But they were brought back to produce lumber as part of the war effort. This is one of the things they complain of. They say this was done under false pretences.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: How does the man's family live until he draws his first civilian pay?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to know. I do not want to get into a row about this thing, and I do not want to be too harsh or rough in my judgment. I am going to leave it to the minister to straighten it out. It goes on:
You will while on such leave cease to draw any army pay and allowances (including dependents' allowance). You will not be eligible for army medical or dental treatment. You will not be eligible for any army pension if killed or incapacitated. You will, however, be subject to the provisions of any provincial compensation act which may apply to your employment.
No thanks to the army for that, because the civilian laws provide for it.
You will have the right to apply for cancellation of your forestry leave to return to army employment.
That, of course, is quite proper.
If you take this you will be placed on such duties as your commanding officer may order.
I ask the minister if that statement which this man says was read to them was put out by the army and under army orders. Then I
War Appropriation-Army

ask him to read to the committee, or hand to me to foe read, sections 6 and 7, which this unsigned document contained but which my correspondent did not enclose to me. I have no doubt what was in it.


James Layton Ralston: What was the date of the
circular?


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is
no date on it; 'but it was read to them. What I have is a mimeographed copy of a typewritten document, with no date on it, headed "General Information," read to these men on parade at camp Sussex the morning after they arrived', which, I gathered from this letter would be November 16. This is his observation with regard to paragraphs 6 and 7:
It appears that paragraphs 6 and 7 must have been too unwholesome even for an unsigned document.
Well, that is his observation.


James Layton Ralston: Your correspondent is
saying that?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.
Well, we went to the selective service men. They were only interested in the lumbering industry and of course had no instructions at that time to handle other occupations. Of course, all forestry leave forms and conditions will be procurable for you if you wish to look into the matter.
I have not had an opportunity to do that, and I have not done it.
Things went on like this for several days, with men applying for leave and getting it for lumbering. There were many who wanted to get back to other lines of work-mining, fishing, farming, railroading, etc.
I believe this man is a railroad man.
After a time selective service was allowed to place miners and farmers. Then along came our army examiners for our "M" test and interview

I believe that is an. intelligence test, is it not?
-which many of us had in Scotland. The examiner told us the papers had been lost, so our intelligence was to be tested again. They worked hard and rushed us through, gave us all a very cheerful story and led us to believe we would soon foe placed where we wanted to go and were needed the worst. As the returns came back, drafts started moving to their various depots. Hopes were high that we would all be in our depots before Christmas, so as to have Christmas or New Year's at home.
Some of these men have been overseas since the very start of the forestry corps, which, I believe was early in 1940, or perhaps before. .
When we were reduced to a mere handful of men-
This is still at camp Sussex.

-we were told some had to remain and furnish a guard for the camp during the holiday season. Two N.C.O.'s and twenty-four other ranks were attached to No. 6 employment company for this purpose.
I call attention to the next paragraph:
We all agree and know that duties must continue at all times. What we cannot understand is why we are chosen on our return-
And) I interpolate this-after four years overseas-
-for this, as there is a battalion of trainees here, namely the Edmonton Fusiliers.
These men., I understand, were trainees called up under the National. Resources Mobilization Act, and were not going overseas unless they volunteered.
The men think, and not without good reasons, that it is a rank bit of discrimination as between the volunteers returning and the men drafted for home service only.
These men were obliged to perform in the holiday season the camp duty, and there was a battalion of draftees in the same camp.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Had they had a leave home by that time?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, they got their first fourteen days. But this was the Christmas holiday. These men were waiting to be placed by national selective service or to be allowed to withdraw from the army, get their discharges and go to their civilian occupations. I suppose that that was the worst insult of all. I really think that that was the greatest degradation to which these men felt that they could be submitted, that they would have to do fatigue duty- if that is the right term

in that camp, of Which these draftees, who were going to do nothing but train, train, train, were relieved. I 'realize this is a very touchy subject, but it has been hidden all too long and might just as well be cleared up now. It shows the temper of these men who are volunteers with respect to those who are not, and I believe the minister should take note of that. Then I call his attention to the next paragraph:
For as sure as the sun rises, on the ending of this war and the return of our fighters from the various services, it has got to be faced. . . . I realize that some of the complaints may seem trivial to a civilian, but a continuous stream of these small things day after day soon builds up to things which are far from trivial. There are instances, sir, by the score I could cite you. However, I hope to be able to call on you before you go to Ottawa, if you care to have any more details.
I did not get this in time to see the writer. I knew him in civilian life before be enlisted.

War Appropriation-Army
He realizes that he may be assuming some responsibility in making the statements contained in this letter. In the latter part of it he says:
I fully realize I am leaving myself open in writing you this, but if it is necessary to tell your source of information I am perfectly willing that you use my name, if in doing so it will clear up what will soon be a very serious situation.
And he signs his name.


James Layton Ralston: He is a non-commissioned officer, not an officer?


Richard Burpee Hanson: He was a non-commissioned officer. I understand he got his discharge subsequently and is now back in civilian service. I hope he is immune to the wrath of the powers that be, because if he is still in the army he might still have cause to fear it.


James Layton Ralston: Their wrath is not half as great as the wrath of my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We will say that it is simulated to quite a large extent. I am going to hand this letter to the minister. It will have served a good purpose if I have called his attention to the serious implications underlying it as to the treatment of returned men by his department, and in particular, the treatment of this large group of returned men who did not want to come back at all. I think the minister knows that; if he does not he is hearing it now.
A delegation consisting of a number of officers from this group came to see me. They are still kicking their heels around the district depot. They are all young men. One of them is a civil engineer, and I am in high hopes that he will be transferred to the pioneers, because he is capable and he certainly would be an efficient young officer in the engineers. If there are to be promotions I suggest to headquarters that they could usefully employ him because he has had experience. Other fellows are waiting to be placed and have not been placed. At any rate, the rank and file of these men think they have a grievance and many of them have. The worst thing, I think, was the failure of the administrative authorities in military district No. 6 to provide for their reception at Debert. It seems to me that is inexcusable. There may be an answer; I do not know. You ask men to come home-what a homecoming for 2,000 men. They come ashore looking forward to some days' leave and are put in a cold camp without" rations or blankets for four days. They got the blankets and rations, of course, but there was, as he said, the best exhibition of a mob for four days.
Somebody is to blame. I do not say it is the minister; not at all. He is only the spokesman for the department and the person to whom I am making these representations in the hope that the administrative staff in Halifax will be put on the carpet for this. They are the people I am gunning for, if I may put it that way. I do not know who they are and I do not care.
The minister ought to have occasional shake-ups in the administrative staffs, and I would like to be taken as saying that I do not think that applies to our district depot; for I have given myself a certificate of character. And Colonel MacDougall, by the way, is not a supporter of mine.


Mr. BRUCE:: In spite of that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In spite of that. There are some good ones, you know. He is a very decent man, I think, and has had wide administrative experience both in the last war and in this. I hope I have not been too severe in putting forward this case, but I know this man. I have faith that he is telling the truth. I have not had the privilege of an interview with him since this letter came, and I am going to send the letter to the minister and ask him to do what he has been good enough to do for me on more than one occasion-to have an investigation made into such complaints in the hope that there will be no repetition of this sort of thing, in the hope that those who are responsible for inefficiency are dealt with.. I was going to say brass hats, but I will not say that. You know, it is fashionable to throw mud at the general staff, but I do not believe ini that. They are doing the duty that is assigned to them and many of them are very efficient. I must pay a tribute to the courtesy with which they have always received me on any occasion I had to go to them, not for my own purposes, but on behalf of anyone who has written to me. I am not throwing mud at the general staff, but I think there are occasions when it would be well for the minister to know that there are charges of inefficiency in the administration of his far-flung department, and in his heart I know he would be glad to have representations made to him if based on proper evidence or allegations, so that he can shake up the administration.
Whatever you may say about the Hong Kong investigation, I notice that the minister did shake up some of these departments, and there were people who took their departure from headquarters. Perhaps there are others who should do likewise in consequence of the same thing. That was one thing that came out of the Hong Kong investigation.
War Appropriation-Army

The minister said his department was never static. I hope that has been true at all times, but I notice that they move more quickly when something happens to arouse their attention. That may be a blessing in disguise. I make this submission to the minister, and I do not think he should be called upon to reply now, but I would ask him to investigate the matter. I do not want to give it further publicity but I ought to call attention to it. I think the state of inefficiency that is exhibited there is inexcusable, and the manner in which the men were handled when they got to Sussex is more or less inexcusable.
I would like to know what the attitude of the department was towards bringing these men back to Canada. For, believe me, not one of them wanted to come back to Canada. Whether they were right in that point of view I do not know. They were soldiers and had to obey orders. I believe they were represented as volunteering to come home; I understand they were asked if they would like to come. I tell you that there was nothing voluntary about it. They were paraded and they had to come home even under the guise of volunteering. That is what has been reported to me, and I do not want anyone from headquarters to say that these men all voluntarily came home, because I think that is far from the truth.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend was good enough to say that I could leave the matter until after making further investigation-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Surely.


James Layton Ralston: -and I shall have to do that in connection with two or three matters, particularly of administration. I do want to tell the committee, however, what the situation was with respect to the return of that corps and its employment here. The return of approximately 2,000 men of the Canadian Forestry Corps in the fall of 1943 was the result of communications between the ministry of supply in Great Britain and the ministry of munitions and supply here and the Department of National Defence. The question was where the most timber could be produced. Up to the early summer of 1943 the situation had been that it was better to produce timber in the United Kingdom even though it could not be produced at the same rate, since the stands were very much smaller there than in Canada, particularly on our west coast. It was felt better to produce the timber there and save the shipping that would be required in taking Canadian timber over. It was realized, however, that the operation was not altogether, shall I say, commercially and economically sound because of the small size of the timber there and the smaller number of
(Mr. It, B. Hanson.]
superficial feet which were produced per head under those conditions. Munitions and Supply here considered that the timber supply in Canada required a substantially increased output and they asked that the members of the Canadian Forestry Corps be returned for that purpose.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was Munitions and Supply?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. The matter was taken up with the appropriate authorities in the United Kingdom, the department of supply there, and it was agreed that this could be done on the condition of fixing a certain number of tons. The timber was counted in tons, as members of the committee know, and it was agreed that a certain number of tons per year should be fixed as the minimum which they hoped Canada could produce. It was under those circumstances that the Department of National Defence expressed willingness to bring back 2,000 men of the Canadian Forestry Corps for the purpose of cutting timber here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I admit that no complaint could be found with that. I admit that right off.


James Layton Ralston: We realized from the start that there would be difficulty in connection with employing these men and we tried to give them notice well ahead. I am interested in what my hon. friend says with regard to the men being paraded overseas. I know exactly where they were. Several hon. members have visited them over there, and I must confess that I do not think I would like to leave that particular spot myself, because it is a very attractive place.


Mr. SENN:: Will the minister say whether bushmen were picked out?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is anticipating me; however, I can answer the question now. As my hon, friend knows, in these forestry companies there is a considerable percentage of tradesmen, mechanics. These men are used for the purpose of handling not only the saws and machinery but the mechanized transport. I have seen them in the lumbering operations in the United Kingdom. They were employing what, in the presence of some hon. members from British Columbia, I would call the high-line system of lumbering. We do not know very much about that in the east. It is used particularly in connection with larger timber. They had the very best equipment possible. There were a certain number of tradesmen among the men who came here; whether they volunteered to come, as my hon. friend points out,

War Appropriation-Army
or whether they were ordered, I am not able to say at the moment. A large percentage of the men who came here were general duty personnel.


Richard Burpee Hanson: General
duty men.


James Layton Ralston: General duty men who were not tradesmen in the sense in which one refers to a motor mechanic or a sawyer, for instance, as a tradesman. There wras a larger percentage of general duty men than of tradesmen. I do not know whether these men were asked to volunteer to come or not. There was no reason under the terms of their service to ask them to volunteer to come home any more than there would be a reason for asking the men in England to volunteer to go to Italy; that is to say, an order would be issued stating that this was the place to go. They enlisted in the Canadian army for general service. They were put in the forestry corps because they were especially useful there. I cannot tell the committee at this stage whether or not the order was given that they come or whatever attention was paid to the desire of the particular individual. I have an idea that probably an attempt was made to find out whether the men wanted to go or not, and to let those go who would like to go, but I would not want to take issue with a member of the contingent. I would expect there would be a certain number in the group who would welcome the opportunity to come back to Canada. That was the situation, and that was the purpose for which they came.
With regard to the reception at Debert, all I can say to my hon. friend at this stage is- and I do not want this to be understood as the last word-that what he says sounds to me like bad staff work. There is usually something to be said on the other side. I happen to know the commanding officer of that particular camp, and I would want to reserve judgment until I had an investigation made, which I assure my hon. friend will be made very quickly. I have the documents before me. These men arrived on October 19, and the next morning at least this attention was paid to them. They had not just simply a camp staff there. They had a fairly sizable staff. The director of administration there, also, was Major D. Drummond; Major C. L. Code, of the directorate of organization; Mr. E. K. Marsh, of the Department of Labour; Mr. F. E. Hall, of the Department of Munitions and Supply, with ten trained civilian interviewers assisted by unit officers who interviewed all the men there before they were dispatched to the depots for disembarkation leave. That sounds as if some attention
was paid to the welfare of these men and that a businesslike attempt was made to find out where they fitted into Canada's lumbering economy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not the point at issue. The point at issue is their physical comfort.


James Layton Ralston: I say that was the next
morning. Whether or not they bad blankets as soon as they arrived or whether they had to get them, I do not know; whether rations were drawn or not is another question. I can hardly credit the statement which is made that rations were not drawn for these men because they would be at Halifax and notice would be given by M.D. No. 6, to the army service corps, and rations should have been drawn for them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They
should1 have been ready.


James Layton Ralston: I shall reserve judgment
on that. Next morning, as I say, these men were brought in for the purpose of interview. The gentleman who writes the letter speaks of there being a mob. There again I cannot conceive ot Brigadier Colquhoun, who was in charge of the camp there, permitting any kind of mob.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He says
it was as near to a mob as one could ever hope to see.


James Layton Ralston: I cannot conceive Brigadier Colquhoun permitting any sort of mob in the camp. I know Brigadier Colquhoun quite well. He has had service overseas in this war as well as in the last. Brigadier Colquhoun is in charge of the training brigade at the present time and was previously in charge of a brigade out west. I am not going to say that it did not take place. As I say, I reserve judgment. Then the men received disembarkation leave; that is to say, every man from Debert went to his depot, that is, the depot in his home district from which he took leave. That was the reason why the New Brunswick boys would go to Fredericton and go out from the depot there. Their leave would be properly noted on their documents there and the railway warrants would be given them to go to their homes, wherever they may be. They received1 fourteen days' leave and then they came back. The New Brunswick boys would go to Sussex. The other boys would go to their own particular concentration centres. As I remember it, the arrangement was that there were two concentrations. There was one at Sussex for the men from the east, and one at Camrose, Alberta, for the men from the west. Here is where the trouble arose.
War Appropriation-Army

The Canadian army could detail these men for lumbering by companies just as it did in the United Kingdom. They could form any special units they desired. The Canadian army took that authority under an order in council which was passed for that purpose. As a matter of fact, they did not need any order in council at all. What was wanted by the operators in the west, and the eastern operators fell in with them, was that these men would go to them as civilians, work at the same job they had worked at before and be paid civilian pay.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the minister a question right there. Was it not first suggested by the lumber operators in eastern Canada that they should! take these men as army men and pay all that the army had paid them and all the collateral benefits, and that they refused? They simply would not take them under these circumstances.


James Layton Ralston: I shall come to that. That was the net result in the east and the west, as a matter of fact. The army was prepared to detail these men to go into these different companies and1 operate in the woods. The instructions to the district were prepared by the Department of National Defence providing for the detailing of soldiers on forestry duty. The plan was not put into effect because of objections raised by the Department of Labour and the British Columbia operators. Representatives of the British Columbia operators informed the interdepartmental committee, that is a committee consisting of Labour, National Defence.and Munitions and Supply and a representative of the timber controller-that union activities in British Columbia logging camps made it impossible for them to accept soldiers detailed as such for duty in British Columbia. The only way they could accept soldiers was by their applying for and being granted leave of absence without pay and allowances, the soldiers to receive the same rate of wages as civilians.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister interpret that to mean that the unions refused to work with men in uniform?


James Layton Ralston: I am reading what I have here. As a matter of fact, I was overseas at the time this took place. I understand that it does not mean that the unions refused to work with men in uniform but that the unions were complaining that men in uniform were receiving pay fpr certain work at a different rate of pay compared with the rates being paid to the civilian operator. The Department of Labour concurred in this view. It was pointed out by the representatives of the Department of Labour that to detail soldiers for duty in 
eastern Canada on soldiers' pay and allowances would probably cause dissatisfaction among civilian woods workers because the earnings of civilian workers, generally speaking, were, it was said, less than the pay and allowances of a soldier.
The timber controller expressed himself on various occasions as being in favour of employing forestry corps personnel only on a leave without pay and allowances basis, employed as individuals in existing logging camps, and paid by the operators at the same rate as civilians.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the minister a question right there. Why were these things not all threshed out before the country went to the expense of bringing these men out?


James Layton Ralston: Because of the fact-


Richard Burpee Hanson: They did not give any consideration to that situation at all?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, consideration was
given-there were communications between the departments, and it was expected that this could be arranged so that these men could be detailed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not with
the operators, anyway.


James Layton Ralston: I am talking now of the timber controller of the Department of Munitions and Supply. I am not blaming them but we all assumed it could be worked out. The result was, as I say, that it meant that the way to employ these men was by giving them leave.
My hon. friend suggests that these men were hurt. A lot of men wanted to do things other than taking leave for the purpose of working in the woods.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
true, and they did not like the conditions.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. These were the alternatives for the men:
(a)	Forestry leave for all wishing same;
(b)	Men of suitable rank, age and Pulhems profile for overseas service in another arm to be given opportunity to transfer;
(c)	Veterans of 1914-18 to have' the privilege of transferring to veterans' guard of Canada;
(d)	Coal-mining leave under existing regulations to those eligible;
(e)	Compassionate farm leave under R.O. 3456 to those eligible;
(f)	Any other type of leave without pay and allowances to those eligible, under existing regulations.

War Appropriation-Army


Richard Burpee Hanson: What does that include? Does that allow a man to go back to his former civilian occupation?


James Layton Ralston: No; that refers to compassionate leave. But sometimes there are special types. There was some leave for mining.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And railways.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, and for railways. Then it continues:
(g)	Opportunity for trades training to those suitable and selected and transfer to appropriate corps;
(h)	Authority for discharge of personnel whose Pulhems profile was lower than 2 and who were not specially required in the army by reason of technical military or trades qualifications;
(i)	Personnel returning from forestry leave eligible to take advantage of alternatives (a) to (h).
Those were the instructions given.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The instructions from headquarters?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was that read t.o the men on parade?


James Layton Ralston: I am sure that it was told to them, and that the men were given that option.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, what about this thing I have here?


Mr. BOUCHER:: What is the number of
discharges?


James Layton Ralston: I shall give the disposition of the whole force. The movement of personnel from Camrose to Vancouver commenced. The above alternatives were also extended to permit transfer to vacancies in operational units or home war establishments, provided an equivalent number are thereby released to the reinforcement stream. The total of other ranks returned to Canada was 1,905. Those who took the leave to go into a civilian occupation under the terms set out in the general instruction which my hon. friend read numbered 558.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: About 25 per cent.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. Those who were granted forestry leave numbered 558, and those
granted compassionate farm leave numbered
6.	The complete table showing the disposal made is as follows:
Total other ranks returned to Canada... 1,905
Granted forestry leave	 558
Granted compassionate farm leave		6
Granted coal-mining leave	 1
Transferred to other arms as reinforcements	 233
Transferred to veterans' guard of Canada 14 Transferred to district depots-
Pulhems 1 and 2 for absorption with
operational units or H.W.E.'s	 255
Pulhems 3 and 4 for employment if
available; otherwise discharge		692
Pulhems 5 for discharge	 31
Retained at depots following disembarkation leave for medical and other reasons and not dispatched to concentration points	 115


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many went into the bush?


James Layton Ralston: There were 558.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Twenty-five per cent out of the total achieved the objective.


James Layton Ralston: That is correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is pretty small.


James Layton Ralston: They were granted forestry leave. I am saying to my hon. friend only this, that that is hot the fault of the army. It is the. fault of the civilian situation, whereby these men were not allowed to work in forestry corps units.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We will say it is a combination of circumstances.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, it is a combination of
circumstances.


Mr. WHITE:: How many of these men have since returned to the army and are no longer in the bush?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot say.


George Stanley White: Does the minister not know how many of them have returned to the army?


James Layton Ralston: No, I do not know that.


Mr. GILLIS:: Was not the fact that most of these men did not go into the bush the result of financial considerations?


James Layton Ralston: What was the hon.
member's question?


Clarence Gillis: I remember reading a press dispatch only a few days ago to the effect that members of the forestry corps returning
War Appropriation-Army

idS
to western Canada refused to go into the bush at $5.50 a day, because they considered they were better off financially.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They might be.


Clarence Gillis: With their pay and allowances, and so on. I believe most of the friction developed along those lines. However, I would ask the minister to comment on that situation. What actually happened in British Columbia when the forestry corps refused to go into the woods was that they were lowering their income. Is that true, or is it not?


James Layton Ralston: I do not know what the reason was. I was not here, and I have not heard the reasons. All I can say to my hon. friend is that if they stayed in the army they could not be used as forestry corps in Canada under the labour conditions I have spoken of which existed in the camps in British Columbia and eastern Canada.


Clarence Gillis: As I understand it, taking their discharge from the army, and going into the woods-


James Layton Ralston: They did not take their discharge; they got leave.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is correct; they just got leave.


Clarence Gillis: Coming within the tax structure, and so on, meant that even when receiving $5.50 a day, that amount when compared with their army pay worked out to a point where it was indicated that they were worse off than they would be in the armed service. I understand that was the basis of the friction in British Columbia.


James Layton Ralston: There was no friction in British Columbia so far as the men in the army were concerned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is true.


James Layton Ralston: I am not blaming these men for not going into a civilian occupation. The army was giving them the opportunity,, and that was all there was to it. The army expected they would be used as they had been used in England, as a forestry corps. Conditions in the camps on the Pacific coast and the eastern coast prevented that.


William Earl Rowe: They were all working in the bush in the old country?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. They were all in the forestry corps. Of course when my hon. friend refers to the bush, I must explain that some were in mills and some were in other operations connected with lumbering.


William Earl Rowe: But they were all producing timber in the old country?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Mr. GREEN:: Was that situation not investigated before they were brought back?


James Layton Ralston: I am sure it was investigated by the timber controller, and by the Department of Labour. They had from us the information as to what would be done with them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And their objective failed


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Was consideration given to having the men work in the bush on army pay, as in the old country? What consideration was given to that?


James Layton Ralston: Full consideration. As I have said, the Department of National Defence were not only willing, but were really in favour of doing it. However, that was prevented because in the camps in the west and in the east the operators found they could not allow army personnel to take employment side by side with civilian personnel. As a matter of fact, I think the suggestion was made that they should use some of the camps exclusively for army personnel. Apparently that was not practical or possible.


William Earl Rowe: The final result, then, is that we actually lost about seventy-five per cent of the efficiency of that group of men, so far as the main purpose of increasing empire timber production was concerned.


James Layton Ralston: No; there were 558 on forestry leave, 233 were reinforcements and sixty-nine who may be employed in forestry, if we have a place to employ them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would be interesting to know how many of those 558 are still in the bush. I bet more than half of them are out of the bush.


James Layton Ralston: I am not betting, or taking bets, because I do not know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Neither am I, but I make a wager once in a while.


James Layton Ralston: These are the figures given me. Let us understand that these men are not lost to the man-power of Canada because they do not happen to be working in forestry.


William Earl Rowe: But they are lost to forestry production, and that was the main purpose of the change. And we have no assurance that the 558 are still in the bush.


James Layton Ralston: I have no such assurance. But do not blame me, because it is not my fault.

War Appropriation-Army


William Earl Rowe: I am not blaming the minister. But the plan fell down, in the production of empire forest products, products which were so necessary for an all-out war effort. It was so important that the 2,000 had to be brought back from the old country. We now find that only a quarter of them went into the bush, and the rumour that is current in forestry circles is that only about a quarter of that quarter is still in the bush.


James Layton Ralston: They are there for the operators to take, if they wish to take them.


William Earl Rowe: The operators have refused.


James Layton Ralston: It is not the army's fault that they were not in the woods, if the operators will not take them. The army will produce them, but the operators will not take them. They will take them only in civilian clothes, but they will not take them as the army details them.


William Earl Rowe: They have been offered?


James Layton Ralston: The army has offered to detail these men to timbering operations, but the operators have refused them unless they are civilians.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The argument advanced by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) expresses the opinion of some of the forestry men from my area who have returned. It seems to me that if the shortage of lumber was so serious in Canada to warrant bringing two thousand men back, plans should have been made to see that those two thousand men would go into the production of lumber under army pay and instructions. It seems a pity that only 525 are now engaged in the work for which these men volunteered and that seventy-five per cent of them are not doing the work they wanted to do when they volunteered for service.


James Layton Ralston: It certainly is a pity, but if they will not let them work it out, that blocks the use of them.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: Is the minister telling us that 'the lumber operators rather than the government determine where the soldiers shall be used?


James Layton Ralston: Not at all.


An hon. MEMBER:: Labour unions.


George Stanley White: Has the minister any
knowledge or record of the rates or scale of wages paid to these men, on either the east or west coast? A number went to the Timagami district in Ontario.


James Layton Ralston: I have not that information.


George Stanley White: Can the minister get the information so that the committee may know the approximate pay that these men receive?


James Layton Ralston: I will get it from the Department of Labour because that is not in my department. These men are on leave and are working for civilian pay. I say with great respect that I do not think I should be asked to go around to all the lumber camps to get these rates of pay.


George Stanley White: I understand that a number of these men went to the Timagami district and were given the opportunity to return to the army. A large number have returned. Perhaps the minister can tell us how many of these 558 men have returned to the army.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend asked that some time ago and I made a note of it.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister would help us a great deal if he would give us more details about the plan by which men can leave the army, apparently on indefinite leave, in order to work in industry. There are not' only the men in the lumbering industry, there are men who have gone into mining, and I have also heard of men from the forces who have gone into the shipyards. Apparently men are going from both the Canadian active army and the group of men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act. Would the minister give us the number from each of these two armies and also in what industries these men are working? What arrangements are made for getting them back, or are they to remain there permanently?


James Layton Ralston: The order in council is P.C. 8197, which I have not with me. This authorizes personnel to be detailed for duty or granted forestry leave. I shall have to get the other orders in council with regard to coal-mining leave and other leaves. Perhaps I can give my hon. friend the general details with regard to forestry leave.
Provision is made for grant of leave to personnel of the Canadian forestry corps returned from overseas to return to the lumbering industry for the purpose of increasing the production of Canadian lumber for export to the United Kingdom. The officer commanding No. 1 district headquarters, Canadian forestry corps, and the district officers commanding were authorized to grant such leave for a period not exceeding six months. The same officers may renew such leave for further periods of six months. Leave granted is without pay and allowances of any kind or medical treatment at public expense.
With regard to coal-mining leave, leave may be granted to coal miners for the purpose of
War Appropriation-Army

resuming employment in the coal-mining industry. Personnel granted leave must be employed in the actual production of coal; that is, from face to pithead. Leave may be granted for a period of six months and is renewable for such periods of three months as may be considered advisable. This leave is granted on the authority of national defence headquarters and is without pay and allowances of any kind or medical treatment at public expense.
Provision is made under another order for the return of men to the lumbering industry. Soldiers who are skilled loggers and have had experience in the province of British Columbia may be given leave of absence to return to the lumbering industry in British Columbia. This leave is without pay and allowances of any kind or medical treatment at public expense and is granted on the authority of the general officer commanding in chief or the district officer commanding. Leave may be granted for a period of six months and may be renewed for such periods not exceeding six months as may be considered advisable.
Then there is another provision with regard to leave for the purpose of returning to industry. Application for return of a soldier to war industry must be originated by the employer, who will submit application to the officer commanding the unit in which the soldier is serving. The officer commanding the unit will forward application, together with his recommendation, to the general officer commanding in chief or the district officer commanding, who will submit same to national selective service mobilization board with such recommendations or representations as they may consider necessary. When the board recommends that leave be granted, the general officer commanding in chief or the district officer commanding may grant leave.
In the event that the general officer commanding in chief or the district officer commanding does not concur in the recommendation of the board, the application will be referred to national defence headquarters for decision. Leave granted is without pay and allowances of any kind or medical treatment at public expense and will in no. case exceed six months. Renewal may be granted by the general officer commanding in chief or the district officer commanding after the case has been reviewed by the board.
As my hon. friend knows, the other leaves are compassionate farm leave, compassionate leave without pay, compassionate leave with pay, disembarkation leave, embarkation leave and ordinary leave and furlough. I have not given my hon. friend the number on leave, but I shall endeavour to get that.


Howard Charles Green: Do those rules apply both
to men in the active army and men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act?


James Layton Ralston: I think there is some provision with regard to detailing men for farm leave that provides that only men under the N.R.M.A. may be so detailed.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any provision
whereby a man in eastern Canada who is called up under the N.R.M.A. can be sent to the Pacific coast to work in the shipyards? I believe that has been done.


James Layton Ralston: I cannot remember because there are so many regulations. I do know that there is a provision for detailing men for railway work and perhaps there is a similar provision for war industry. I shall have that looked up. That is not leave really; it is detailed for duty.


Howard Charles Green: What is the provision in
connection with the men who work on the railways?


James Layton Ralston: They are detailed for
duty; it is not leave. I am sorry I have not the order in council if there is one under which provision is made for detailing men to the shipyards. I shall have that looked up to see just what the provision is. The aggregate number of these extended leaves, as I indicated yesterday, is something like 8,000.


Howard Charles Green: How many are NR.M.A.
men?


James Layton Ralston: About 5,000 out of the
8,000.


Howard Charles Green: Where a man is detailed for work on the railway or work in a shipyard, who pays his wages?


James Layton Ralston: The employer.


Gordon Graydon: Does he work as a
soldier or as a civilian.


James Layton Ralston: He is detailed for that
work and is required to stay on that work, as I understand it, under the military regulations, but the actual remuneration is paid by the employer. What I have in mind at the moment is that he gets either the civilian rate or the soldier's rate of pay and allowances, whichever is higher, and the employer reimburses the government. Here is a memorandum on the order in council relating to railway duty:
Under authority of order in council P.C. No 8217, dated 26th October, 1943, N.R.M.A. soldiers having a medical grading lovrer than Pulhemg profile 2222222 as might be spared from their military duties for limited periods

War Appropriation-Army
may be detailed to perform railway duty. Personnel detailed for railway duty shall continue to be credited with their military pay and allowances, including trades pay and dependents' allowances. If the amount payable by the railway companies in respect of the service performed by the soldiers exceeds the amount of the military pay and allowances, the amount of such excess shall be payable to such soldier. This excess will be credited through the paymaster's accounts of the soldier concerned.
The soldiers were detailed as individuals and worked in groups or individually as required by the railway companies.
497 were employed on railway duty as at 22nd December, 1943.
No soldiers are on railway duty at the present time, all personnel having been recalled under instructions.


Howard Charles Green: That really amounts to
providing forced labour for the railway companies.


James Layton Ralston: I am putting no construction on it at all. I say that there is power under the order in council to detail men for railway duty.


Howard Charles Green: These men have to work
for the railway. They have no option.


James Layton Ralston: I am not giving any legal construction to it at all. A soldier having the medical grading may be spared and detailed to perform railway duty.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I wish to follow up the questions a little further. I understand that when these men were performing railway duty in British Columbia they were working under the direction of an army officer, and as the hon. member for Vancouver South suggests, it was in effect forced labour because these men are under army discipline and they cannot refuse to take this kind of work. Furthermore, I am told that they were working longer hours than worked by the ordinary railway employee, that they were working 10 hours a day when in British Columbia at least, the ordinary day is 8 hours. I may not be correct in that, but that is the information I have.


James Layton Ralston: Were they getting higher pay than the railway men?


Angus MacInnis: No, I understand they were getting the pay of the railway man or soldier's pay whichever was the higher.


James Layton Ralston: Was the pay of the soldier including dependents' allowance higher than the pay of the railway man?


Angus MacInnis: I gather it would be.


James Layton Ralston: Then perhaps they could afford to work a little longer.


Angus MacInnis: Would the minister give the committee a comparison of the wages
paid? Where there was a difference between the pay of the soldier and railway pay, was the difference paid by the employer or by the government? In other words, would the soldier's pay be higher when he was drawing soldier's pay than the railway workers' civilian rate? I think we should have that information.


James Layton Ralston: It would depend on what soldier you took. A soldier with four children and drawing dependents' allowance would probably be getting a higher rate of pay than the railway man working beside him. You will have to give me a particular case. I cannot give any general rule.


Angus MacInnis: The department must have figures on that because a certain amount of bookkeeping would have to be done and the bookkeeping would reveal the facts. I remember that a few years ago in this house

I have not heard so much of it lately since most of the members have taken a great interest in labour-when we spoke of low wages the reply was: What about the soldier drawing SI.30 a day? We pointed out then that the soldier at $1.30 a day was getting more than many men in civilian work, and the statement made by the minister just now bears that out. I think we should be given the rates that were paid to soldiers working on the railways.


James Layton Ralston: I have nothing here whereby I could give the comparison my hon, friend asks for, but if I can find any case where we have a statement showing the payroll of the soldier, and what he would get if working on the same job at civilian rates, I shall be glad to give it.


Howard Charles Green: Is it a fact that the position is that some men are given indefinite leave from the army in order to get jobs in the woods?


James Layton Ralston: We were talking about the railways a minute ago. Are we talking about the woods now?


Howard Charles Green: Wait until I finish my question.


James Layton Ralston: I am interrupting to see if my hon. friend is really referring to woods work.


Howard Charles Green: I am going to refer to both.


James Layton Ralston: There are two sets of orders in council relating to woods work, one applying to the Canadian Forestry Corps and the other applying to logging.
War Appropriation-Army


Howard Charles Green: Some of the loggers are given indefinite leave from the army.


James Layton Ralston: Not indefinitely.


Howard Charles Green: Six months leave, and it can be renewed for another six months and so on. And they work like the ordinary logger would work, at his rate of pay and under the same conditions. Another group of men were apparently detailed for work on the railways and in shipbuilding yards, and they were not given leave under the same conditions but were told by the army: You have to go there and work for such and such company. I should like to know why such a difference is made between these different classes of work. I must say that I think the government is treading on very dangerous ground and establishing a dangerous precedent when it supplies forced labour for the railways or shipbuilding companies or for any other private employer. It is coming close to slave labour.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is advocating the conscripting of men to be sent overseas to take part in a war. I suppose he will say that that is forced labour.


Howard Charles Green: That is entirely different.


James Layton Ralston: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. The government has under the National Resources Mobilization Act the power to direct the employment of every individual in Canada, including my hon. friend. The government finds a situation on the railways where labour is needed. Men have been called up under the N.R.M.A., and the government has power to detail men to take part in that work, which is after all a war job. That is all. The government is not treading on dangerous ground.


Howard Charles Green: Why are they not given leave like the men who go logging.


James Layton Ralston: Because they would not go on leave perhaps. That may be the reason. One is a privilege and the other is an obligation. That is the difference.


George Russell Boucher: Does the minister mean to say that some of these soldiers have been given leave of absence and detailed to do work in industry, forestry work and so on, and that the government has no record of the hours of work and the pay they receive?


James Layton Ralston: We have been talking about detailing men for railway work. We have not been talking about men working in the woods, as to which there is a special order in council. I have already said to the hon. member for Vancouver East that I shall see if we have in the department any record

of comparative wages, showing the pay these men would have received if they were getting civilian pay in that enterprise as compared with the pay and allowances they would receive in the army.


George Russell Boucher: The point I am trying to make is that it does not seem to me that it is quite playing ball with the men in the forestry corps if any of them are directed to go to an industry on terms as to wages, hours of labour and so on, of which the government has not full and specific knowledge ; and I wonder why we cannot get that information.


James Layton Ralston: If the government detail them, they detail them to go to work under regulations which the government themselves make, just as they detail them to go and train on a parade ground, or go on manoeuvres, or anything of that kind. They go to work as soldiers, and the government, of course, takes care of the situation as regards how many hours they shall work, and that sort of thing, guarantees them at least the pay and allowances of a soldier, and says that if anybody in that enterprise doing equivalent work is getting more than that, it will see that these men get that additional pay.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Could the minister give the approximate number of soldiers detailed to industry, and the various industries to which they have been detailed?


James Layton Ralston: The last figures I have show that for farm duty there were detailed, at the end of December, 166, the number having gone down from 1,700 on September 30. Of course the work is seasonal and the number required would diminish as winter approached. There were 487 detailed on railway duty as of December 22, but, as I indicated, all those had been recalled on December 29, so that apparently there is none now. I have no figures as to any being detailed for forestry duty.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Were there any other industries to which men were detailed?


James Layton Ralston: No, no others for which they are detailed under order in council.


Howard Charles Green: What about shipbuilding?


James Layton Ralston: I stated to my hon. friend that I would look up the particulars regarding shipbuilding, that I have no information here about that.


Mr. TUCKER:: While the minister is getting a statement as to the various jobs to which soldiers are detailed I would like to say a few words. I would not like it to be supposed

War Appropriation-Army
that I am in agreement with the remarks of an hon. member suggesting that only recently have members of the house other than those connected with the C.C.F. party become interested in the problems of labour. I do not think the suggestion is called for. Nor is the suggestion that the average soldier is getting more than the average man engaged in industry. If the hon. member who made that statement was really interested and took the trouble to find out what the average soldier gets he would not be so ready to rise in his place pretend that that is the actual state of facts. He would know that a private soldier in the army without dependents receives $1.50 a day, his clothing and his food. It is true that he may also receive a pension if something happens to him. But I suggest that this is very inadequate compensation for the extra risks he takes as a fighting man as compared with men engaged in industry, and I would like to protest against any suggestion that the average fighting man who goes into the army without wife, family or dependents, is being better paid than a similar man in industry. That has been suggested before by the hon. member for Vancouver East, and I protest against it because it is not correct.


Angus MacInnis: The member for Vancouver East did not suggest any of the things which the hon. member for Rosthem has just mentioned. What the member for Vancouver East said, and it is borne out by the statement made in this chamber a moment ago by the Minister of National Defence, is that if these men were detailed to do railway work, they would not do it, because the railways would not pay them enough wages. That is what I said.


James Layton Ralston: That is not what I said.


Angus MacInnis: I think that is what the
minister said.


James Layton Ralston: I beg the hon. member's
pardon. I said, perhaps they would not work on the railways, but I did not give any reason, as to whether the railways would pay them more or less; I do not know.


Angus MacInnis: That is right. They would work on the railways if the railways would pay them a living wage. Not only that, but to-day, if these railway workers go on strike to get better wages, they find themselves in gaol, and under the order in council they are guilty of an offence unless they can prove their innocence. These are facts, and the facts are proved by the order in council which has just been read by the minister.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Would the minister say
what disposition has been made of the young
men who composed university training course No. 1; also, why university course No. 2 is being continued at the present time?


James Layton Ralston: I shall have to look that
up.


Clarence Gillis: Evidently many hon. members are very touchy along political lines. The hon. member for Vancouver' East, when he made his observation with respect to the item under discussion, was absolutely correct in the assumption that the difficulty experienced by the Department of National Defence with respect to detailing men to certain industries in Canada from the services was connected with financial considerations. That is not anyone's imagination; it follows from an analysis which anyone who is reasonable and fair will have to make after listening to the minister's presentation of that question. The men refused to go on the railroad because they would thereby lower their incomes. On the front page of the Ottawa Journal last week it was definitely stated that men detailed from the forestry corps refused to go in the bush at $5.50 a day because it lowered their income in contrast with what they were receiving in the service. Those are not the statements of the hon. member for Vancouver East.
I rise at this time because I note that some hon. members on both sides of this chamber are endeavouring to drive a wedge between the armed services and the industrial workers on the basis of the question we are now discussing, and I believe that action of that kind is a disservice not only to men in the service but to the war effort generally.
At the time the matter was first raised, after listening two or three times to the discussion and having some fair conception of the reasons behind it, members of this group took it upon themselves to make an examination of the question. You cannot examine it by merely picking out the single man who goes in the service or the single man who is employed in industry. Wage rates in this country are computed on the basis of the average income over a given industry, and in many cases this method is not fair, because it includes men in receipt of high salaries as well as those who are drawing $4 a day, and that boosts the average. I believe that anyone who examines the question fairly cannot but arrive at the conclusion that, no matter what industry he investigates, with the present tax structure, what you have left to maintain your family on does not compare very favourably with what those in the service are receiving. No one here has ever intimated that those in the service are getting too much.

War Appropriation-Army


Mr. McLARTY:: Generally, would the hon. member agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosthem?


Clarence Gillis: No, I would not because it is not a fair premise.


Norman Alexander McLarty: You do not think it is
correct?


Clarence Gillis: No. You cannot take the case of a single man and make your analysis on that basis. You have to take an average family. You are getting concrete evidence this afternoon. When you brought the forestry corps back from England you attempted to detail them to do certain work that is now being done by civilians in the country, and when the men in the service stopped to make an analysis of their position after tax deduction at the end of the month they found they would not have as much in cash as they would have in the service without such deduction. The same thing applies to the railways.


James Layton Ralston: That is not the reason why they are not in the woods.


Clarence Gillis: That is the reason the Ottawa Journal gave a few nights ago as coming from those who were being detailed for that work. The same is true of the mining industry. Hundreds of miners have gone back from the service into that industry because an emergency in fuel was declared. But talk to many of the men who have gone back and they will tell you that after tax deductions they find that they were better off in the service, though they feel they are making the 'best contribution they can to the country.
I do not approach this question from political reasons. I am concerned about having a fair understanding of the position of the taxpayers of Canada who are footing the bill and also making sacrifices. I suggest that it is a wrong attitude for any member to take, to try to play the public against those who are in the service, on the basis of sacrifices. When a man lays down his life for his country he does something that cannot be computed in financial terms. You cannot compensate a man for that; the only compensation in that case is to take care of his dependents properly if they are unfortunate enough to be left without a bread-winner.
Listening to the discussion I am convinced that there should be a revision of the wage rates in the industries affected, where you are trying to detail men back to work. Either that, or the taxing arrangements should be revised to enable the men to maintain the income they had by virtue of the service they were in.
[Mr. Gillis.l
May I inquire of the minister with regard to another category that is out of the services and into essential industries. I refer to the men who have gone back to the mining industry. Three months' leave was given and that was extended to six months if they applied. The question is this. Some of these men, since going out of the service into the industry, have developed disabilities that render them unfit to work underground. I know of one man who has found it difficult to get back to the service, the reason given being that he is unfit. He is not fit for that occupation and he is also unfit for the service, and a decision has been pending for some time. Is there any understanding in that regard?


James Layton Ralston: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that the man contracted some disability after leaving the service and going back into industry?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: No; there is no provision.


Clarence Gillis: He develops a bronchial condition, for example, and he is not fit for the army nor is he fit for that particular occupation. Where does he fit in?


James Layton Ralston: Pensions and national
health would determine whether or not the disability is attributable to service. It may be a service disability, or it may have had its cause there.


Clarence Gillis: But pensions will not take him until he is back in the service or is discharged.


James Layton Ralston: That is right.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am interested to hear the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) giving me a lecture on splitting up the Canadian people. Let me read what the hon. member said last night:
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.
Who is trying to s^t class against class, and person against person? The hon. member suggests that there are people who are ready to sit back here and carry on the war until the last worker is killed. Is he suggesting that other people are not fighting the war as well as the workers and that certain people are ready to take advantage of the workers? Who is trying to create class hatred?


Clarence Gillis: I am prepared to repeat that statement. Since coming into the house I have heard men, on this side particularly, whose only desire was to see everyone in

War Appropriation-Army
Canada that could be picked up sent overseas with a gun in his hand to do the fighting. Most of these fellows have done little fighting during their lifetime, and when you boil it down, who do the actual fighting, the slugging and shooting, in wars? Ninety-five per cent of them are workers or the sons of workers.
I never heard anyone suggest from this side of the house, dealing with the question of conscription, that the bankers and industrialists and people in that category should be conscripted. Certainly I repeat that statement.
I am not going to ask someone to go out and commit suicide unless I am prepared to do the same myself, and I am not going to ask the government of this country to go out and requisition boys and girls unless I am prepared to be requisitioned myself. This is an entirely different matter.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is raising the question of class-class hatred because of discrimination against a certain class.


Clarence Gillis: When you take the wage rates of the country and juggle them as between the army and those who are in Canada, and classify as saboteurs the working people of the county, who by and large are creating the machinery necessary to carry' on the war- when you classify them as saboteurs and traitors because they try to lift the wage standards of the country against the time when civilians now in uniform will return, what are you doing? After all, they are civilians in uniform. That is what the Canadian army is, a body of sensible men, civilians who are overseas to-day because of the failure of those who had the direction of affairs of the nations in their hands during the last twenty-five years. They' arc civilians who will come back to Canada as civilians, and the standards of living being advocated and fought for by their civilian brothers at home will be the standards that will be available for them when they come back. That is the point with which I am concerned. The point raised by the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker) is entirely different. Requisitioning men without giving them an opportunity to say whether they are satisfied to follow that road or not is a serious question. Last night I said I agreed with the government in maintaining that army at home in order to perform essential services. Now that the danger of invasion is over, other arrangements will have to be made, and the policy carried out in the past on that question is one with which I am satisfied. I will not ask sormone to do something that I do not do myeolf


James Layton Ralston: A question was asked with regard to the personnel of No. 1 Canadian army university course. I have a brief statement as follows:
The course was conducted at university of Toronto from October, 1942, to May, 1943.
(a)	158 candidates were enrolled.
(b)	Disposal of candidates was as follows:
Graduates	 133
Unsuccessful	 25
After appraisals by army examiners, successful candidates were allocated to various arms and carried out training as follows:
Canadian Armoured Corps	   18
Canadian Armoured Corps (Reconnaissance)	 16
Royal Canadian Artillery (Field)		28
Royal Canadian Artillery (Medium
Anti-Aircraft)	   4
Royal Canadian Artillery (Medium)..	1
Royal Canadian Artillery (Coastal
Defence)	 1
Royal Canadian	Artillery (Survey)

	11
Royal Canadian	Corps of Signals....	25Royal Canadian	Engineers	
6Canadian Infantry Corps	
6Royal Canadian	Ordnance Corps	5Total	
121Transferred to Royal Canadian Air Force	
12Total	
133
The instructions have been issued that this personnel will proceed to officer selection and appraisal centre, Brockville, Ontario, under special quota on 11th February, 1944, for appraisal by officer selection and appraisal board, and for disposal as follows:
(a)	Personnel selected as officer material will be given the opportunity of proceeding to officers training centre under special quota upon completion of corps training.
By "corps training" I mean training in the particular arm to which he has been allotted.
They will be fully informed at officer selection and appraisal centre of the time element involved in completing officer training and subsequent dispatch overseas.
(b)	Selected candidates, who because of the time element involved in the attainment of a commission, might be deterred from going to officers training centre will be allowed the option of proceeding in reinforcement stream as other ranks rather than to officer training, and to proceed overseas as early as possible upon completion of corps training. They will not be held in Canada as assistant instructors. In each case, their documents showing that they had so elected will be clearly marked at officer selection and appraisal centre.
That is to say there will be some credit given to them for the fact that they have elected.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How long is the corps training?
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: I think probably two months, or something like that.
(c)	Personnel not selected as officer material will be considered for technical or specialist training (i.e. survey, radio direction finding, signals, etc.), and be given the opportunity, if selected, of commencing such specialist training forthwith.
(d)	Personnel considered to be unsuitable or not electing under any of the foregoing subparagraphs will be immediately returned to the reinforcement stream and dispatched overseas on completion of corps training. They will not be held in Canada as assistant instructors during progress of training.
(e)	Documents of all personnel who successfully completed the academic portion of No. 1 Canadian army university course will be clearly marked to that effect.
That applies to the No. 1 course. No. 2 course, as my hon. friend knows, is on at the present time. There was a quota of 1,270 established and 1,270 were enrolled. I can give the universities, but perhaps that is not necessary. There were certain casualties in the 1,270, so that the total still on the course as of January 26, 1944, is 1,145.
6.	Subject to the exigencies of the service and the requirements for reinforcement officers at the time, all candidates of No. 2 Canadian army university course 'will be given an opportunity of appearing before the officer selection and appraisal board provided:
(a)	that they have successfully completed the academic portion of the course.
(b)	that they have completed the required military training, basic and advanced of the corps to which they have been allocated.
7.	A directive dated January 25, 1944, has been sent to all districts and commands advising them of this decision and instructing that universities concerned and personnel of No. 2 Canadian army university course be also informed. At the same time it is to be made clear to all concerned that these candidates are not being promised commissions in the army.


Mr. PURDY:: I do not think the statement made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South to the effect that young men in our banks and similar institutions are not pulling their full weight in this war should be allowed to go unchallenged. If he followed the statements of our chartered banks he would see that up to fifty per cent of the memberships of their staffs are on active service. The suggestion that these young men are not doing their part in this war is not fair.


James Arthur Ross: I know it is difficult to follow these questions in sequence, but in answer to a question this afternoon the minister said there were some 1,100 deserters from the Canadian army, most of whom are in Canada. While the minister has 'the facts and information before him, would he give us a break-down, if possible, by military districts? fMr. Jackman.]


James Layton Ralston: Yes, I told my hon. friend we were endeavouring to get that. I said last night I would try to get it. It takes quite a while to get the information, and I thought I would give the committee the information I have here. I will get the information.


James Arthur Ross: We should be able to get the information by military districts as to how many are N.R.M.A. men.


James Layton Ralston: We shall do that if we can.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the minister a question before he leaves the arena. I should like the minister to tell us how many of the 588 men volunteered for bush duty, how many are still in the bush and how many have been returned.


James Layton Ralston: All right.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I dislike rising again, but if the few remarks that I made regarding the question of conscripts did not register with the hon. member for Colchester, that is not my responsibility. I did not say what he said I said.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It sounded like that.


Clarence Gillis: I have not heard anyone in this house suggest the conscription of the bankers and industrialists of this country. The employees of the banks are workers, and are not in the category to which I refer. They have made their contribution one hundred per cent.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: I am glad the hon. member apologizes to them.


Clarence Gillis: I am not apologizing to them. It is a misunderstanding of terms.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall the item carry?


Howard Charles Green: No. The minister said yesterday there were about 5,300 N.R.M.A. men out on extended leave. To-day he has mentioned more N.R.M.A. men who are detailed for duty with different industries. Would he tell us how many there are in the latter class, and how many under each of the headings? Are they operational troops or nonoperational troops? Under which heading do they come?


James Layton Ralston: They are not included in the non-operational troops or in the operational troops. My hon. friend was out when I gave the figures with regard to the troops. I said that the number of soldiers detailed to farm duty on December 1, 1943, was 166. I said that I had no figures of any troops

War Appropriation-Army
being detailed on forestry duty and that in connection with railway duty as of December 22, there were 497 employed, but on December 29 all personnel had been recalled; therefore, the number detailed is very small.


Howard Charles Green: There are some in other industries.


James Layton Ralston: This seems to be exhaustive of those classes in which detailing for duty is provided by order in council-railway, forestry and farming.


Howard Charles Green: Are the N.R.M.A. men on extended leave in the overseas category?


James Layton Ralston: Some are and some are not.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister figures to show how many are and how many are not?


James Layton Ralston: No, I have not.


William Scottie Bryce: I should like to ask the minister if the same opportunity will be given the men to go to the farms this year as was given last year to take part in seeding and harvesting operations.


James Layton Ralston: All I can say to my hon. friend is I do not know of any more acute subject being under consideration by the department. Fortunately it is only February, and I hope that I shall not have to' give consideration to it too soon. Let us get the estimates through first. I assure my hon. friend we always have it in mind and we endeavour to make the best arrangement we can, subject to that old and well-worn phrase which goes something like this, "subject to the exigencies of the service".


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would not like this item to carry now because it is six o'clock and some hon. members might wish to say something further in connection with it.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Speaker, as a medical man I should like to say a word on behalf of a distinguished member of my profession, whose statement in a recent speech in Toronto seems to have been misunderstood. I thought I might say this in addition to what the minister said this afternoon. As I have been accustomed to reading and listening to scientific addresses I may say that the speech of the
director general of medical services did not perturb me. If he had made this speech before a scientific body, such as a medical society, it would have been regarded as a valuable scientific contribution to our knowledge of the many problems with which medical officers have had to deal when working among our soldiers in this war, into which certain psychological factors have entered. I feel quite sure the director general did not intend to make any reflection upon the mothers who have given their sons, or upon that great body of women who have done and are doing such a splendid and patriotic work.
In view of the many statements which have been made in respect of the maintenance of the morale of our forces overseas, over this long period of battle inactivity, may I say that not a little credit for the favourable situation which obtains was due to our high commissioner for Canada in London, the Right Hon. Vincent Massey, who has just arrived back in Canada. I wish to bid him welcome to his native land, and to pay tribute to the splendid work he has done and is doing as our representative in England. Among his many activities are soldiers' clubs, in London, and an officers' convalescent home which he established at his own expense in Gloucestershire. I am quite sure hon. members would like to associate themselves with me in an expression of appreciation of his and his wife's many and continuing acts of kindness to our forces overseas, which have gone a long way toward relieving them of the nostalgia inevitably felt after years of separation from loved ones at home.


James Layton Ralston: I thank the hon. member for Parkdale for his reference to Major-General Chisholm, and the speech he made. It is difficult for a layman-and my hon. friend appreciates this better than I-to understand the full significance of what is being discussed in a scientific discussion of that kind. I say to my hon. friend and the committee, as I tried to say this afternoon, that I know the last thing Major-General Chisholm would think of doing would be to cast the slightest reflection, or to do otherwise than give the greatest credit to the women of our country in the great work they are doing during this time of war.
It W'as most gracious on the part of the hon. member to refer to the advent of the Right Hon. Vincent Massey. As one who has seen at first hand some of the work Mr. and Mrs. Massey are doing, I wish to join with the hon. member in his expression of appreciation. to them, and to say to hon. members and the country generally that I do not think Canada can ever fully realize or recognize not only the fine service these two gracious people
War Appropriation-Army

are rendering, but the devotion and the genuine consecration they have shown in their heavy task for Canada, which, because of the activities of this war, has increased tenfold.


Mrs. CASSELMAN:: I was glad to hear the minister say this afternoon that the matter of the transportation of the armed forces is under consideration, and I hope that the suggestions made may be carried out.
I should like also to thank the minister for the observations and appreciation he has recorded respecting women in uniform. I believe people throughout Canada would subscribe to what he has said. So far as I have talked to members of different units, and to civilians in our different cities, I have gained the impression that the opinion respecting women in uniform is very high indeed.
Has the minister considered the suggestion that women should have representation on the committees being set up for the reestablishment of troops returning from overseas? I suggest that women should be on such committees which would deal with the reestablishment of women who have been in the services. And I do not think it would be a bad idea to have a woman or two on the general reestablishment committee for all troops, men and women combined.
I was pleased to hear the explanation made respecting Major-General Chisholm's address. I knew it was not meant the way a reading of it might indicate, and I was convinced that there must have been some misinterpretation; because everyone knows that, although there are a few who might be emotionally too sensitive and therefore might upset the boys returning home, the fact remains that the great majority of women have added to the morale of our troops, in every respect. The minister himself expressed his realization of that fact when he referred to the letters received by the men overseas. I am sure a great percentage of that mail comes from the women of our land. The minister referred to that mail as a morale builder for our troops overseas. I am sure that the women of Canada are glad to have heard the explanation, and that they will continue to play their part, one which in some respects is very difficult, during this time of war.


James Layton Ralston: With regard to the membership on the rehabilitation committee, to which the hon. member has referred, possibly she knows that in the Department of Pensions and National Health, over which my colleague presides, there has been set up a special rehabilitation committee to deal with the rehabilitation of women in the services. In addition to that, I am informed by my colleague it is anticipated that there will be

appointed, near the fountainhead of the administration, an executive assistant in the person. of a w'oman, who will work with the assistant deputy minister who is also the director of rehabilitation in the Department of Pensions and National Health. So that I am sure women will be fully represented. The hon. member has a right to ask whether the same thing will apply in respect of these committees about which I have spoken. I can say to her that so far as the army is concerned-and I have not consulted my colleagues in the navy and air force-arrangements will be made so that representation will be given on the administrative body we are setting up for that purpose.


Howard Charles Green: The minister said yesterday there was to be some reduction in the paid personnel. of the reserve army. I understand there are a certain number of men in each unit who are on a full-time basis. Did that recommendation for a reduction in paid personnel come from the units themselves, or is it just a move by headquarters? I am asking that because, particularly in coastal brigades, which are the most likely to see active service, it would seem to be a mistake to cut down on their paid personnel. Has any consideration been given to having the reserve army take over some of the functions of the other troops -perhaps some operational role, such as antiaircraft protection. There may be other work which they could do, and in this way they would enable the minister to reduce the number of men in Canada of the active force.
Mr. RALSTON; With regard to the first question, I am sorry I cannot tell my hon. friend whether or not the recommendation came direct from the units. I refer to the change-over whereby more responsibility for training will be put upon officers of the reserve units, and less by way of paid personnel. The recommendation was made in conjunction with the director general of the reserve army. I know that he has travelled from coast t'o coast, and back again as far as that goes, consulting those who have to do with the reserve army units. That recommendation is the result of that trip and of the consideration which Major-General Phelan, the director general of the reserve army, has given to the matter.
The point is, as I endeavoured to point out on Friday, that with these two years of intensive training-I really think the reserve units will agree with this-it is felt that the officers and non-commissioned officers have become sufficiently trained to take on a greater responsibility for the training of the units. I have not said that the staffs would be cut

War Appropriation-Army
out -completely, but they certainly will be reduced. I think there is a justification for that, and it will give them a little more in the way of self-dependence, in the way of running their own show, which will be all for the good of the service.
The other question was in connection with having them take over some of the work of the active units. That has been under consideration, and it is simply a case of the difficulty of making practical arrangements. Obviously you cannot send a reserve unit from Toronto or Winnipeg to the coast; you could use only a unit located in the area which is represented by my hon. friend and in which he lives. There have been discussions with regard to this. As a matter of fact, I did say last year that I anticipated there would be some taking over of antiaircraft work by some of the reserve units. That has not been carried out to any extent because it means you would have personnel in your anti-aircraft unit who were working in the day time. In these days it is sometimes difficult for businessmen to make arrangements to undertake, say a three months' tour of duty in order to serve on special coast defence duty. The men are prepared to do so if the necessity arises, but to have a unit serve as a whole could not be done advantageously without great sacrifice which perhaps is not required.


Howard Charles Green: What are the plans for the
Pacific coast militia rangers? Units of this corps have been established mainly in the smaller centres and they have done excellent work. I think they would be of great use even in peace time. A few months ago there was some talk about the number of men and the number of units being reduced, and I should like the minister to tell us what he has in mind.


James Layton Ralston: I had a memorandum the other day with regard to the Pacific coast rangers. There is no intention of disbanding them. There has been a certain curtailment, not so much m connection with their activities as in connection with their spheres of activities. As my hon. friend knows, they were perhaps one of the most rapidly growing and vigorous military organizations that we have had in Canada. As my hon. friend says, they have done grand work and they are entitled to full credit. At the same time they did overlap to some extent with the reserve army.


Howard Charles Green: Only in a few places.


James Layton Ralston: I said to some extent.
Of course it is desirable to prevent that overlapping and to decrease, at least to that degree. I cannot give my hon. friend any particulars at the moment with regard to localities, units or what reductions there will be, but the force will be maintained as a force.


Howard Charles Green: I believe they have only
partial equipment at the present time, and I should like to know if they are to be provided with more equipment.


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid I cannot speak with any degree of certainty with regard to that. The clothing and equipment provided consists of a steel helmet, waterproof jacket and trousers, arm band, a -3030 Winchester rifle or a -303 Ross rifle, Sten guns and pistols for the officers. We are not providing transport or other equipment.


Howard Charles Green: Are they provided with boots?


James Layton Ralston: No.


Howard Charles Green: Why not?


James Layton Ralston: We may as well go through all the lists of clothing. They are not supplied with a number of things provided for the regular troops. The jackets and trousers were an extra issue, and the steel helmet was an extra issue. Some arms were not provided, but we have gone a long distance in this respect. I presume that the reason more equipment is not considered essential is due to the fact that they have combined some of the work being done on the Pacific coast with their civilian work. The strength as of December 31, 1943, was over 12,000. The reduction we are planning, which my hon. friend will see is a small one, will bring the strength down to something like 10,000. That reduction will be effective in the same way as the reduction of the reserve army, that is by stream-lining or cutting out the dormant units but not by disbandment.


Howard Charles Green: I think it would be helpful if these men were able to get more gasoline for their transportation. I believe their efficiency would be increased.


James Layton Ralston: We endeavoured to get more gasoline for the motor-boat squadrons at Vancouver and Victoria, but we were not so successful. I do not want to hold out too much hope.


Mr. STIRLING:: I was interested in what the minister said this afternoon about the No. 1 army course. May I take it that it is the intention now to permit those who pass this course successfully to proceed along the lines of the technical training they have received. The minister may remember that in
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: I admit to my hon. friend that the statement I put on record this afternoon is a little involved. I mean, one must read it quite carefully. The first thing, as I understand it, is that all the successful candidates will be permitted to proceed to the officers' selection and appraisal centre at Brockville, under special quota for appraisal by that board. That board decides who are likely to make potential officers, and the personnel selected as officer material will be given an opportunity of proceeding to O.T.C. upon completion of their corps training. This corps training would take probably two months at least. They will be fully informed at the officer selection and appraisal centre of the time element involved in completing officer training and subsequent dispatch overseas. That perhaps is somewhat of a deterrent to them, the fact that if they take the officer training course it may be some time before they get overseas. Selected candidates who, because of the time element involved in the attainment of a commission, might not want to wait will be allowed the option of entering the reinforcement stream as other ranks and of proceeding overseas as early as possible upon 
completion of corps training. They will not be retained in Canada as assistant instructors. Their documents showing that they had so elected will be clearly marked at officer selection and appraisal centre. My hon. friend's question I think would come in there, and the answer is not given in that paragraph which I have just summarized. He was asking if they would be retained for specialist work for which they had been particularly trained in the course. The answer to that does not appear plainly in that paragraph. But the next paragraph of this memorandum does indicate that personnel not selected as officer material will be considered for technical or specialist training such as survey, radio direction finding, signals, and so forth, and be given an opportunity, if selected, of commencing such specialist training forthwith.
Personnel considered to be unsuitable will be immediately returned to the reinforcement stream and dispatched overseas upon completion of corps training. They will not be held as assistant instructors during the progress of training. I should like to have a little more information on one point, whether selected candidates who decide not to wait for the Brockville training but want to go overseas have any preemption on technical or specialist units. I shall get that information for my hon. friend.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to make a few observations with reference to the resolution now before the committee. I should like first of all to say how glad I am that the minister made the remarks he did yesterday, addressed to the Canadian people, warning them that the war is not yet finished by a long way and that a difficult and bloody path lies ahead. It seems to me that the whole psychology of the allied governments has to some extent been at fault in this regard. By that I mean such things as the optimistic statements made around the New Year to the effect that 1944 might see the end of the war in Europe. A number of other circumstances arising about the same time all helped to give the feeling not only among civilians but even among service personnel that we are now coasting into the home stretch. There were, fo- instance, the announcement that the reserve army was going to cut down the number of days training, the announcement that the air force would no longer accept recruits for the women's division, the fact that in some training centres across Canada the number of persons to be trained is to be greatly reduced, the number of officers who are being dismissed from the service-I know men who have come to me during the last

War Appropriation-Army
three months, men in the armed services, who are already making plans for going back to civilian life because of the impression that seems to have been created that it is now a matter of months before the war is over- all these things have tended to give that impression. I think that is bad psychology.
I think the speech from the throne-I am not going to discuss it now, Mr. Chairman- after a merely cursory statement that the winning of the war is the first objective, failed to set out a single particular in which we could improve our war effort or step it up. That also helped to give the impression that we are now passed the peak and are coasting to the home base. The result is that we are psychologically unprepared, I think, for the terrific sacrifices and terrific casualties that may suddenly be catapulted on the Canadian people.
I wish to commend the minister for the very frank statement he made yesterday. I think also that anybody who listened to his statement of last Friday regarding his visit to the troops must have been touched not only by his evident sincerity but by the inspiration he gained from visiting the men engaged1 in actual combat.
I should like to say something about the large body of non-operational troops in Canada. There are in Canada some 75,000 non-operational troops, if I remember the minister's figures; that is, men who are mostly on administrative or training staffs. It seems to me that this is a very high figure. Last year, if I remember correctly we had about
88.000	in A. and T. staffs, while this year it is from 70,000 to 75,000. But 75,000 seems to be a very large percentage of administrative and training personnel to carry. Can the minister in the course of this discussion tell us whether the time has not come to reduce the large administrative and training staffs?
I should also like him to tell the committee how many men are going through these training centres. If I am not incorrectly informed, in some training centres the number of men carrying on administrative work and training actually exceeds the number of men being trained in the camp.


James Layton Ralston: There are about 23,000 men carrying on administration and training for about 75,000 personnel in the training stream.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not mean in toto but was speaking of particular camps. I should like to know how many men are going through each of these camps each month. In the province of Saskatchewan-


James Layton Ralston: Maple Creek, for instance?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At Maple Creek in January the number of men who came in to be trained was so small that I would hesitate to quote it.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is right
about that. I was speaking about the camps as a whole.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am wondering how many other camps are similar to Maple Creek and whether the large nonoperational Staff could not be reduced and these men used to better advantage elsewhere.
I wish to say a word about the large operational personnel. I agree with my desk-mate the hon, member for Cape Breton South, in what he said last night, that last year and the year before there was a demand among the members of this house that the government Should do something to protect our coasts and that therefore the government is not to be blamed for having a large body of men occupied in doing just that. But it may be that the time has come when we no longer need from 60,000 to 70,000 men in the classification of iN.R.MA. personnel, and that something else may have to be done with them. The minister has stated that they will be available for reinforcements. That is true. In the meantime I think the government has to decide whether there is not some better use that cdn be made of them until they are required as second-line reinforcements; that is, if the government is not anxious to use them in actual combat. It seems to me that many of these men who have been already trained might be returned to farms; some of them might be returned to coal mining and forestry. All these trained men could very easily be brought back into units if the government decided that they were going to make some use of them. The time has come when the question of the disposal of these sixty thousand or seventy thousand non-operational personnel should be reconsidered by the government with a view to deciding whether they are making the best possible use of these men. I do not feel at all satisfied with the minister's statement this afternoon.
As to seeding leave for the men of the National Resources Mobilization Act personnel, I do not know whether the minister realizes how serious the situation is. On the prairies there are thousands of farms where the only persons operating a farm are an elderly man and his wife. These people are four years older than they were when the war started. Many of them will not be able to put in a crop this spring unless some member of the family now in the armed forces comes home and helps them1, or unless they can hire help, which at the present time is virtually
War Appropriation-Army

impossible. I think the government will have to give some thought to this matter, and not leave it until April and then, make some hastily-concocted scheme. They ought to be giving some consideration now to two things: first, to make it possible for the men who are from farms to return to them in the spring to help put in the crop; and, second, to assist men who are in. the National Resources Mobilization. Act personnel to be placed on farms so as to assist farmers in putting in a crop this coming spring. I ask the minister to give some thought to that and to be prepared to have a discussion in the house, not at the end of March or April, when- the men should already be on the farms, but sometime during the present month of February.
I should like to ask the minister about the order in council which forbids men in the armed forces taking any part in public discussions, which forbids them writing letters to the newspapers, which forbids them speaking at any kind of public meeting. I think we have gone a long way in this country when a member of the provincial legislature who is a member of His Majesty's forces is forbidden to speak on a Sunday afternoon to an open forum, where he. was asked to go and speak on post-war reconstruction, a subject in which I think most hon. members, and many men who are in the armed forces, are interested. Here is a man who receives such an invitation, accepts it, and then finds the day before that he cannot go and take part in this discussion because, in order to do so, he must submit the manuscript to a national defence headquarters here in Ottawa.
In this country we have never believed in a professional army. Our armed forces have been civilian armies, and we have tried to make them as democratic as possible; we have tried to encourage the fostering of discussion and the exchange of points of view; and I do not think the Canadian people, and least of all the men in the services, take very kindly to the proposition, that because a man is now a member of His Majesty's forces he is not to be allowed to write a letter to the paper, or to go to a public meeting and there express whatever point of view he may have on any subject under discussion. I should like to have the minister in the course of his discussion tell us the terms of that order in council and the exact reason why the government thought it necessary to pass it.
I wish also to say a word about the fact that men who joined the Canadian army from the reserve army and were brought in under general order 139 are not being paid a clothing allowance. There was a reason for that when

that regulation was originally passed. If a man came into the army through the reserve under general order 139, it was understood that he would be in for only a short time, probably to do some temporary task, so that when he was let out of the army his clothes would still fit him and still be in a fairly good state of repair, and he would need no clothing allowance. But the men who have gone into the army through general order 139 and who are now being discharged are men who have been in the army in some cases for three or four years, and when these men are discharged without a clothing allowance they are under serious hardship.
When. I was in the city of Prince Albert, represented by the Prime Minister, a number of men, thirteen, I believe, came to my hotel room. All of them were being discharged on the following Monday. Most of them, I think, had joined up at Yorkton. They did not know anything about recruiting stations, in the early days of the war. They had gone to reserve army headquarters, and reserve army headquarters made arrangements for them to be taken in and sent them straight to Dundurn, and actually, although they had not been members of the reserve force, they came in through the reserve force under general order 139, I do not know why. That is the modus operandi. What is the result? These men have been cooks and batmen and working in training centres. Now, nearly four years later, when they are discharged, they find that there is to be no clothing allowance. They do not know where their clothes are. These men now have to go out and spend sixty, seventy or one hundred dollars to buy clothing so that they can return home. I do not suppose that this incident is typical of the cases of large numbers of men, but it is a serious hardship to the men who are affected.
I should like to make another suggestion to the minister, although I am not sure whether his department or the department of pensions is the more vitally concerned. The department ought to give some thought not only to the question of demobilization of the men coming back, but to the question of the soldiers' wives and the whole matter of the psychological adjustment of men returning after the war. A number of soldiers' wives have spoken to me about it. They point out that when their men come back after being away three, four or five years, many of them come back changed. They have been through a variety of experiences, have come back tired, moody and nervous. Many of these men were married probably only a matter of months prior to going overseas. In cases where the

War Appropriation-Army
wives are young they are at a complete loss to understand the change of attitude and the change of personality that have resulted from years of service. I believe great work could be undertaken by one of the departments of government putting out literature, particularly to soldiers' wives, to make them aware of the fact that any man who has spent some time overseas in service will come back a different person to some extent, and that there is need of a period of psychological readjustment if we are not to have matrimonial wrecks all over this country in the post-war period.
There is one other question which I wish to ask the minister. Will he elaborate to the committee some of the reasons for breaking up the Canadian army? I believe there was a strong feeling throughout the country, and certainly there was a strong feeling in some parts of this house, expressed repeatedly during the past two or three years, that the Canadian army should be retained as a unit. Those who have read the memoirs of David Lloyd George or of Sir Robert Borden, who was Prime Minister of Canada during the last war, will remember the tremendous pressure which was brought to bear upon the Canadian government and the Canadian military authorities to break up the Canadian army of 1914-18, a pressure which Sir Arthur Currie resisted so strongly, and which was resisted by Sir Sam Hughes and Sir Robert Borden. Most historians who have studied the history of the last war have generally agreed that these men were right in resisting the pressure of the British government and the British general staff and in refusing to break up the Canadian army during the last war. That does not mean that it is right not to break it up during this war.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend elaborate that? There was no Canadian army in the last war, but a Canadian corps.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Does he mean pressure to break up the Canadian corps?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the last war, yes.


James Layton Ralston: I know the fifth division was broken up.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister will remember that there was terrific pressure, according to the memoirs to which I have referred, in the early stages of the last war to split up the Canadian corps and to use one battalion in one division and another battalion elsewhere throughout the British army as 100-33
shock troops, and he will remember the fight which Sir Arthur Currie and the Canadian government-


James Layton Ralston: The Canadian corps was formed when there were two divisions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes; but the fact is that pressure was brought to bear to break it up so that it would not operate as a corps but that the respective battalions would operate as parts of the British army to be used as shock troops under the British command. The Canadian government and the Canadian military authorities at that time strongly resisted that pressure, and we have felt during this war that there was a strong demand in this country, and a strong feeling in the army itself, that the Canadian army be allowed to do the better job it could do if it were possible to retain it as a unit operating under a Canadian commander in the field. The government, for some reason or other, has decided to accede to the request that it be broken up. One corps will be sent to Italy; the other corps will remain in England with an army headquarters, and I imagine a British corps or some other corps will operate with that corps under Canadian army headquarters.


James Layton Ralston: Whose request was it that the Canadian army be broken up? The hon. member said that the government had decided to accede to the request that the Canadian army be broken up.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I take it for granted that it was the request of the British government.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend can take it for granted it was nothing of the kind. I have said, in my statement to the house, that the government itself of its own initiative asked for a division to go to Italy, and then pressed for another division to go. There was no request of any kind or description by the British that the two divisions should go to Italy. I have said all that. I went into the details of it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I heard the
minister's speech.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend did not listen, I am afraid.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I hear
the minister again?


James Layton Ralston: I say I am afraid my hon. friend did not listen, if he makes the statement that we acceded to a request and says that the request was that of the British government.

War Appropriation-Army


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I hardly take it from the minister that the Canadian government decided to send a division without any prior consultation with the British government.


James Layton Ralston: Certainly we had prior consultation with the British government, but we had no request from the British government. It was on our initiative and not on theirs.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then the
responsibility lies squarely with the Canadian government?


James Layton Ralston: Absolutely.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Canadian government decided that the Canadian army, instead of operating as a unit, first of all a division and now a corps, would be sent to Italy and that corps would operate under a British army commander and that the other corps would remain in Great Britain under Canadian army headquarters, to which will probably be added a British corps or some other corps to complete that army operating under Canadian army headquarters.
I do not wish to discuss the question of General McNaughton, in view of what the Prime Minister said yesterday, but I think it was a mistake that the announcement regarding the break-up of the Canadian army as a unit coincided closely with the announcement of General McNaughton's resignation. Also it reminded many people of the fact that after Dunkirk, General McNaughton was quoted by some United States papers as saying that after what he had seen in France he would be opposed to having the Canadian army broken up. I do not mean that that is still his point of view; I do not know. But the inference drawn by a great many people, both inside and outside the armed forces, was that there had been here a distinct cleavage of opinion as to whether the Canadian forces should go into action as a unit or should be broken up and operated on several fronts as different army corps. After listening carefully to the minister on Friday last, the only reason I could gather for the advantage of breaking up the Canadian army was to gain battle experience. There is a great deal of merit in that argument. I ?an see the difficulty in keeping a large body of men in England, the danger of men going stale, and the desire on the part of highly trained men to acquire some battle experience. The minister has not explained why it was not possible to use the entire Canadian army in Italy so as to enable them to remain as a unit. There may be strategic reasons which he cannot give, but I think the minister will have to remember that
(Mr. Ralston.]
there are many people in this country who were naturally anxious that the Canadian army should have been kept as a unit and who will want some further explanation as to why it has not been kept together.
Everyone I believe recognizes that in a unified united nations' strategy all the different countries participating will have to fit into a general plan. That is inevitable, and neither Canada nor any other country can have sole control of the military strategy that will dominate the war effort of the united nations. At the same time the Canadian people have placed hundreds of thousands of their sons in the care of the government and particularly of the Minister of National Defence, and they will want to know just to what extent the strategy and the battle operations to be followed are in any way influenced or affected by the Canadian general staff and by the Canadian government.
I know there are limitations; I know the larger picture will have to dominate. But I say frankly to the minister that there is a strong feeling in some quarters, which may be justifiable-in fact it is there-that the control has been going increasingly into the hands of professional soldiers; that the R.M.C. men particularly, and naturally, since they are the trained men, have been given positions of responsibility; that civilian soldiers have been to some extent pushed aside; that the entire control of the strategy is increasingly in the hands of the British general staff and British generals; and that less and less of the say as to what will be done with the Canadian forces is being left in the hands of the Canadian command and the Canadian authorities. I think the minister could do a great deal to alleviate some of that feeling by giving to this committee, if not now, whenever he can, a picture as to just how the Canadian corps will integrate into the picture in Italy, how the Canadian corps and army headquarters will integrate into the picture in Europe and what consultation there will be with Canadian rpilitary authorities..
For instance, the Canadian people have not forgotten that on several occasions in the last war, if the histories that have been written are correct, Sir Arthur Currie insisted before certain battle operations took place that certain artillery support and certain conditions must obtain before Canadians would take part in the operations that were proposed. I think the Canadian people in the final analysis would be glad to know that the control and the decisions affecting the lives of the men they have sent overseas will be safeguarded

War Appropriation-Army
and protected not only by the Canadian government but by Canadian commanders responsible to the Canadian government.


James Layton Ralston: I think I might as well deal now with what my hon. friend has said.
I have already spoken with regard to some of these matters, and I do not want to indicate that I have any hesitation whatever about discussing the question. My hon. friend has spoken of several comparatively minor matters to which I shall refer only briefly. I have already given the committee a very full statement with regard to the employment of nonoperational troops and their different roles. I can give the committee a full schedule of all the different groups of units which are involved, but at the moment I do not think it is necessary to load up Hansard. Suffice it to say we have a committee, and it is a hard-boiled committee. It is a committee that those connected with the various units in the non-operational group consider pretty tough. They are travelling back and forth in this country all the time examining into the establishments at the different centres, and at the different headquarters as well, in an endeavour to check and see whether a man can be spared here or there. A great many war establishments have been cut down as a result of the action of that committee-not always; sometimes they have been increased. But I wish to assure this committee that there has been and there is vigilance in connection with the matter of the conservation of man-power and every effort is made to prevent them from getting into the backwater of non-operational troops unless they are doing an actual job.
I have already made reference to operational troops and indicated the cut which was made. Sometimes I feel that perhaps there is nothing which the department can do which is right. Last September I really thought I was doing something which everybody would applaud when the seventh and eighth divisions were disbanded. I heard nothing but criticism from one end of the country to the other. It has been talked about as a muddle; it has been said that the statement which was made was rotten. As a matter of fact, I penned the announcement myself and take full blame for it. I thought that I had made a statement which the public would understand and that we were really doing a job in cutting down operational troops. Nevertheless the storm came just the same. In spite of that, we are still studying the possibility of disbanding other units, and we are going to keep on with it regardless of what people may say and whether people give us credit for it or not.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the minister be able to give us now or later comparative figures of A. and T. personnel in these camps as against the number of men being trained in the camps?
Mr. RALSTON; Certainly. With regard to seeding leave I took note of what my hon. friend has said and will endeavour to see to it that early attention is given to the matter in order to ascertain whether any changes can be made which may further the objectives which he has in mind. With regard to the order in council forbidding writing to newspapers, it is not an order in council; it is Canadian army routine order, and as a matter of fact it is under consideration at this minute. With regard to the clothing allowance under general order 139-


Gordon Graydon: From the tone of the minister's reply in connection with that one order or regulation may one take it that the government is taking some steps to review and perhaps alter it?


James Layton Ralston: The three services are taking steps to review it.


Gordon Graydon: Does that also refer to their taking part in public activities?


James Layton Ralston: It was passed when I was away. I did not know the contents of it until I had it looked up here to-night. It does not refer to public activities. As I understand it, this order prohibits men writing any articles at all whether they happen to be military or otherwise. Is that what my hon. friend has reference to?


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: That is the one under review by the three services now.


Gordon Graydon: I hope the minister makes some change because it is pretty drastic.


James Lester Douglas: Does that routine order also forbid the men writing to members of parliament?


James Layton Ralston: No; Iv.R. and 0. does that.


Gordon Graydon: Does that mean that any-bodj' in the armed forces cannot write to members of parliament?


James Layton Ralston: On military matters.


Grote Stirling: Who is to tell?


Gordon Graydon: Surely that should be
clarified. I should not like to be a party to breaking some of the K.R. and 0., but I get letters from various sources.
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: I had the sad experience in my own constituency of a constituent writing to me. I think it is a fact that K.R. and 0., as it stands now-


Gordon Graydon: Surely that is pretty drastic.


James Layton Ralston: I am not dealing with that because I want to get on with other matters. My hon. friend referred to general order 139. The clothing allowance provision has been made to apply to those who were discharged under general order 139, and* it has been in force since November 1.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And made retroactive.


James Layton Ralston: No. With regard to soldiers' wives, my hon. friend simply referred to it as a possible activity of the department. We do want to take in all the scope possible in connection with the men who are considered the wards of the department, but I think probably that is going a little far afield. However, I shall certainly bring what my hon. friend says to the attention of the committee which has this whole matter of rehabilitation in hand. I thought my hon. friend was referring first to soldiers' brides. This is a subject which has had some attention in publications in Canada. I say in that respect that the department feels we have a responsibility there and is joining with the Department of National War Services, the Red Cross and other agencies in order to endeavour as far as possible to see to it that these girls who are coming home, some with children and some with none, are received and looked after as befits the wives of men who are fighting the battles of Canada overseas.


Gordon Graydon: Hear, hear.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member for Weyburn said something about the breaking up of the Canadian army. I have already dealt with that. It is not a long story and it is not a very complicated one. I am not saying this sarcastically, but I never realized how the policy of having a Canadian army had taken on in Canada until the events of the last six months occurred. When the formation of the army was announced two years ago, I did not hear much applause for it anywhere. As a matter of fact, I heard a good deal of criticism in newspapers about the fact that we were aspiring to have a Canadian army. The suggestion was that we were building a structure of gingerbread, and that it was something that we were putting on to our organization by way of a frill. There was a good deal of newspaper criticism of that kind.

I find now it was regarded as a constructive step, and I am glad of that. But even a year ago I had to take notice of the criticism and to call the attention of the house to the fact that the house had approved of the organization of a Canadian army, and that I did not think it was up to the people generally, or to the house particularly, to criticize that organization which had been approved without a dissenting voice. But there was a good deal of talk-perhaps not so much in Hansard-but certainly the suggestion that we had bitten off too much, and that this idea of a Canadian army was just a little bit of frosting which could have been omitted, and that we would have been just as well off without it. The idea suggested was that it was for the purpose of making more generals, and of building up an organization which, although it did not mean much, sounded big.
That was the attitude of a good many people in Canada. But, strangely enough, just now it seems that they had real, genuine, sincere admiration and affection for that particular organization. The situation was that two years ago the Canadian army was formed. We set out to build that Canadian army, and we expected, as everybody knows, that there would have been activity on the continent of Europe at least in 1943. There was no opportunity whatsoever to give to units of the Canadian army battle experience, in view of the job which they had been given, namely the defence of Britain. The first Canadian division, then the Canadian corps and then the Canadian army itself had a key position in the defence of Britain during those years of 1940, 1941 and 1942, when the danger of invasion was imminent. That threat of invasion diminished as 1942 ran on.
The time came, in the fall of 1942, when I hoped that an opportunity might be made for the use of at least part of the Canadian army elsewhere than in Britain. I had heard a great deal of discussion and much criticism' of the fact that the Canadian army was standing idle over there. I had had some questions put to me in the House of Commons by hon. members, by members of His Majesty's loyal opposition, asking what the Canadian army was doing, and why it was not in the fighting which was then going on in North Africa.
I found out that an operation was imminent, and I immediately went to the chief of the imperial general staff with regard to the matter of possible participation of some Canadian forces in that operation. I went to the secretary of state for war. I talked the matter over thoroughly with those gentlemen, and they gave me, as I have said to the house, what I considered good and sufficient reasons why at

War Appropriation-Army
that time they could' not consider the inclusion of a Canadian component with the United States and British components of the forces which were intended to land, and which did later land in North Africa.	[DOT]
Well, the Canadian army still stayed in Britain. We still heard a good deal on this side and a good deal on the other side to the effect that the Canadian army was not doing very much. As a matter of fact, a leading Canadian in Britain at a public function on one occasion even referred to the "Canadian home guard" of the British isles. That was the attitude taken by some people. So far as I was concerned I felt we were right in respect of the attitude we had taken. I felt an opportunity would come, if some operation did not take place on the continent in the spring of 1943. If it did take place in the spring of 1943, it meant, as I said the other day, that Canada's whole investment-by that I mean an investment in lives, not dollars-of ground forces overseas would be put to the hazard in one gigantic operation across the channel, without any of them, practically, having had an opportunity of hearing a shot fired in anger. Of course, that was a situation which would have to be faced, if necessary; because, as I have said, there has to be a baptism of fire; at some time men have to hear the first shot fired. But it did seem to involve at least some responsibility, to see if it were not possible that there might be some battle experience given at least to part of the Canadian forces, if that could be done.
The opportunity came. The operation did not come off in the spring of 1943; at least the plans did not materialize. In lieu thereof there was the operation which was to take place in Sicily. An approach was made immediately to the United Kingdom authorities to suggest that there ought to be a Canadian component in the forces which were going to Sicily. Those representations were accepted, although I shall not go into detail respecting the discussions. The first Canadian division and an armoured formation were sent, and the committee knows the record made by that division and those armoured troops in Sicily and in Italy under Major-General Simmonds.
Those who talk about breaking up the Canadian army ought to think of where Canada would stand at the present time in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of her own soldiers and in the eyes of her own people, if we had not had that opportunity last July to show to the world that, notwithstanding the fact that they had not been permitted to fight for three years, Canadian soldiers were not stale,
that they could fight as did their fathers twenty-five years before them, and give a good account of themselves.
When one hears talk about breaking up the Canadian army, one asks himself: What would be the alternative? Just here let me interject that to speak of breaking up the Canadian army is not a correct description of what we are doing. We are, on the contrary, maintaining the army organization and using it as a Canadian contribution along with the corps in the United Kingdom. The alternative was, of course, to keep them all in England, to keep them all for the day when they might all launch one great attack.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I suggest to the minister another alternative: Would it not have been possible to have gone as an army?


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon. friend please permit me to finish what I am saying. We felt that if we could have an opportunity to give battle training to at least a part of the army, not only the non-commissioned officers and men, but the officers themselves and the staffs, they might be available to come back to the United Kingdom-for that was to be where the main thrust was to take place. And I wish to tell the committee that for a good while nobody knew where the main thrust was going to be. As a matter of fact, it was not decided and announced until the Teheran conference. Our idea was that we would have men who would have acquired experience, and who could come back to help lead the forces who had not then had that training, in the great offensive across the channel.
That was done; the first division and an armoured formation were sent, and, as I say, a proud record for Canada was made in July and August of 1943. That involved, I suppose my hon. friend would say, the breaking up of the Canadian army, in that it involved taking one division from that army and leaving only four.
It appeared in the summer of 1943 that nobody knew what was going to happen next. There was talk, as a matter of fact, about collapse by Christmas, and that the war might be over. There was talk, on the other hand, that nobody knew when an operation might take place on the continent, and we faced the situation again of people saying, "Yes, Canada has one division out of five in the war. The other four are safely tucked away in England, and some day those four divisions will have to be thrown into battle without any battle experience." I talked the matter over with the chief of the general staff and
War Appropriation-Army

my officers at national headquarters. I talked it over with General McNaughton and I decided-I take full responsibility-upon the advice of the chief of the general staff, that for the sake of the morale of the troops in England, for the sake of the morale of the people in Canada, but much more for the sake of the training and the experience which would be obtained and which would be for the benefit of the war effort, because of the preparation we would have and the greater pool on which we could draw for the purpose of the invasion or the offensive in which we might later take part, that the thing to do was to see to it not only that non-commissioned officers and men were given an opportunity to become battle trained and battle experienced, but that our staffs, our divisional staffs and our corps staff were given an opportunity for operating in a battle theatre so that, they might know at first hand the handling, not simply in manoeuvres, but the tactical handling and administration of units and formations and divisions and corps under actual battle conditions. That was decided upon deliberately.
Representations were made again to those who had the strategic direction of the war in charge, and the result is that to-night Canada has a corps in Italy operating as a self-contained corps with just as much autonomy as the Canadian corps had under Sir Arthur Currie in 1914-18. To-night that corps is contributing many officers to the organization which is going on in the United Kingdom in order that Canada may take part in the great offensive, whenever that time may come. I shall have some announcements to make later on which will indicate that, but I cannot make them to-night. Had this action not been taken, men and senior officers would not have had this experience. The people of Canada now may know that many of the men who will lead their boys into battle will be men who have been under fire in Italy, men who have had opportunity to handle formations, men who have acted on divisional staffs under actual war conditions.
That decision was made by the Canadian government. That decision was made in respect of the Canadian army. The decision was to use the Canadian army where and how it could best be used. I say to my hon. friend that I do not for one instance make any apologies. Perhaps I am saying that a little defiantly, but I do not mean it in that way. I make that statement because of the solemn and serious responsibility which has been upon my shoulders and upon the shoulders of the government.. I wish to say earnestly and from the bottom of my heart that I believe that was 
the decision that ought to have been made. That decision was made soundly in the interests of the Canadian army and in the interests of the cause which the Canadian army is supporting.
My hon. friend asks why we did not take the whole army to Italy. The same argument applies. If you had taken them all to Italy at one time; if you had sent them all into battle at one time, you would not have had the benefit of a proportion of experienced battle-trained officers; you would not have been able to get them under war conditions by degrees. And as a matter of practice, under the situation as we found it, I do not believe there would have been any possibility of sending the whole Canadian army to Italy under the conditions which existed when the division and the corps were sent.
I believe the people of Canada would have been very much concerned if we had sent the whole Canadian force to Itah', if they were in Italy to-night, instead of the one corps that is in Italy taking its place on the right flank of the battle that is going on, with another corps in Great Britain under Canadian army headquarters. That Canadian army headquarters is in a position to direct and support and supervise any corps which our allies decide to entrust to that army. I think it is a compliment to Canadians that we are able to feel that we have an organization, that we have an army headquarters which is so organized that, when the time comes, it will be able to take on the direction and support and carry out those functions which must be exercised by an army headquarters. Under this headquarters will be a Canadian corps and whatever corps of allied troops may be associated with them. I think this is a compliment also to General McNaughton, and I say that quite frankly.
That is the story of the breaking up, so-called, of the Canadian army. I hope it will approve itself to the people of Canada. I know there will be great disappointment that all Canadians are not together. I said to this house the other day, and I emphasize and underline it to-night, that the whole course of this war, the whole fashion of formations and of battle lines to-day is in the form of task forces. There is an integration of forces of different countries. We have the special service force which has been spoken of which is made up partly of United States and partly of Canadian troops. One of the things I learned when I was in Italy was that we do not necessarily have a division fighting as a whole. We may be fighting two brigades of a division, and we may have an armoured brigade from somewhere else put along with it in order that a particular task may be done. In this

War Appropriation-Army
war Canada will be fighting side by side with the British and United States troops. There are other divisions of active armies that I know about which I cannot disclose and alongside which Canada is fighting at the present time. We cannot manage to have complete homogeneity, but at the same time we can see to it that our men are trained, that our men are fit, that our men get the best experience and are led by officers who have had experience under the actual conditions of war.
I have no doubt there will be many other questions asked in connection with this matter, but I welcome this opportunity to speak, perhaps a little at length, because I believe that when the Canadian people realize just what has happened, and why, when they know that there has been considered and deliberate judgment about this thing, they will accept the decision which has been made, believing that it is for the good of the common cause which, after all, is all that counts.


Mr. DUROCHER:: Is the increase in item 1 due solely to additional personnel, or is it due to increases in salaries and wages of men already in the service? I notice that item 2 covers officers and men, but this item 1, apparently covers civil salaries and wages.


James Layton Ralston: The portion of the increase of $7,000,000 which is due to increases in pay is $552,000. This is due to the reclassification of the positions of something like 2,300 employees. The remainder is due to, first, the growth of army administration; second, the replacement of soldiers by civilians and, third, the inclusion of certain employees who previously were included under another item and who will now be deducted from that item.


Mr. QUELCH:: It is not very often that I rise to support the government, but I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister and those who are responsible for the decision to send a Canadian division to Sicily and Italy. I know I was thrilled, and the people with whom I spoke were thrilled when they heard that Canadians were going into action as part of the eighth army, an army that had built up for itself in this war a reputation second to none. It must have been tremendously stimulating to our troops, who were green troops, to know that they were to be under the supreme command of a man who had shown that he would not start an action until he was ready, and then when he did start it. make sure that he was going places. Therefore I think we can feel gratified that our troops were sent forward under that type of leadership, and I hope that when the second mrps goes into action it will be under the same kind of leadership. Personally I would have been very uneasy if the Canadian army had gone into action as an army, with the men all green, the commanders all green and no man having proven what he could do. In a war of this kind it has been shown that with a pincers' movement it is quite easy to lose a division and even an army in a short space of time, and I congratulate the minister and his officials upon sending Canadian divisions into Sicily and Italy in the way they did.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I wish to refer for a moment to one of the matters which the minister described as one of the minor matters that had been raised.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps it was not.


Major James William Coldwell: I want to refer to the order which the minister said was under recom-sideration dealing with the writing of letters to the press by soldiers. I have on my desk beside me at the moment a letter from a member of the veterans' guard in which he tells me that in December he wrote a letter to the Saint John Telegraph-Journal. He is not a member of this party, but the letter dealt with some editorials and articles that were appearing in the Saint John newspaper. The letter was not published. But a week or so later, when this man was on duty one night, he was called into the orderly room and given a severe reprimand for having written a letter to this newspaper. As I say, the letter had not been published. The man thought he was entitled to express his views on matters that were of interest to him. He was a veteran of the last war with three and a half years' war service, and was discharged with wounds. He has two sons serving in the Royal Canadian Air Force in this war, one of them operating a Spitfire.
I appeal to the minister to rescind this order. After all, what are we fighting for? We are fighting for democracy, we are told. Are all the people of this country to be allowed to express themselves except the very men who are actually engaged in fighting for our right to express ourselves?
A few days ago I was reading a book written by a prominent man in Great Britain, dealing with public affairs, and in the preface to it he said that very largely the material in the book had been discussed as he was discussing it there because of the numerous political questions that had been asked him when he was addressing meetings in army camps, barracks and aerodromes in Great Britain. Only a short time ago I read an article in which it was said that one thing the British
War Appropriation-Army

were achieving in this war that our friends in the United States were not achieving was that, like Cromwell's army, the British army was becoming a thinking army, knowing exactly for what it fought, and why.
Consequently I ask the minister to consider rescinding this order. It is anti-democratic in a war of this kind when we are fighting for the principles of democracy-the right to freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of association. Surely the man who is fighting for these ideals ought to be permitted to exercise some freedom in that regard. I rose to underline one of the points made by the horn, member for Weyburn and to appeal to the minister to consider doing away with this order.
' So far as writing to members of parliament is concerned, if that is covered by the king's regulations and orders, I think we should not slavishly follow K.R. and 0. of the imperial army. As my hon. friend pointed out, we have a civilian army; we represent the people of Canada in their capacity as civilians, and the men in the armed forces should, I think, have the right to write to their member and bring to his attention, not matters connected with details of military administration or anything of that sort, but matters that fall within their orbit very often, sometimes dealing with their families. May I just say, since I have been critical, that I have appreciated the manner in which the minister has himself dealt with letters of that kind having to do with matters of family need at home, and so on. Invariably the minister has given the kindliest consideration to that kind of approach, made through a member of parliament sometimes, and I wish to thank him for it. But I would suggest that he go beyond that and remove the ban on men in the armed forces writing to the press and writing to their members of parliament.


James Layton Ralston: I will read the memorandum so that 'hon. members will understand that the matter is being given serious consideration:
Objections have been taken to this order on the grounds that it prohibits publication, without permission, of articles or material not of a military character. This order has recently been reconsidered by representatives of the three services.
So that the order has been reconsidered and certain recommendations are being made. I think the words "or otherwise" are the words that were objected to.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Has the Canadian army in Italy any veterinary service? I understand that the United States

army has a veterinary service which looks after meat and dairy products for the army, and meat and dairy hygiene generally. It also looks after the water supply, perishable foods and things of that sort. Has the Canadian army a similar service in Italy?


James Layton Ralston: I did not see anything of the veterinary service. A member of this house, the hon. member for London, is one of the officers in charge of the Canadian Army Service Corps on the supply side. For a considerable time-this is another side of veterinary activities-mule and pack trains had to be used. But if my hon. friend is speaking of the inspection end of the veterinary service, I have not personal knowledge of it. I shall be glad to inquire and find out.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Has Canada any war dogs at the front like other armies have, the United States army, for instance?


James Layton Ralston: I am not in a position to speak of that. I cannot say yes or no.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am in the same position. I was asked the question and was not able to answer it.


Walter Adam Tucker: Both yesterday, and time and time again to-day we have heard a lot of members suggest that many of the non-operational troops in Canada were not doing anything. I have served almost from one end of Canada to the other with operational and non-operational troops. I am, for example, at present with 1 training brigade. Some members seem to think that all that an army organization has to do to get a plethora of unnecessary people is to ask for them. Let me say that we started out with an organization in 1 training brigade that was so short of help that training cadre, cooks, clerks, officers and everybody connected with the establishment had to work Saturdays, Sundays and at nights to get the work done. I do not think I ever worked so hard in all my life before as I did on the headquarters of 1 training brigade. We were going night and day, and sometimes in a climate which is not so pleasant-Nova Scotia in the fall. Perhaps if hon. members from Nova Scotia had to be out at night in the pouring rain, they would no.t appreciate conditions around there so much as when they are inside their own houses. In any event, I can say that the attempts to get an adequate number of people to do the work which is supposed to be done, and the fight with the committee in charge, reminded me very much of the fights which I understand take place to get certain matters

War Appropriation-Army
past the treasury board. Indeed, it would seem to me harder to persuade the committee to supply an adequate staff for this work than to get authorizations from the treasury board.
I speak only of things which I know. Certainly everybody connected with the so-called non-operational group was working very hard and it was extremely difficult to persuade the committee to provide extra assistance.
That raises the question of whether people of low categories should be employed in this non-operational work. Remember that we were attempting to train young fellows, to prepare them, perhaps, to go right into action. They were young men in category "A" who had already gone through the basic, advanced and special to arms training centres. They were in the pink of condition, and the idea wTas to give them a last month of training before they might have to go into action. It was found that many of the people over age or of low category could not keep up with these young fellows-they could not train them; they could not lead them; they could not do their job adequately at times. When you suggest that none but low category people be assigned to non-operational work, you are simply proposing to train the finest men in Canada with people who are over age and of low category, and it just cannot be done.
On another matter, I was very glad that the hon. member for Acadia, a returned soldier from the last war, agreed with the government, as I believe every old soldier will agree, that no matter how much you try to train people and prepare them for actual fighting, you learn to fight only by fighting. You can learn more in regard to how to handle yourself under combat conditions by one day's experience under fire that you will probably learn in a month under similar conditions of training. I know that a real attempt has been made to simulate war conditions in the training given our troops. But, like the hon. member for Acadia, I believe that practically everybody who thought of the possibility of the whole Canadian army going into action together, without some prior experience by -arious units, was very much worried; and conversely, when it was learned that our troops vould be sent into action piecemeal, getting .heir baptism of fire without the risks which would result from the entire force being thrown in at once, with the possibility of something terrible happening to them, everybody was relieved and shared the views of the hon. member for Acadia.
In the last war the Canadian corps was built up gradually to the pitch at which it finally arrived; first a battalion, then a division, and so on; they gradually became accustomed to
the work they had to do. I do not move in exalted military circles or have the chance of consulting with the "brass hats". But, like the hon. member for Weybum, I do read a bit, and I am sure that every person who reflected seriously on the subject felt that the action which had been taken was much the wiser course, and I think the Minister of National Defence should be told that in no uncertain terms by this committee.
A word as to the question of suggesting to the troops that, every time anyone is not satisfied with something which happens to him-such as this afternoon, when we heard of somebody's complaint that he did not get his supper on time or something of that sort-he should be encouraged to write to his member of parliament or to the newspapers.
I wonder how many people who have had service in the army would expect much discipline or morale in the forces if that sort of thing were encouraged. Regular channels of communication are provided whereby a soldier i3 absolutely guaranteed that, if he has a legitimate grievance, it will be looked into. He has the right to appeal, and if he is not listened to he can take his grievance step by step to a higher authority. That means that it goes to the people who can look into it and investigate it. If he goes over the heads of those who know all about it and writes to his member of parliament, what will happen? If one person does it, the whole army is entitled to do it.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar just mentioned something of that kind. My attitude, regarding complaints made to me as a member of parliament is to say, "The law of the land has laid down full protection for you as a soldier, and you should avail yourself of the regular channels of communication. So that I as a member encourage these people to use those channels of communication. But every once in a while, someone ignores the law and writes to a member like the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and gets consideration of the complaint, as he says, from the minister; and what does it lead to? The soldiers were told by members who encouraged their correspondents to abide by the laws of the land are bound to feel that they have some grievance. They see that so-and-so wrote to another member, and he went over the heads of everybody else and dealt with the minister, and got things adjusted, and they conclude that if one can do it, all can do it. What would then happen to the discipline of the army?
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar suggests that we should not pay much attention to what is laid down in K.R. and 0. of the

War Appropriation-Army

British army. I do not say we should follow it slavishly, but I suggest that the regulations contained in K.R. and 0. of the British army are there as the result of generations upon generations of experience in handling a fighting force. I also suggest to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar two things: one, that no troops are better looked after by their officers or were better looked after in every way in past generations as compared with other fighting troops the -world over than British troops; second, that because of, or perhaps the hon. member may say, in spite of these conditions in the past from time to time in various wars there was built up, in the British army, a body of fighting men not excelled by any equivalent force of fighting men anywhere else in the world. The history of what they have done on various battle fields for the last several hundred years is enough to establish that. Nobody can suggest that they, individually or as an army, suffered unduly by virtue of these regulations. In other words, you cannot run an army like you run the houses of parliament or-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The C.C.F.


Walter Adam Tucker: -or like you can run-
Some hon. MEMBERS.: The C.C.F.


Walter Adam Tucker: No: I say that the C.C.F. do not run their party like that, either. I venture to say that there is pretty stringent discipline in their party.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is
democracy in our party.


Walter Adam Tucker: I think, for example, of the hon. member for North Battleford, who did not agree with the leaders of the party, and was thrown out because she persisted in disagreeing with them, and does not sit with them to-day. But I do not know of anybody in the Liberal party who was thrown out of our party because they did not agree with it in all matters-and there have been lots of chances of throwing people out.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is Mr. Hepburn in or out?


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Hepburn was not
thrown out. He took himself out.


Gordon Graydon: And took the Liberal party with him.


Walter Adam Tucker: Coming back to the matter I was discussing, I agree it might be possible to consider these regulations in the light of changed conditions and that this should be done; but having had something to do with the army in the last war as a private, and something to do with the army in this war, I fMr. Tucker.]
would say that the first place that a soldier Should be encouraged to go if he has any difficulties at all is to the officer who is in immediate charge of him, who is told over and over again that his duty is to encourage his men to come to him with their most intimate problems; and who should feel that it is his duty to convince his men that they can come to him and confide in him. There should be a feeling of real comradeship. If the man feels he is not getting a square deal from the officer immediately in charge of him, he has the right to go to the officer who is next higher in rank; and if he is still not satisfied1 that he is receiving fair treatment, it is his right to go higher and higher and higher. But by making it necessary for that soldier to go in the first instance to the officer, the officer will probably be able to clear up the difficulty there and then. There is, however, something more important than that. If the soldier is taught to use, and if he tries to use that means of obtaining redress, he will find nine times out of ten that the difficulty under which he is suffering will be cleared up by his own officer. This would lead to greater mutual confidence and it would enable them to learn to get together and to trust one another. But if you encourage every soldier to believe that if he has some sort of grievance against his officer he can write to his member of parliament, and the member of parliament can go after the officer commanding that battalion and get that officer into' trouble, w'hat sort of army will you have very shortly?
There is another matter that I would call to the minister's attention, and I think he will agree that it is most important. I understand that in the beginnidg applications for farm leave and postponement of service were sent by the district officers commanding to national defence headquarters and were then referred back to the national selective boards. That meant presumably that troops, no matter from what part of Canada they came, received the same consideration. The decision has now been made, embodied in a routine order, that applications for farm leave shall be dealt with by district officers commanding. That may have been necessary at a time when there was, for example, real danger of attack on the Pacific coast, leaving it to the district officer commanding there, or the G.O.C., Pacific command, to say whether the exigencies of the service would permit him to allow anyone to go on farming leave or to have postponement of service by reason of the fact that he was needed at home on the farm. But the effect of that has been this. There were, I understand, somewhere in the neighbourhood of
6,000	people who were granted extended leave.

War Appropriation-Army
If so, it would appear to me that there has been a good deal more generosity in the granting of such leave in other places than to men in the troops in the Pacific command. I do not think there is any doubt about it. That may have been justified when the exigencies of the service were different from what they are to-day; but I would urge the minister to see to it that applications for postponement, or for seeding leave, or harvest leave, or leave on compassionate grounds, be dealt with in some uniform manner throughout Canada, so that it would not be possible for one D.O.C. to turn down all applications almost en masse, while another D.O.C., who is more favourably inclined to or more impressed with the needs of the farming industry, grants far more applications than are granted elsewhere.
I do not know the figures; but if there has been granted the number that the minister says, then my experience leads me to say that if other constituencies had the same experience in getting farm leave granted, the number would not be 6,000 but more like
1,000.	That is probably due to the fact that such a large proportion of troops called up from my constituency and in Saskatchewan have been serving in the Pacific command.
I do not ask for special consideration. I simply suggest that the same attitude be taken toward the troops everywhere, no matter where they may be in Canada, and that there should be some supervision over the decisions of the district officers commanding. That is possible now because the danger of invasion and the exigencies of the service are such that perhaps conditions are pretty much the same throughout Canada.


James Layton Ralston: I did not catch the suggestion as to who the supervising authority should be. Did the hon. member mean that it should come back to headquarters?


Walter Adam Tucker: I think it is better that it should come back to headquarters in Ottawa and they can see that similar treatment is given to the people in all military districts.


Mr. MUTCH:: I rather think that if the members of the house generally are labouring under the impression that a large number of those in the forces are desirous of writing directly to members of parliament, they might be shocked in some instances to know the reaction of large numbers of the forces to that somewhat unique animal the member of parliament-in-general. Individually, I suppose, the average member is as well regarded by those persons whom he knows in the forces as any other member of society; but as a group, it is very revealing and produces a good deal of thought to sit by, and I wall not 100-34i
say in disguise but at least unknown, and listen sometimes to the comments which one hears with respect to the activities of those of us who occupy seats in this house.
I should say at once that I welcome the suggestion of the minister to-night that the objectionable words in the regulations quoted, with respect to the publishing of letters sent home and to private individuals by persons in the forces, are likely to be altered, because under the strict conditions of censorship which now exist, it suggests rather too much that the forces themselves are not sufficiently security-minded and not sufficiently patriotically-minded to be able to exercise that type of discretion which would make it possible for the letter which is written to the home town to receive that degree of publicity which the family of the man or the man himself might welcome.
This brings me to another consideration which I think is of importance, and that is the general method or lack of method in keeping the personnel serving in the active forces informed as to what is going on at home, and particularly with respect to Canada's war effort as a whole and in some degree of things political. I am not one of those persons who ever felt, even in times of peace, that there was either sense or justification in the virtual disenfranchisement of those persons who served in the active forces, and if I was not sympathetic with it in times of peace, I am even less sympathetic in time of war.
I am. not aware that soldiers of modern nations in this war such as Russia fight any less well because they are active members of a political organization.-I said a political organization in that particular case, but I think it would apply where there is more choice. I do not think soldiers fight any better for a society which they hope will come in some nebulous time in the future than they will fight for a state of society which they help to create and in which they have a vital interest.
As I went among the overseas forces in the United Kingdom in the last few months I had an opportunity of sitting in at a considerable number of discussion groups. The discussion groups to which I refer that are held in the Canadian army are known as leaderless-situa-tion groups. Half a dozen men are put in a room and examined by people trained to make such examinations, in order to see which one of these groups under certain circumstances will assert himself as a natural leader, and which of the men will fail to measure up to these tests. One of the tests frequently used, not only in our army but in other armies, is that of the leaderless-diseussion group. A half
524	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Army
dozen men. would be put in a room for about thirty-five minutes and told that they could talk about anything they liked, but that they must express opinions on the subject chosen. They are told also that they are being observed. If they were not observed they would not be there.
If I can trust my memory I attended twelve or thirteen such groups. Those groups were composed of young chaps who had been overseas anywhere from two and a half to four years. Without exception one of the subjects which was nominated by someone was the question of reestablishment and rehabilitation after the war. That subject was not always discussed. They get very much interested in subjects like whether we can defeat the hun by air power without an attack on the continent. There were a variety of subjects, but I want to point out that that particular one was always mentioned and very often discussed.
If I may say so, I was shocked to hear these men talking about the days after the war in the exact terms of the days before the war which we remember rather sadly. I sometimes had an opportunity to hear some extreme statement from these boys. They would urge that we must attempt to do something which I knew that the people of Canada have already done, perhaps two or three years ago, for example, in connection with the expansion of industry. I would ask the question, "Do you know So-and-so", and they would almost invariably say, "no". I might then give them a word of explanation, perhaps in the discussion period, and they would say, "You have been in Canada recently; what about this and that?" Their curiosity was insatiable. Their interests tended always to the future days rather than to what had gone before. I found very little recrimination among any of the boys against society as a whole, for the experience through which many of them had gone. I found an appalling lack of knowledge of what was going on. And when I drew attention to that they would say. "Why don't they send somebody over .to tell us?" Well, you know in a democracy who "they" are. There is only one "they" who can do anything under a democratic governmental system.
When discussions were over somebody would say, "Don't you think there is something in it. Someone should be sent to tell them." I would answer, "Canada has only been able to do what she has done by virtue of the fact that every man and woman in the country has supported the authorities there." It is not the government that has done the job, but the

Canadian people; the direction and executive part of it has been done by the government, but if we are going to tell the story of what has been done w7e must tell the story of what has been accomplished by the executive action of the government. Suppose some one was sent to tell that story. Suppose, even that, some of my hon. friends to the left or I should attempt to write that story to these men. The cry would go up from different sections of this country that the Canadian army was developing a system of political commissars with all its implications. Therefore I do say that it is perhaps impractical to do that. However, I think every possible means should be taken to put the story before thesq boys. A large percentage of them have no real assurance of coming back. The war has scarcely started for them. In spite of that they are thinking in terms of the future, and to those who come back and to their children it is of vital interest. They should have the information; they should be encouraged to discuss it, to think about it and to talk about it. That is a little different from saying they should be encouraged to write to the newspapers or members of parliament about personal and individual grievances. I know something of the problems of discipline in the army. I have had some opportunities to study some of the disciplinary actions in the army and at a later date I shall probably have something to say about that.
We ought to cultivate the idea of getting to these men, somehow, more of the details of the nation's affairs. These men have a bigger stake in the future of this country than any of us. We cannot get this information out to them by radio because the majority of them who are situated in England have no access to it. We are not getting it to them, unfortunately, to the extent that they desire, in the way of pamphlets or general information. It is important to the morale of the army in much the same way as is the mail which was referred to by the minister and the leader of the opposition. I do not need to stress that because enough has been said about it.


Gordon Graydon: Are they getting a good supply of newspapers over there?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Newspapers do not go across. The trouble with newspapers is that by the time they reach them they are so old and remote from the troop's knowledge and experience that they are scarcely news. I saw this experiment made:	papers of Ottawa and
Montreal were laid on the table in an officers' mess within thirty hours of the time they came from the presses. They were placed in a conspicuous pile. One young man who had been over there for two or three years came

War Appropriation-Army
in and glanced at them. His face lit up. It was something from home. He looked at them, sort of glanced through them casually and then went over and read the British paper which he was accustomed to reading, because there was nothing in his recent experience and understanding that attracted him to the Canadian papers. The headlines did not relate to anything in his daily experience. Four years is a long time, and unfortunately for us in this house and, to a certain degree the people of Canada as a whole, too much of the information that reaches the men about what is going on here is of the sensational type and, I am sorry to say, not always in a reliable form. You cannot be surprised if they write and request news and information, if they wish to be informed on current opinion. We should not be surprised if they feel the responsibility of citizenship in this country. We should be glad. I have come back with it firmly fixed in my mind that everything should be done to make these men and women feel that they are fully enfranchised citizens of Canada. I am firmly of the opinion that they must have a full understanding of what is going on at home.
Before I sit down I should like to mention one more experience I had. Not very long ago I sat in the mess of a bomber command. A visitor in the mess was a chap who had just come back from the near east. I never heard a man get a better hearing than he received when he bragged, frankly, bragged, a Canadian among Canadians, about what it felt like as a Canadian to land in a port in the near east, or at a station somewhere in Africa and walk up from the landing-strip, or from the docks, between crates piled on either side like an avenue on which were letters four or five inches high saying, "made in Canada". That sort of thing got a reaction which would be soul-warming to those people who produced the goods that were there. The discussions with respect to those people who sometimes through mistaken or selfish ideas have stopped for a while producing these goods, would be shocking if heard.


Ernest Edward Perley: I wish to say a brief word on this item. I listened carefully to the minister when he made his first statement yesterday and I have also listened to him to-day. The more we listen, the more information we get. I think the minister made a frank and proper statement in reply to the hon. member for Weyburn. It was informative, and I believe it would have been well if he had made it a little earlier rather than have it prompted by the hon. member. I certainly appreciate, and I think we all do, the difficulty the minister and the government have in carrying on the
war. The minister has the first responsibility. He has to organize the Canadian army and keep it supplied with reinforcements, the stream-line training he speaks about. That has to be ready and he does not know the minute he will be called on. I think it was very fine that he set out in an instructive way to give us the information which he did. We have heard a good deal with respect to soldiers, or other men in the armed forces writing to members of the House of Commons, or taking their difficulties to district officers commanding. The minister has said that teamwork is necessary, and I think hon. members ought to be patriotic enough to display a desire for teamwork.
May I tell the committee how I have dealt with many of these men who have come to me-and I have no doubt other hon. members are approached in the same way. All of us receive many letters. I have three on my desk which came yesterday. I have not yet received my western mail for to-day because the train is late, but I suppose there will be more when that mail arrives. To be quite frank, I reply to these men or, if they come to my office-and a great many of them have come-I listen to their stories. Some of them think they have grievances. I say to them, "Well, you may have a grievance", if I think they have one. I tell them how to go about obtaining redress, and point out to them that the first thing for them to do is to discuss the matter with their district officer commanding.
That is what I tell them because, as I have said on many occasions, if the Minister of National Defence were to listen to me or to any other member of parliament, would not this whole thing be a farce? There have to be rules and regulations, and the minister is familiar with them. It is the duty of hon. members to tell these men just how to go about obtaining redress for their grievances. While I have had cases brought to my attention where I did not believe they had received a square deal after the matter had been taken up with the district officer commanding, yet on the other hand I believe many of them have received just treatment.
I was pleased to hear the minister say that some action will be taken with respect to having men return on leave to take part in seeding operations. This afternoon we heard a long discussion in connection with the forestry corps, some of whom were turned over to do farming operations. I make an appeal to the minister to have the information sent out in plenty of time so that the farmers will receive a square deal in getting assistance from some of the non-operational troops we now have in Canada.
War Appropriation-Army

I could go into detail by pointing out that in my opinion some of the boys overseas, who have been there for three or four years, should be returned to Canada. In some instances fathers may have died, or something of that kind happened, and where fathers have died widows would be left on farms. In those circumstances it is, of course, difficult to carry on.
I make a further appeal to the minister. Yesterday he said he proposed to enlist 60,000 men this year. I trust, when that is done, the call-up wall be carried on in a manner which will not bring about the discrimination and unfairness which obtained in respect of the call-up made last year. At page 190 of Hansard are to be found figures showing the call-up in the thirteen military districts. My observations apply more particularly to the western provinces. We find according to those figures that in a western district with only ane-third of the population of districts in certain parts of eastern Canada the percentage at Regina was 8, whereas in the east it was only 5-7. Those are percentages taken for 100 troops called up.
Possibly the minister will recall the statement made by the hon. member for Lake Centre, and he might follow the suggestions made by that hon. member. When this year's call-up is made I wish to see a fair and equitable call in all military districts. I make that appeal to the minister, and trust he will take into consideration what I have said.


James Layton Ralston: On the last point, I do not wish to pass the buck, but I must say that those call-ups are made by means of requisitions on the Minister of Labour by the Department of National Defence. It is the Department of Labour and national selective service which actually carry on the call-up in any particular district. So that I am afraid all the army can do is to ask for so many men to report at a certain centre at a certain time- and that might be at Vancouver, or anywhere else. National selective service calls them up from any part of Canada. We do not regulate where they are to come from. We only specify where we went them to report. However, I ^hail pass on to the Minister of Labour what my hon. friend has said. There is nothing I can do further than that.
I have already made a statement with respect to seeding leave. That will be taken into consideration almost at once, and I think the farmers, who were getting a pretty square deal from the army-and I hope my hon. friend does not think they are not-will be treated fairly-[DOT]


Ernest Edward Perley: I did not say that.
(Mr. Perley.]


James Layton Ralston: -particularly having regard to the fact that there is very liberal, shall I say-if my hon.. friend does not mind that term-


Ernest Edward Perley: Progressive, probably.


James Layton Ralston: -a very liberal exemption or deferment for men who are engaged in farming. However, the point has been raised to-night, and I shall endeavour to look into it and give it the best possible consideration.
I am obliged to the hon. member for Rosthern, the hon. member for Winnipeg South and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle for their remarks respecting representations made to members of parliament. As I said to the leader of the opposition a little while ago, I wish to call to the attention of the committee a paragraph in K. R. and O. to which I believe some hon. members have been referring. I would point out that the provision is not against the writing of letters to members of parliament. I refer to section 423 (b) which states that attempts to obtain favourable consideration of any application by the use of outside influence are forbidden, and, if resorted to, will be regarded as an-admission on the part of the applicant that the case is not good on its merits, and that it will be dealt with accordingly. That is the section under which men, offend if they write to members of parliament, or others outside the service, if thereby they seek, in the words of the regulation "to obtain favourable consideration", a promotion, a transfer, or something of that kind.
I have had experience in my own constituency; do not let hon. members think I do not understand this matter. I appeal to members of parliament to have these young men realize that this thing called "pull"-and that is what they call it-does not exist. As. sure as the world, when you find a young man who goes to a member <?f parliament, or writes to the minister, and as a result thereof some favourable consideration ensues, just as sure as the world he tells someone else the result, and the story goes that Bill has got something by way of "pull." It does not matter how regular the procedure may have been. The suggestion arises because the action was taken by a member of parliament or someone outside the service.
I have, received representations from time to time from members and I do endeavour to deal with them. I do not for a moment question the right of hon. members to write me with respect to these young men, but I do believe the teamwork mentioned by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle could help us all so that these young men might not be encouraged to write to members of parliament

War Appropriation-Army
respecting matters having to do with their positions in the army-and particularly those communications dealing with promotions or for special consideration of some sort.
I say in that connection-and this is almost a humiliating confession

that we almost have to apologize to Canadian military headquarters in England when we make an inquiry about any individual, for fear someone will think that influence is being used within the meaning of section 423(b). I know that should not be so; but the less there is of that sort of thing, the easier it will be to run the army. It would mean that everyone would feel they were being dealt with on exactly the same basis.
I had an instance-a very sorry one-in my own experience, in which I was written to by an individual. I did not see the letter. It was passed to the branch concerned. Next thing I found out was that the man had forfeited fourteen days' pay for having written to his member of parliament. That was serious for him, particularly in view of the fact that his member of parliament happened to be the Minister of National Defence. He is still out the fourteen days' pay. He said he thought he was writing to the Minister of National Defence-and so he was; but the letter got into a groove, and reached someone who was pretty tough on the regulations, with the result that a forfeiture of pay was imposed. I think it would do us all good; I think it would do the army good if we endeavoured to teach the provisions of this section 423(b) to the soldiers in our constituencies. We should ask them, not to not write to us, but not to write to ask for favourable consideration in connection with army matters, not to make representations outside.
As the hon. member for Rosthern says, there is a plain line of procedure laid down. It is pretty old, but it is pretty sound. It promotes confidence between the man and his officer, and puts the officer in the position of being a trustee and a guardian for the man. He is his adviser and friend. Generally a man's complaint is considered and he gets satisfaction. I know that sometimes a man must be persistent. He may have a platoon officer who is not very sympathetic and he may have to go to his company officer, but in the end he gets through and the grievance is redressed.


George Hugh Castleden: I wish to support what the hon. member for Winnipeg South has said about getting information to the men in our armed forces. I understand there is a department known as the department of public relations. I should like a statement from the
minister about what is being done and whether every use possible is being made of this department to get information to the armed forces in the different fields. The longer this war lasts, the more important this will be.
Another matter I wished to take up concerns increases in pay. An increase was announced last year, but this was contingent upon the officer commanding making a recommendation. I understand in some cases the increase was ten cents a day after three months' service, and in other cases after six months' service. I should like to have an assurance from the minister that this increase is now in general effect throughout the service, both in the army and the N.R.M.A. forces.
In connection with writing to members of parliament my experience has been that the men who write to me are ignorant of the machinery which they could use to approach their officers. The hon. member for Rosthern has said that the men are told what to do, but I have found that many of them do not know what to do. They thought they were supposed to go to the sergeant-major or the sergeant, and they got told in sergeant-major language what they can'do with their letters. It seems to me that in many of the camps there has not been sufficient instruction given to the men and they are entirely at a loss to know what the procedure is. If the men were given more instructions; if they knew what their rights and privileges were and that there would be redress for a particular situation, then when letters come to members of parliament they could advise the men to take up their case in the proper way. I tell men who write to me that if they cannot get access to the officials in that way I shall be glad to take up the matter. I find that in most cases when they try the proper procedure they get fairly quick action.
I should like to support what has been said this evening with regard to compassionate leave. There seems to be considerable difference in the action taken by various commands in connection with men applying for leave on compassionate grounds, or for spring and harvest leave. I would support any move that might be made to make this procedure more uniform, either by having these applications go through headquarters or by giving definite instructions to the units with regard to the action that should be taken.
Several demands have been made in this house-I made one myself in 1940-for free transportation for our soldiers when on leave or furlough. Surely these men and women who are offering everything should be granted free transportation on our railroads.
War Appropriation-Army


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Would you apply that to
N.R.M.A.?


George Hugh Castleden: Embarkation leave.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: You referred to the men
and women who were offering everything and I was wondering if you would include them both.


George Hugh Castleden: The N.R.M.A. men
are to be sent overseas if they are required. Canada is a country of great distances and some of these men are being discriminated against. It seems to me that the least we can do for these people is to grant them free transportation. Thousands of our men have been lost in the last year, and I hate to think that some of them were denied the privilege of seeing their loved ones before they went overseas because the cost of transportation was too great. The minister stated this afternoon that the matter was under consideration, but it has been under consideration for over a year. Nothing has been done about it. Some reduction was made in. 1941, but I think we should go a little further. It may be said that we should not encourage increased travel in these days, but I am sure the civilian population would be ready to step aside if necessary so that these men might go home on their last leave or furlough.
The last thing I wish to refer to is something disgraceful that occurred* recently in a Montreal court. Last week a discharged soldier was sent to gaol for two months for wearing a uniform illegally. No doubt he was wearing the uniform illegally because he had been discharged two weeks previously. When this particular soldier was demobilized the winter clothing allowance was only $35, but I understand it has been raised to $65. When a man is discharged in Canada in the winter time $35 is not sufficient to buy his civilian outfit. Surely such a thing should not happen in this land of ours. The regulations should be changed so that this thing cannot occur again. I understand that some action is being taken. The Minister of Justice Should be notified of this and if the sentence cannot be remitted, I think some other action should be taken so that the men in our fighting forces will know that such a thing cannot 'happen again.


James Layton Ralston: Did the hon. member
bring that to our attention before?


George Hugh Castleden: No. There was an
editorial in the Montreal Star of February 5. I have not the name of the soldier.


Mr. DUPUIS:: That is only a report by a newspaper. The hon. member should read the judgment and the circumstances.


George Hugh Castleden: I read the judgment.


Mr. WRIGHT:: A short time ago the minister stated that his department would requisition the number of men required in each district from the selective service. I should like to know upon what the requisition is based. Does it take into consideration the number of voluntary enlistments in the military district, or is dt based upon the population in the district? What is the basis of these requisitions? It seems to me that requisitions are made against certain districts where there has been a large voluntary enlistment. They naturally feel that they must fill the requisition. I think there should be a different basis for making the requisitions from the various military districts.
I wish to say something about agricultural leave. Last year, as I understand it, the person who made application for agricultural leave applied to the officer commanding. In many cases the officer commanding flatly refused to consider the application and it never reached the district officer commanding. I agree with the hon. member for Rosthem that a different method should be used this year to bring about more uniform procedure in the granting of agricultural leave. I had several cases brought to my notice last year of men being granted agricultural leave to work on a farm where there were only thirty to forty acres under cultivation, while in other cases applications were refused when the men wanted agricultural leave to work on farms where their fathers had a section or a section and a half under cultivation; yet they received no consideration. I would urge again that a more uniform method be used in the granting of agricultural leave whereby the needs of each particular case might be given consideration.


James Layton Ralston: With regard to the requisitions, I want the committee to understand that all that the Department of National Defence does in the matter is to say that we want so many men at a certain training centre. The national selective service directorate decide where to get these men. They may not get them from that particular district at all. The Department of National Defence has nothing to do with designating the district from which the men shall be drawn. It simply says: We want so many men at a certain training centre.
With regard to having a more uniform system for considering applications for agricultural leave, I have the point made by the hon. member for Rosthern and the hon. member for Melfort, and I will look into that and have it brought before the officers who will be dealing with the matter very shortly.
The hon. member for Yorkton asked in regard to increased pay, and I might as well put that on the record now. He asked as to

War Appropriation-Army
the percentage of men overseas and in Canada who are receiving the increased rates of pay provided under the order of last year. The survey is not complete, but it gives a fair cross-section which enables us to tell pretty well what the whole situation is.
Overseas, the number in receipt of the basic rate of SI.50 is 90-5 per cent; the number in receipt of SI.40 is 4-5 per cent; the number in receipt of $1.30 is 5 per cent. In the C.W.A.C. the number in receipt of $1.25 is 50 per cent; the number in receipt of $1.10 is 7-1 per cent; the number in receipt of $1.05 is 42-9 per cent. To get this C.W .A.C. figure, for the purpose of getting these results they took about half the personnel over there. It may not be quite an accurate cross-section, but it would be pretty nearly so.


Gordon Graydon: Why are the women not paid on an equal footing with the men in the army?


James Layton Ralston: As I have explained before, a quick answer would be that it is not the practice in connection with other women's corps. It is the same with the ATS and the Wrens. The theory rvas, in plain English, that women were not adaptable to all forms of service. While they did exceedingly well the jobs that they could do, they were not as versatile, if I may put it in that way, as the men, having regard to the different forms of heavy service that the men have to do. That is the only answer I know. I have made the same answer to the hon. member for North Battleford and to the hon. member for Edmonton East.


Gordon Graydon: Is there any difference between the pay of the Wrens, the women's division of the air force and the C.W A.C. for equal ranks?


James Layton Ralston: No, none; they are on an even basis. My hon. friend will remember that they were all increased last year. They were receiving 663 per cent of the men's pay and that was increased to 80 per cent. Tradeswomen get the same trades pay as the tradesmen.


Gordon Graydon: Has the government
under consideration raising the pay of the women generally to that of the men?


James Layton Ralston: No. Their basic pay is 80 per cent of a man's pay.


Gordon Graydon: I hope that answer is a little more elastic than it sounds.


James Layton Ralston: Things are always under consideration, I suppose.


Gordon Graydon: There is active and passive consideration, and quite a difference between them.


James Layton Ralston: In Canada the number in receipt of the basic rate of $1.50 is 65-7 per cent; the number in receipt of $1.40, 9-1 per cent; the number in receipt of $1.30, 25-2 per cent.
In Canada the women's army corps has 60-1 per cent in receipt of $1.20; 11*5 per cent in receipt of $1.10; and 28-4 per cent in receipt of $1.05.


George Hugh Castleden: There seems to be quite a difference in the pay of the C.W .A.C. overseas and those in Canada. There is a larger percentage on the lower rate of pay overseas. Is there any explanation for that?


James Layton Ralston: Overseas 50 per cent were in receipt of the top rate, as compared with 60 per cent in Canada. Perhaps it was because there were more tradeswomen in Canada. But when I think of it, that, of course, does not apply with regard to the basic rate. I cannot give the explanation of that offhand, but I shall make inquiries.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Do the C.WA.C. get a clothing allowance?


James Layton Ralston: They get a cash allowance for clothing.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Have their uniforms to last for the duration of the war?


James Layton Ralston: No; the uniform lasts as long as it lasts. When the inspecting officer decides that it is no longer serviceable, they get another.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Does the government give them another uniform when that is warranted?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: You should not ask ladies to put up with a uniform until it is worn out.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, no, I do not say that.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Has any consideration been given to granting an allowance in respect of girls with dependent mothers?


James Layton Ralston: On July 1, 1943, provision was put into effect bringing dependent mothers within the meaning of dependents under the regulations.
The hon. member for Yorkton asked in regard to the steps taken to get the news to the troops. The Canadian Press bulletin, as the committee knows, is cabled overseas to Canadian troops. It is published twice a
War Appropriation-Army

week; I am not sure but that it is oftener than that. It has a very wide circulation among all three services, particularly the army, because they are more concentrated. The air force find it more difficult to get it when they are serving with R.A.F. squadrons. The bulletin is greatly appreciated by the troops and has done a genuine service.


George Hugh Castleden: How many copies are printed?


James Layton Ralston: I think probably there is one copy for every four or five men.


Major James William Coldwell: Is it printed overseas? Mr. RALSTON: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: The news is assembled here and sent overseas?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Would it be possible to have a copy of the news which is sent overseas circulated to the members of this house, in order that we may see what it contains?


James Layton Ralston: I will try to do better still. My hon. friend has put the idea in my mind. We can get a few copies of the bulletins sent over in a bomber. I should like hon. members to see the bulletin. I take a little credit for this Canadian Press bulletin. I was over in 1940 and I was shocked and ashamed to be asked in November by some of our boys who were guarding an aerodrome, "Who won the world series?" I decided that if the Canadian troops were that badly informed, we had better get a newspaper and get it quickly.


Major James William Coldwell: They did not ask who had won the election in 1940?


Mr. MARTIN:: Who did win the world
series?


James Layton Ralston: It was in 1940.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Did the minister know who won the world series?


James Layton Ralston: I could tell them then, yes. Hon. members may be interested in a publication which has been going for some months overseas, "Canadian Affairs", which seems to have been of considerable interest to the troops. It is published under the auspices of the wartime information. Perhaps members of the committee have seen it. The second issue of the home edition is just out. It deals with articles which perhaps are more for study groups, as has been suggested, but it has a good deal of factual information as well.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Is any arrangement being made for that pamphlet, "Canadian Affairs," to be distributed to the troops overseas in the same fashion as the news sheet is?


James Layton Ralston: As the Canadian Press bulletin is?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Yes, in the same generous measure.


James Layton Ralston: I am assuming that it will be.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: As a matter of fact, at the moment it is not.


James Layton Ralston: As a matter of fact, the distribution so far has been mostly to officers, has it not?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Yes, to officers, by whom the reading is casual; but every copy that gets to the troops is "read to pieces", because in it they get some elements of opinion as well as news.


James Layton Ralston: I am glad to get that testimonial to it, and consideration will be given to sending it out on a larger scale. As a matter of fact, we have only just commenced using it in Canada. The first issue of the home edition, dated January 15, is in my hands now.
In Italy the only really Canadian paper . there was the Red Patch, a little paper published in Naples. It was gotten out by the first division and was most creditable as a purely house organ. In addition to that they had the Eighth Army News. It had a small box section for Canadian news, but that was pretty small. There has now been established the Maple Leaf, and the first copy was issued on January 14. It is published at Naples and is serviced by Canadian Press with home news; it will also be a house organ; that is, it will have some news of the units at the same time. It is more along the lines of the United States Stars and Stripes, which is published for the American army.
I think that answers the question as to the way in which news is being gotten to the troops. In addition, broadcasts are being made from England from time to time, but often these are not heard by the troops unless they are out of the line, whereas the Maple Leaf and the Red Patch get up the line to the troops, and are eagerly read. I found in North Africa, when I was in the reinforcement camps, a great shortage of reading matter in the form of magazines like the Reader's Digest and other like and light literature. Everything hon. members can do to assist in getting more of that sort of thing to the troops will be, I am sure, of genuine assistance to morale.
My hon. friend mentioned the matter of fares. I have nothing more to say about that, but it has been under consideration. The consideration which was given reduced the cost to the soldier to one-third of a single fare for

War Appropriate-Army
a return journey, and that was regarded as a pretty substantial measure of assistance to the troops. Take, for example, Camp Borden to Vancouver; the return coach fare is $87.55; the soldier obtains return accommodation for $15.95. Then from Halifax to Vancouver the ordinary return fare is $131; for the soldier it is $25.10. The same transportation concession as is allowed when proceeding on annual leave and furlough is granted when the individual is given embarkation leave. The only phase of the matter I mentioned this afternoon that we had under further consideration was the possibility that the ceiling of the contribution a soldier makes might be fixed at some definite amount. We have that under consideration now and under discussion with the railway companies.
I have made a note of the case of which my hon. friend spoke, of a man in Montreal who had been wearing a uniform illegally, and will inquire into it at once.


Gordon Graydon: Regarding the point
which the minister has just brought up, concerning lower fares for soldiers on furlough or otherwise, a good many of us through the years have attempted to persuade the government to grant free transportation under certain circumstances to the troops. The government has, of course, conceded something on this point, and we are always glad to acknowledge any movement in that direction. There may be reasons, although I have never been convinced they are very good, why free transportation should not be given to the troops at all times, but I think the minister might, even at this late date, reconsider the provision of free transportation on the railways on the six months' furlough and the embarkation leave. I reiterate this appeal because there is a feeling abroad that some of the little things which do not cost the country very much, but mean so much to the troops in Canada before they leave, are not being taken care of. Sometimes we are penny-wise and, perhaps, pound-foolish. It would be well to disregard the little extra money it would take and make this gesture, even though it be nothing more than a gesture, to the troops in Canada before they leave. It would show that our government and our people are making a move in recognition of the sacrifices which these young men are prepared to make on behalf of all of us.
Then there is a feeling, to which I have heard expression given, as no doubt the minister has on many occasions, that the armed forces of our friends to the south are being serviced by the government and the people of the United States on what is sometimes regarded as a higher standard than our own. I do not wish to make any comparisons or cast any reflections on the manner in which our
own troops are being used, but I suggest that Canada cannot afford to use her troops, while they are here or on the scene of actual operations in accordance with any lower standard than that of any other country. It may be that my information on these points is wrong, but I have heard it voiced by the troops themselves, and that is why I put it before the minister. Last evening I brought up a matter which, though perhaps not of large importance, was sufficiently so for the minister to mention it, and seemed to me sufficiently important to emphasize, namely, that the public should see to it that our people overseas get plenty of mail and are kept in frequent contact with the community in which they lived.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is quite right; it is not a little thing.


Gordon Graydon: To some people it may seem a small thing, but it is of tremendous importance; and so are such matters as transportation. These are things that may not mean in the aggregate a great deal of money, but I think they would pay great dividends in the future from the point of view of our forces. The minister is in a better position than I am to know that the troops look at these little things as an evidence of what the government thinks of their services and of the appreciation of the country. It shows how the country recognizes the sacrifices they are prepared to make, and I feel keenly in the matter. With the expenditure of a little more money a great deal could be done to enhance the prestige of our people at home, and also of the government, with our troops. We should see to it that all these little differences that sometimes naturally crop up in the minds of the troops are eradicated. As you ride on *the trains and talk to the troops you get to know what they are thinking. You do not have to raise the question; it is brought up time and again.
Some years ago I raised the question, as I have done on many other occasions, with reference to free transportation. Dozens of soldiers on the trains find out who you are *and they say that this is something that should be taken into consideration. It is something that has caught on with the troops. They have never been able to see why, when we are able to spend so much money on so many things, some little conveniences of this sort are not provided for them. I concur in this idea and I should like to see Canada stand high at home with the troops overseas. I am not suggesting that this is not the case, but there are many little things that we could have done and can still do to improve our position at home, and the esteem in which we
War Appropriation-Army

are held by our fighting men. I am sure the minister will be sympathetic, but I should like him to give the matter more than passive consideration, because frankly, in view of the fact that the United States has the reputation of doing these things in a big way, I think we in Canada must measure up to the standard set by other countries. In fact, I should like to see this country do a little better than the rest.


James Layton Ralston: As a matter of fact, in this regard the United States is behind us. They charge full fare.


Gordon Graydon: I was not thinking of railway transportation particularly, but of servicing overseas.


James Layton Ralston: I should have said they charge three-quarters fare. My hon. friend is quite right. There are some things which the United States certainly does in a big way; but without casting any reflection upon them, or preening ourselves on being a little more modest in our appropriations, I would suggest that there are directions in which I do not think I would go as far as the United States- for instance, provision with regard to hostels and things of that kind. They are extremely comfortable, but we have got along with less of that sort of -thing, and have got along very well indeed. I do not take second place to anyone, not even to my hon-. friend, in the desire to see 'the best possible done for the troops, consistent with this idea, that we want them to realize that this is a war and this is a war service we are providing, that these things are temporary, and that soldiers as well as civilians do help the country not only by fighting but by saving, provided reasonable comfort is obtained.
In the matter of fares, I feel that we have gone a long distance, having regard to what the United States has done; of course in Britain, there are free fares as in the last war. Our system in Canada is a so-rt of half-way house that would seem to be reasonable,. I have heard what my hon. friend has -had to say and have heard- similar representations before, and these matters are always under consideration.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: The minister referred to mothers' allowances paid in respect of persons serving overseas. I should like to have a little more information in regard to mothers' allowances paid to mothers of men in the armed forces abroad. As I understand it, a mother whose son is serving overseas cannot receive mother's allowance unless the father is totally incapacitated. That

places the family in an extremely bad position. I am thinking of a particular case. The father of this family is a janitor who is receiving a very small amount for his services in a schooL house. The mother has applied for mother's allowance. In this case there is a portion of assigned pay, but I am informed that the regulation is such that no mother's allowance can be given unless the father is totally incapacitated from earning a livelihood. If that is true, that is a terrible position for these people to be placed in. Is it understood that assigned pay in a case such as I have indicated is to be used by the mother as a means of livelihood? I understand that the assigned pay is not necessarily used for that purpose. If it is, however, then certainly the government cannot expect that soldier will have saved up for him two or three or four hundred dollars to enable him to take up a farm when he comes home under the arrangements now proposed. Will the minister give some information along that line?


James Layton Ralston: I believe the hon. member is dealing with the case of a soldier's mother whose husband is alive but is totally incapacitated from earning a living. Is he criticizing the provision with regard to total incapacitation, or has he in mind that it must be shown that the soldier is not her sole support?


Charles Edward Johnston: Not necessarily her sole support. I believe the regulation reads that before the mother can receive mother's allowance the father must be totally incapacitated from earning a living.


James Layton Ralston: That is correct. It is
section 101. What my hon. friend is asking is that the regulation be changed?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, definitely so, because the father may be earning a small amount, $5 a month, and yet the mother is barred entirely from, receiving mother's allowance and that might be her only source of income. I have such a case in mind and that is why I mentioned it.


James Layton Ralston: The section is a familiar one. The same thing appears in the Pension Act, where there is a requirement to show that the husband is totally incapacitated, but I cannot speak to it with any degree of certainty to-night. I will take it under consideration and consult the dependents' allowance board.


Major James William Coldwell: What about a deserted mother? I fancy that was altered.


James Layton Ralston: The mother whose husband has deserted her and who has not -been supporting her for a considerable length of

Supply-Agriculture
time, where the officer or soldier is her sole or partial support? That is taken care of. Because she is deserted she is not getting any support at all.


Charles Edward Johnston: Would the minister explain the point I brought up in connection with that. Is it expected that the mother would use the assigned pay of the son who is on active service overseas to maintain herself?


James Layton Ralston: Did my hon. friend say, is it the intention? The assigned pay which is the basis of the allowance would be available for her to use.


Charles Edward Johnston: Must she use it?


James Layton Ralston: If she does not need it, I suppose not.


Charles Edward Johnston: Take the case of a father receiving only $5 and the son assigning $20 or $25 of his pay. Would it be necessary for the mother to use that $25 for her keep?


James Layton Ralston: I do not understand what my hon. friend means when he says, "Would it be necessary." If she had no other money, of course it would be necessary.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is exactly the point. I imagine the dependents' allowance board would take this view: If the father is earning $5 or $20 a month as janitor and the mother is getting $25 assigned pay, that amounts to $45 a month and she does not need any more. What I want to know is, would they be expected to use that assigned pay in order to maintain them? Would it be counted as income, or should they rightfully be entitled to consideration for mothers' allowances?


James Layton Ralston: I understand from the chairman of the dependents' board of trustees that she is allowed $40 a month as income excluding assigned pay, without affecting her right to dependents' allowances.


Victor Quelch: The ruling I got from the allowance board was this: Where assigned pay is paid with dependents' allowance, the assigned pay is counted as income. When assigned pay is paid without an allowance, then it is not. I had in mind this case. The father is getting old age pension. They have three sons in the army. Each of the sons is assigning $20 a month. One of the sons gets dependents' allowance for his mother. That gives her a total income, assigned pay of one soldier plus dependent's allowance of $540. She is allowed only $365; therefore, the old age pension is
reduced by the difference between $365 and $540. That is different from the attitude taken in the War Veterans' Allowance Act. Under that act the board do not take into consideration assigned pay. This woman is investing the total amount of the assigned pay in bonds in the names of her sons, so that they will have that money on their return. I think in that case the assigned pay should not be taken into consideration at all. The dependents' allowance only should be taken into consideration; then there would be no need to reduce the amount of the old age pension. I do not think the assigned pay should be taken into consideration when it is being invested in bonds for the sons on their return.


James Layton Ralston: I note what my hon. friend has said and we shall deal with it to-morrow. If the committee is agreeable I should like to move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall the item carry.


Mr. CRERAR:: No; let_ the_ item stand. I presume the committee will wish to discuss it somewhat more fully.
Item stands.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
(Other than War Appropriations) Normal services-[DOT]
176. Grants to military associations and institutes as detailed in the estimates, $10,575.
Item stands.
Progress reported.

Thomas Alexander Crerar: To-morrow we shall continue with the discussion of the war appropriations. Before adjournment to-morrow we shall probably ask to be allowed to put in two additional departments.


Thomas Miller Bell: Wait a minute.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Post Office and Pensions.


Gordon Graydon: What do you want two more for now?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In case some minister may not be present.
Business of the House


Major James William Coldwell: We have two departments in to-night in the last five minutes. After all, members of the house have few opportunities of raising matters concerning their constituencies, and it seems to me to get the departments in, in this way, as was done last year, and then call the remainder in the last few days of the session, is unfair to the members, and I object to putting too many departments in supply at this stage. We have two in now and that should be sufficient to give us work on Fridays.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think the Prime Minister
indicated this afternoon that we hope to get the estimates discussed on Fridays.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We have only two departments in. It might happen that the ministers of these departments could not be present. I do not think we are infringing on the good nature of the house by asking to be allowed to put in two additional departments tomorrow afternoon.


Major James William Coldwell: If that is the case these departments should not be brought in during the last two or three minutes at night, but early in the day; otherwise we shall be compelled to raise some matter and block the going into supply of so many of the departments.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is a matter which my hon. friend can bring up to-morrow if he wishes. This is the procedure which has been followed in the past, and I draw the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that there is still a very considerable number of departments to be brought in, as my hon. friend knows.


Major James William Coldwell: We were told that last year, and at the end of the session all of the departments went in at once and we had not an opportunity to do the things we wanted to do. Moreover, we have no private members' days this year.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, February 16, 1944