1944-05-04

Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I wish to table order in council P.C. 2911, being an agreement with the province of Ontario, and order in council P.C. 3062, an agreement with the province of British Columbia.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Are there any other
provinces in a position similar to these two?


Humphrey Mitchell: I expect in the not distant future to have agreements negotiated with all the provinces.



TRANSPORT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 101, to amend the Transport Act, 1938.
Gordon Graydon: Would the minister
explain the purpose of the amendment?


Mr. MICHAUD:: This bill is a companion bill to the one to be introduced later by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, based on a resolution, now on the order paper, which provides for the establishment of an air transport board. The provisions of this bill remove commercial air services from the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners.
Questions
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: 1.	What are the arrears of income taxes uncollected for each of the years 1932 to 1942, both inclusive?
2.	How many court or other legal actions have been taken by the income tax division looking towards the collection of arrears of income taxes since 1932?
3.	What have been the results, (a) in amount of taxes collected; (b) in how many cases have such actions resulted in failure to collect; (c) in compromise of arrears, if any?
4.	How many prosecutions for infractions of the Income Tax Act have been instituted during the past ten years ending March 31, 1943?
5.	How many of such prosecutions have resulted in convictions, and how many in dismissals?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	(a) Transferred to head office as uncollectible since the inception of
the act to date	
The following statements (b) to (f) in response to question No. 1 are in respect of the accounts as at Mar. 31,
1943:
(b)	Outstanding more than five years and still under process of collection...
(c)	Claims against members
of the armed forces which are held in abeyance, pending their return	
(d)	Bankruptcies not wound
up as at the said date, subject to some further collection	
(e)	Untraceable taxpayers..
(f)	Uncollectible accounts not yet transferred from district office records..
(g)	Total of (a) to (f)
inclusive	 $ 4,755,307 64
(h)	Collections by the income tax division for all years up to and including the fiscal year
ended Mar. 31, 1943.	4,018,400,395 00
Percentage of (g) to (h)-approximately l/10th of 1 per cent.


S 2,467,368 29 1,017,129 34 436,778 54 174,797 40 217,004 30 442,229 77
[Stage Direction]
Questions
[Stage Direction]
The information for the ten years and for each of the years mentioned is not available in the form requested, but the foregoing contains the information most proximate to the apparent intent of the question.
2.	(a) Exchequer court actions-1,727.
(b)	5,903 through legal agents at various points throughout Canada, which agents have taken action in some cases in various local courts when the lawyers' letters demanding compliance with the law have failed to bring proper response.
(c)	29,2S7 actions by way of taxpayers' creditors being required to pay, not to the taxpayer, but to the crown, sometimes referred to as garnishee actions.
3.	(a) (1) $1,484,074.93 through Exchequer court action. (2) Amount unknown of collections through local legal agents-records not maintained. (3) $1,278,567.57 through garnishee proceedings.
(b)	(1) 480 through the Exchequer court. (2) Number through legal agents unknown- records not maintained. (3) Number through garnishee proceedings unknown, but believed to be nil-records not maintained.
(c)	Compromises have arisen when other creditors of the debtor have compromised their claim or where it appears that compromise will collect more than legal action. A summary of such cases is not maintained.
The answer to paragraph (3) of (b) and to (c) above is believed to be, on the best evidence available, less than 100 in number.
4.	937.	'
5.	(a) 214 convictions, (b) 723 were either dismissed or withdrawn on compliance with or satisfaction of the law, and upon paying our legal agent fees and the court costs incurred. The number dismissed is not kept separately from the number withdrawn. The record is the number of cases concluded. The number of cases dismissed is believed to be under 50.

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	Was a quantity of Alberta tar sands sent to England?
2.	If so, for what purpose?
3.	In what year was it sent, and what quantity?
4.	Who was the sender?
5.	What was the total cost to the government of Canada?
6.	What report, if any, was received by the government?


Mr. CRERAR:: I have the answer to this question, but perhaps a word of explanation would be in order. At the time the shipment of tar sands was sent to England there were

two departments of government dealing with it. They are now combined with the Department of Mines and Resources. There was considerable correspondence at the time, which has not been included in the answer to the questions, but certain reports that were made by officers of the department have been included. I may say there was no expense to the government in connection with this shipment of tar sands. I think the information that is relevant to the question is all here.
Department of Mines and Resources (from the standpoint of the Department of the Interior):
1.	Yes.
2.	Experimental purposes.
3. 1920 and 1922-21-2 tons in 1920 ; 20 tons in 1922.
4.	General W. B. Lindsay.
5.	All expenses in connection with shipments of this material from Edmonton to England were borne by General Lindsay.
6.	Reports were received from the following and copies were attached:
(a)	General W. B. Lindsay-dated October 31, 1923, and April 16, 1924.
(b)	Dr. Charles Camsell, deputy Minister of Mines and Resources, who visited General Lindsay's plant in England in 1922 and again in 1923-dated November 30, 1923.
(c)	Mr. John McLeish when he was director, mines branch. Department of Mines, after he visited General Lindsay's plant in 1925-dated October 20, 1925.
Department of Mines and Resources (from the standpoint of the former Department of Mines):
1.	Yes.
2.	For testing purposes in response to a request from the British Petroleum Department of the British Government, 2 Queen Anne's Gate Buildings, S.W.l. This Department wrote to the Deputy Minister of Mines on February 10, 1921, in part as follows:
"I have no doubt that considerable attention has been given to this problem and that you have had under review various suggestions as to the best means of extracting the oil from the sand. If you think that there would be any advantage in this problem being investigated in this country, which has had some experience in retorting of shale, coal, cannel, etc., it could probably be arranged for the necessary research to be undertaken at Birmingham university or elsewhere. For this purpose a bulk sample of a few barrels of the tar sand would be necessary. I shall be glad to have your views as to whether you consider it worth while for us to proceed with the

Questions
matter on these lines which of course involves a solution by retorting methods rather than by pumping down steam, channelling, or otherwise extracting the oil in situ."
3.	Shipment was sent in 1921 and the amount was 300 pounds. The shipment was addressed to professor Madgwick, The University, Birmingham, England.
4.	The shipment was made at the direction of the Department of Mines from a quantity held in Edmonton, Alberta, by the Department of the Interior.
5.	There is no record of any charges in connection with this shipment being debited to the Department of Mines.
6.	There is no record of any report being received by the Department of Mines.
c/o Bank of Montreal,
9, Waterloo Place, London, S.W. 1, England.
Wednesday, October 31, 1923. The Right Hon. Charles Stewart, M.P., Minister of the Interior,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Stewart,
Reference is requested to my letter of October 16, 1922. Since that time my progress lias been delayed by a continuation of the combination of circumstances therein depicted.
The plant was brought into operation in September 1922 and owing to faulty material provided for the packing of the joints, experienced a disastrous fire. Repairs were made and the plant brought into operation again. As was only to be expected, numerous defects were found both in the plant and the operation of the process. Therefore the operation of the experimental plant for the past year has resolved itself into the carrying out of test runs for short periods and the shutting down for relatively long periods for the design of new apparatus, placing of contract for the construction of new equipment, alterations and repairs. Costly delays have occurred, due to strikes and the bad labour conditions existing in this country generally, and in this part of the country particularly. The main delays have been due, firstly to a prolonged local strike in the works where we are operating, and secondly, to the failure of contractors to live up to their contracts and deliver materials as and when agreed. The difficulty of carrying to a conclusion under the trade and labour conditions existing in this country a proposal of this nature can hardly be realized by anyone who has not attempted it here.
Notwithstanding these handicaps, very considerable progress has been made in the
solution of the problem. It has not been solved, but we feel we are very near it. and my experts advise me the difficulties are not chemical but are purely mechanical. The work has been very costly, and our expenditure for the past year has been approximately $85,000.00. As soon as the books have been audited a certificate from Sir W. B. Peat & Co., our auditors, will be forwarded.
Mr. Charles Camsell, Deputy Minister of Mines, visited the plant in operation last week and will no doubt report to you upon the subject of the results achieved to date.
I would respectfully call your attention to the adverse change in the situation, as regards the establishment of a commercial plant for the development of tar sands at the present time, due to the over-production in California and the consequent slump in all oil propositions.
Under the circumstance noted above it is respectfully requested
(a)	that I may be granted an extension of one year from November 30, 1923, for time within which to erect a commercial plant in the McMurray district.
(b)	that the large expenditure already incurred-as certified by Sir W. B. Peat & Co. up to July 31, 1922, and to be certified by them for the past year-be accepted in lieu of rentals for the next year.
In connection therewith reference is made to your letter of January 4, 1923, and favourable consideration is requested.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd) W. Bethune Lindsay.
Department of Mines
Ottawa, 30th November, 1923 Office of the Deputy Minister.
Memorandum
Re: General Lindsay's Plant for the treatment of bituminous sands.
This plant is situated near Swansea, South Wales, and was visited by me in September 1922. A memorandum embodying my observations of the operation of the plant was submitted to the Minister on September 28 on my return to Ottawa last year.
I visited the plant again this year on October 27 in company with General Lindsay and in reply to a request for information cabled Mr. Cory on October 29 as follows:
"Saw Lindsay's plant Saturday. No progress made on tar sand separation since last year but has concentrated on new method of refining oil. Cannot say if treatment of sands will be successful."
Questions

This cable requires elaboration in order that the situation may be clearly understood.
The process being tried out by General Lindsay consists of two operations namely: (1) the separation of the bitumen from the sand, and (2) distillation of the bitumen and separation into its different fractions by an entirely new method.
Both operations are carried out with superheated steam at high temperatures and under considerable pressure. The oil is vaporized with the steam and when the temperature is lowered condensation takes place of one fraction after another, the heavier first of all and the lighter fraction last. In this respect it is a reversal of the ordinary process of destructive distillation now used.
When the process was first tried out in this plant in September 1922, the packing and joints in the pipes were found to be incapable of withstanding the temperatures and pressures developed and a serious fire broke out, which caused a long delay.
As stated in a previous memorandum of mine on the subject of these bituminous sands, the question of distillation of the oil obtained presents many difficulties and is still an unsolved problem. Lindsay claims that his process of distillation, when perfected, will solve this problem, but of that I cannot speak authoritatively. In consequence of this he has devoted all his attention during the last year to perfecting his process of distillation, and there is no doubt he has made very good progress and appears to be within sight of success.
For this operation he has been using crude oil supplied him by the Auglo-Persian Oil Co., and has been putting through the plant an amount ranging from 150 to 300 barrels a day. His plant has a maximum capacity of about 500 gallons per hour.
He claims to have done sufficient work on the separation of the oil from our sands to feel that his process will perform this operation successfully, but he argues that he dare not use up the 40 tons of sand supplied him until he has the second and more important operation of distillation completely worked out. Looking at the whole process broadly I think he is quite right in this respect.
There is no doubt that the cost of these experiments have run into a great deal of money, and he states that he has expended during the last year some $S5,000. An audit of his books will be made by Sir W. B. Peat & Company and a copy of this furnished to the Department of the Interior.
Charles Camsell,
Deputy Minister of Mines.

Ottawa, Ont.
April 16th, 1924.
The Hon. Charles Stewart, M.P.,
Minister of the Interior,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Stewart,-
With reference to my recent application for permission to alter the selections of tar sand areas originally made by me to others which explorations completed since that time, have indicated to be more desirable, I feel it may be useful if I advise you of the conclusions I have reached after a further study of the situation as regards the development of these tar sand areas.
Until oil can be produced from tar sands and sold in competition with oil derived from wells it does not appear to be feasible to develop these deposits economically. The present tremendous excess production of oil in California has necessarily retarded this. It will be recognized that it is hardly practicable to induce capital to enter this field until assured of a successful process, leases which can be developed profitably and a reasonable market for their products. All of this will take time.
My original selection was based on imperfect data available in 1920. This information has been, I understand, largely supplemented by new exploration work but the results will hardly be available for some time.
The original selections consisted of, if I remember correctly, something like 16 blocks. At the request of the Department this was reduced in 1922 to 9 blocks. In accordance with the last request of the department the section has been still further reduced to 4 main blocks and one small block near Mac-Murray, which is necessary, on account of its situation, for the preliminary work on a small scale.
I	feel however that the potential effect of this arbitrary reduction in number and location of leases is not fully realized for the following reasons:-
(1)	Surface indications are very unreliable as to the value of a lease. While I understand a great deal of information has been collected regarding surface indications, this will not be available for a long time. No information is available as to the depth or nature of over-burden, the continuity of deposits, or the value of deposits. A glance at the diagram given below will make this clear.
(Diagram).
(2)	Under these circumstances a company might expend a large sum of money in the development of a successful process and find

Questions
they had leases which could not be operated successfully. I may, therefore, have discarded leases of greater value than those now applied for.
(3) The value of these deposits cannot be determined until they are prospected by coredrilling. As far as I know there is no coredrill as yet available which will operate successfully on these deposits.
In view of the large sums of money already expended by us and the fact that I was the first to take up this question, I feel that it is only reasonable that:-
(a)	The selections now made should be considered provisional;
(b)	If the detailed exploration work planned for the future discloses better tar sand areas,
I	should be accorded permission to change and priority of selection.
(c)	Every help should be given to ensure exploration and prospecting by core-drilling.
It is understood that some of the areas recently prospected and considered of value have not yet been placed within the tar sand reserve. It is respectfully suggested that this should be done as the information is gathered.
Thanking you in anticipation, believe me, sir,
Yours very truly,
W. Bethune Lindsay.
London,
October 20, 1925.
Report Respecting Experimental Plant for
Treatment of Bituminous Sands and Refining of Oils Erected and Operated under the
Direction of General W. B. Lindsay at
Landarcy, Near Swansea, South Wales.
This Plant was visited by Dr. Charles Camsell, deputy Minister of Mines, in September 1922. and again in October 1923, and reports were submitted thereon to the minister on September 28, 1922, and November 1923.
Pursuant to the request that a further report be made in the matter as to the progress that had been made in these investigations since Dr. Camsell's visit to Swansea in October 1923 the undersigned met General Lindsay in London on two occasions September 4th and October 1st and in addition visited the experimental plant at Landarcy near Swansea, South Wales, on Thursday, September 24th. 1925, in company with Mr. Herbert W. Wagner, who had been Technical Engineer in charge of operations under General Lindsay.
The experimental work on the refining of Persian crude oil referred to by Dr. Camsell
in his report dated November 30, 1923, was continued till June 1924, at which time, owing to the exhaustion of available funds, experimental operation of the plant ceased, and has not since been resumed. It may be inferred from the mass of detailed records of the experimental work done, that good progress had been made in improving the plant operation and in gradually securing better and better results in respect to the refined products secured; though for final demonstration it appeared desirable to try some further additions to the plant which, while simple in principle, would be quite expensive to install.
Unfortunately General Lindsay and his associates have been having difficulty in securing United States patents, and the delay in securing these, it is claimed, is militating against the immediate securing of further capital for experimental work.
In the meantime Mr. Herbert W. Wagner is undertaking some small scale laboratory investigations at Cardiff on the oils actually derived from the bituminous sands, a small portion of the 40 tons of bituminous sand originally sent to Swansea having been transferred to Cardiff for that purpose. This work had been in progress a few months only at the time of my visit.
In reviewing the work that has been done by General Lindsay to demonstrate the Cafftoo process and its applicability to the treatment of Alberta bituminous sands, the following appear to the undersigned as being important points:-
1.	The experimental plant at Landarcy which is on the property of the Anglo-Persian oil company, is on a substantial scale requiring a throughput of from 150 to 300 barrels of oil per day for its operation.
2.	No actual tests of bituminous sands have been made in this plant for the reason that it would be impractical to supply a sufficient quantity of the sand for that purpose. The quantity of 40 tons supplied for experimental use would be used up in a few hours, and would not supply a sufficient quantity of oil for practical test in the plant.
3.	General Lindsay is strongly of the opinion that if he can- successfully demonstrate the application of the Cafftoo process to the refining of such oils as persian crude,, he will have comparatively little difficulty in adapting the process to the treatment of the bituminous sands. On this latter assumption 1 am not prepared to offer an opinion.
4.	Assuming the successful demonstration of the Cafftoo process for the treatment of persian crude oil, another experimental plant would require to be constructed at a point
Questions

convenient to an adequate supply of bituminous sand in order that a full demonstration could be made in respect to the treatment of such sands.
5.	Prior to June 1924, a very large amount of money-the evidence in respect to which is, I believe, already on file with the interior department-has been expended in the effort to solve the problem of the treatment of the tar sands.
6.	Actual experimental work at Landarcy ceased in June 1924.
7.	General Lindsay is endeavouring to enlist further capital in the project, but is being delayed through difficulty in securing U.S. patents
Respectfully submitted,
Director: Mines Branch.


INVENTIONS BOARD
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Is there an inventions board or committee within the government of Canada? If so, what are the names of the members, and who is the chairman?
2.	How many inventions or suggestions have been made to this board since the commencement of the war?
3.	How many have been accepted as useful and are at the present time being put to use?
4.	When inventions or suggestions are received by the board, what is the procedure in dealing with them?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Yes. There is an inventions board composed of the president, national research council, chairman; a deputy minister of national defence (army); the deputy minister of national defence (air); the deputy minister for naval services; and Mr. Lesslie R. Thomson of the Department of Munitions and Supply who is secretary of the board.
2.	13.548.
3.	Precise numbers are not available. About four-fifths of the proposals received deal with ideas which have been previously considered by the board or that are of slight technical interest but no military value. About ten per cent of the proposals have some evident merit which warrants reference being made to military consultants. Data as to the number of these actually put into use cannot be released.
4.	All inventions and suggestions received by the board go in the first instance to one of four sub-committees of the board. These primary committees are the civilian consulting committee, the army consulting committee, the naval consulting committee, and the air force consulting committee. The duties of these sub-committees are to receive and to screen all suggestions and inventions received from
fMr. Crerar.]
the sources which their respective names indicate. Upon receipt of any suggestion or invention an acknowledgment is immediately sent to the inventor to thank him. The suggestion or invention is then referred to the appropriate technical consultants within either the armed services or the national research council. Occasionally other consultants are used. Upon receipt of the technical consultants' reports, a letter is then sent to the-inventor setting out the essence of what has been ascertained. If the suggestion has been appraised as of no value, the author is so informed. If the suggestion is useful but refers only to administrative improvements and the like within any one of the services, the consulting committee of that service deals finally with the suggestion. If, on the other hand, the proposal has been appraised as useful in itself but of no particular value to the war effort, permission is likely to be given by the inventions board to the inventor to exploit the particular invention to his own advantage. If the invention or suggestion is believed to be of value to the war effort, the matter is then referred to the board's main examining committee which meets monthly, and makes recommendations to the board regarding patent application, further development work, or other courses of action.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-LEASE OF PROPERTY TO ALPHONSE LEDOTJX
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Have the Canadian National Railways leased to one Alphonse Ledoux a property in the Oka district, county of Two Mountains, province of Quebec?
2.	If so, what is the amount of annual rent paid by Ledoux?
3.	Does Alphonse Ledoux perform any duties or work for the Canadian National Railways?
4.	If so, does he come within the jurisdiction of the local administration office at Montreal or that of Toronto?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Yes.
2.	This concerns a detail of railway administration which is not of public interest.
3.	Yes.
4.	Reports to regional right of way agent, Toronto.


PRICE CEILING-GRAPEFRUIT JUICE
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Did the wartime prices and trade board authorize the importation during the past fiscal year of grapefruit juice and secure release of American exchange for payment of same?
2.	What amount of subsidy was paid in order to keep the selling price under the ceiling which had been set for this product?

Questions
3.	Was the purchase and importation of the grapefruit juice made by the board, or by private interests under permit of the board?
4.	If by private interests, what person, firm or firms, received the authority to import, and to whom was the subsidy paid, and how much to each person or firm?


Mr. ABBOTT:: Importations of grapefruit
juice were declared ineligible for subsidy consideration as of May 11, 1942. As the price of grapefruit juice has increased sharply in the United States since the inception of the price ceiling, importation by private concerns for sale at domestic ceiling prices is virtually impossible.
However, under the authority of a minute of the wartime prices and trade board, dated June 16. 1942, the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited bulk purchased grapefruit juice to meet the requirements of the Department of Munitions and Supply, and a further minute of the board, dated August 25, 1942, authorized the corporation to purchase a specified quantity for the Canadian Red Cross Society. Sales to these purchasers are at cost, therefore no trading loss is incurred.
In the fall of 1943, due to the fact that a large percentage (38 per cent) of the 1943 pack of tomato juice was to be retained for priority claimants, and there was an anticipated shortage of tomato juice for civilian users, it appeared advisable to make available a supply of grapefruit juice.
There had been, in the United States, a release of 2,700,000 cases of 1942 pack for civilian use, together with an additional supply of approximately 3,000,000 cases of 1943 pack over and above the 1942 pack. This increased the availability of the commodity, and on November 9, 1943. wartime prices and trade board authorized Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Ltd., to bulk purchase for resale, grapefruit juice for civilian consumption in Canada.
In order that grapefruit juice may be sold in compliance with the maximum prices regulations, the corporations selling prices are necessarily below cost. On total purchases of some 700,000 cases the trading loss is expected to be approximately 81 per case, but it is felt that the nutritional value and high Vitamin C content, so necessary to the Canadian diet, justify the cost to the government.
The corporations purchases are distributed through the normal trade channels on the basis of the importers' 1941-42 average purchases. Shipments are made against the allocations of the administrator of imported grocery items of the wartime prices and trade board, who has completed arrangements with the Food brokers association for equitable distribution throughout Canada. For the corporations actual selling prices to the first distributor, reference may be made to administrator's order A-1073. In the case of U.S. grapefruit juice, prices are f.o.b. U.S. shipping point, actual importation being completed by _ the first distributor. In the case of Trinidad grapefruit juice, prices are on a delivered basis at central distributing points in the maritime provinces.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-NORTH BAT AND SUDBURY
Mr. HURTUBISE:: 1.	What are the names, positions and salaries of the personnel of, (a) the regional office; (b) the local office of the wartime prices and trade board in North Bay?
2.	What are the names, positions and salaries of the personnel of the local office of the wartime prices and trade board in Sudbury?


Mr. ABBOTT:: Lamoureux, L., Liaison Officer, $2,100.
Trussler, H., Officer (Ration), $2,400.
Bourke, M. M. Mrs., Clerk Gr. 2, $1,080.
Church, J. E. Miss, Clerk Gr. 1, $840.
Feris, M. M. Miss, Clerk Gr. 1. $840.
Hardwicke, F. M. Mrs., Clerk Gr. 1A, $960.
Johnston, E. M. Miss, Clerk Gr. 1A, $960.
Questions

Parr, H. L. Mrs., Clerk Gr. 1A, $960.
Reynolds, M. F. Mrs., Clerk Gr. 1, $720.
Tilley, D. C. Mrs., Clerk Gr. 1A, $960.
MeKenney, I. V. Mrs., Steno. Gr. 2, $1,140.
Bonell, V. L. Mrs., Steno. Gr. 1A, $900.
Kelly, M. J. Mrs., Steno. Gr. 1, $840.
Lake, R. E. Mrs., Steno. Gr. 1A, $900.
(b) There is no local office-other than the regional office in North Bay.
2.	Name-Position-Salary
Noon, F. J., Local Representative, $3,000.
Frawley, J. E. J., Invest. (Tire), $1,920.
Graham, C., Invest., $2,000.
Lamoureux, A., Invest., $2,040.
McNeill, T. G., Invest. (Food), $2,100.
Simpson, G., Rentals Appraiser W., $2,100.
Huneault, L., Clerk Gr. 4, $2,620.
Church, E. A. Mrs., Sten. Gr. 2, $1,140.
Connolly, I. K. Mrs., Sten. Gr. 2, $1,080.
Clavette, J. M. Miss, Sten. Gr. 1A, $900.


RADIO TUBE SHORTAGE
Mr. BENCE:: What steps, if any, is the administration taking to relieve the radio tube shortage in this country?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The production of radio
tubes is under the Department of Munitions and Supply, therefore most of the Canadian production of tubes is necessarily absorbed by the radio and radar requirements of the armed services.
The only supply of tubes which can be made available for civilian use arises from those which can be produced over and above the requirements of the services.
The same shortage of radio tubes prevails in the United States, but through arrangements made between the war production board and the wartime prices and trade board, a normal share of the American production is being secured for Canadian users.
It is also hoped that during the last half of this current year, increased supplies will be available from the Canadian manufacturers.


OLD AGE AND BLIND PENSIONERS-LIENS OR REGISTRATION NOTICES
Mr. KNOWLES:: 
Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	The province of Saskatchewan has recently informed the Department of Finance that it has discontinued the practice of filing caveats in cases where the net estate is less than $2,000. The department has not been notified of any change of procedure in connection with the filing of liens or registration notices against the property of old age pensioners in the provinces of Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba.
2.	The province of Saskatchewan has not stated whether caveats previously filed have been withdrawn.


NAVAL SERVICE-TRANSFER OF VOLUNTARY RATINGS TO PERMANENT FORCE
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Is there a naval monthly order, No. 3383,
dealing with the transfer of volunteer ratings to the permanent force?	.
2.	If so, does this order specify that all applicants must be of the "white race"?
3- If all applicants must be of the "white race ' what racial origins w'oukl serve to disqualify Canadian citizens from making application?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: 1.	Yes.
2	and 3. Yes. In March, 1943, naval order 2653 was promulgated, repealing the provisions of article 144, Canadian naval regulations, as regards racial origin in respect of enrolment of personnel for hostilities only.
When naval order 3383 was drafted the terms of article 144, Canadian naval regulations, were used instead of the terms of naval order 2653. An amendment is now being prepared to rectify the matter.


PARK STEAMSHIP COMPANY-CARGO SHIPS
Mr. REID:: Of the seventy-five cargo ships turned over to the Park Steamship Company Limited, how many of these have been placed under manager controls, and what are the names of the various individuals or companies who are acting as manager operators, showing tile number of cargo ships under each management?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: (a) Seventy-five ships made up as follows:
Tankers	 15
10,000-ton	cargo	ships	
514,700-ton	cargo	ships	
9
(b) and (c)
No. of	Manager operators
ships	Tankers
2	[DOT]-Shipping Limited
3	-Shell Canadian Tankers Limited
10	-Imperial Oil Limited

Questions
10,000-ton Cargo Ships 5	-Elder-Dempster Lines Limited
4	-Canadian Pacific Steamships Limited
5	-Canadian Australasian Line Limited
8	*-McLean-Kennedy Limited
4	-Fumess-Withy & Co., Ltd.
1	-Constantine Steamship Line Limited
6	

Canadian Transport Co. Ltd.
6	-Anglo-Canadian Shipping Co. Ltd.
2	-Empire Shipping Company Limited
2	-North Pacific Shipping Company Ltd.
1	-Furness (Pacific) Limited
3	-Cunard White Star Limited
2	-Canadian Shipping Company Ltd.
2	-Seaboard Shipping Company Ltd.
3.	Treasury board's ruling does not apply to these officers as they are not granted an automobile allowance, but a travelling allowance to proceed from their homes to Corbyville and return each day.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	The chief officer and his assistant are granted a higher per diem allowance than the junior officers in view of being subject to call before and after regular hours and on Sundays and holidays.
6.	Answered by No. 3.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT
[Stage Direction]
4,700-ton Cargo Ships 1	-Pickford and Black Limited
6	-Canadian National Steamships Limited
1	-Union Steamships Limited
1	-Montreal Shipping Company Limited
cobby's DISTILLERY-EXCISE OFFICERS
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	What are the names and grades of excise officers employed by the government at Corby's distillery at the port of Belleville?
2.	W'hat were the amounts paid to them for March, 1944, for travelling allowances, and what was the actual mileage in each case on which these amounts were based?
3.	What is the treasury board's ruling as to rates per mile for travelling expenses when privately-owmed automobiles are used by these officers continuously in government service?
4.	Does the treasury board -ruling as to rates per mile in this case provide for the -payment of a higher mileage rate to second officers than to junior officers?
5.	Did second excise officers employed at this port receive in March a higher rate for actual miles driven than did junior officers?
6.	If so, is this in accord with the treasury board ruling?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1 and 2.	Travelling
allowances
Name-rank	March, 1944
W. J. Cook, special exciseman,
grade 3, class "A"	 $22	40
Frederick Cooke, customs excise
examiner	 18	00
G. M. Miller, special exciseman
grade 1	 15	60
G. A. Moon, customs excise examiner	
W. A. G. Pennylegion, customs
excise clerk	 16	20
P. W. Sprague, special exciseman,
grade 2	
21	60S.	A. Swo-rd, customs excise examiner	16 20J. M. Tufts, customs excise examiner	15 00


Mr. NEILL:: Under the Soldiers' Settlement Act of 1919:
1.	How many returned soldiers were -placed on land?
2.	How many soldiers have completed payment and received title to their lands?
3.	How many are still on their purchases but haven't yet completed payment?
4.	How many purchases were abandoned or rescinded?
5.	How much has the government lost under this act due to reductions made in prices of land or stock, rebates of interest and loss by land reverting to the crown, and the cost of the department having charge of this transaction? (A reasonable approximation only is required.)


Thomas Alexander Crerar: (As at March 31, 1944.)
1.	Including 224 Indian soldier settlers, 25,017.
2.	4,130. In addition, in 1,003 cases settlers liquidated their equities by selling their lands to other persons on time sale agreements and assignments.
3.	6,153.
4.	13,731.
5.	Legislative reductions -by amendment to the Soldier Settlement Act (live stock reduction, interest exemption, 1922, estimated land revaluation, 30 per cent reduction, interest remission, 1933, dollar for dollar bonus, reduction
of loans under P.C. 10472)	 $ 39,388,642
Farmers' Creditors Arrangement
Act	 7,906,161
Losses on resale reverted property	 25,787,210
Estimated administration	cost

	27,000,000


$100,082,013 259S
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebee-Montmorency):
1.	Are the men called under the National Resources Mobilization Act who have not signed for overseas service, and who are presently stationed in Canada, now under the jurisdiction of the said act, as amended iby Bill No. 80?
2.	If so, since when?
Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Since the date the act came into operation, namely, June 21, 1940.


INTERNMENTS-ALOIS N. SCHNEIDER
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	Was one Alois N. Schneider interned under the defence of Canada regulations since the commencement of this war?
2.	If so, on what date was he so interned?
3.	Why was he so interned?
4.	Was the said Alois N. Schneider subsequently released from internment? If so, on what date?
5.	On whose recommendation was he so released?
6.	Was the said Alois N. Schneider subsequently reinterned? If sq, on what date?
7.	Why was he so reinterned?
8.	Is the said Alois N. Schneider still interned under the provisions of the defence of Canada regulations?
9.	If not, when was he released, and upon whose recommendation?
10.	Was he released upon the recommendation of a committee under the provisions of the defence of Canada regulations? If so, was the decision of the committee unanimous?
11.	What change has there been in the conditions with respect to this man since the date of his reinternment which would justify his release?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	Yes.
2.	5th September, 1939.
3.	Because the Minister of Justice was satisfied at that time that, with a view to preventing Schneider from acting in any maimer prejudicial to the public safety or the safety of the state it was necessary so to do.
4.	Yes, about 21st December, 1939.
5.	Representations were made by his solicitor, an inspector of Hudson's Bay Company, the secretary of a Board of Trade, two clergymen, and others, including a petition containing 53 names from the St. Walburg district, where Schneider resided. It is not in the public interest to disclose names of persons making representations in connection with the cases of persons detained or recommended for detention under the defence of Canada regulations, it being necessary that persons supplying such information should know that it will be treated as confidential.
fMr. Crerar.]
6.	Yes, 10th June, 1940.
7.	Because, owing to conditions existing at that time, the Minister of Justice was satisfied that, with a view to preventing Schneider from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety or the safety of the state it was necessary so to do.
8.	No.
9.	Shortly after February 21,	1944, on
recommendation of an advisory committee after hearing at Fredericton, N.B., of this case, amongst some fifty-four others.
10.	The answer to both questions is, Yes.
11.	The information which was before the advisory committee must be treated as confidential, but in addition to that which concerned Alois N. Schneider himself, it was publicly known that he has two nephews in the Canadian Army overseas, and his own son, who is not old enough to join the army, is serving in the home defence force.


CATTLE AND HOGS-MANITOBA
Mr. BRYCE:: Under present regulations, can a farmer in Manitoba have his cattle and hogs killed at a licensed abattoir and government inspected, then sell to whom he wants to?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Under present regulations a farmer in Manitoba may have his cattle and hogs killed for him at a government inspected abattoir (but there is no obligation on the abattoir to do such slaughtering unless it was customarily engaged in such business in the year of 1941). The resultant meat may be sold by the farmer to neighbour farmers and to household consumers, but not to anyone else, unless the farmer is the holder of a slaughtering permit issued by the wartime prices and trade board or unless his farm is located in a deficiency production area in Manitoba which is defined as follows: "All territory north of the 53rd parallel".
sales OF WHEAT, DOMESTIC AND EXPORT


Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How much wheat, and at what price, basis No 1 northern, was sold by the Canadian wheat board for domestic purposes since 1st August, 1943, and what subsidies have been paid on same?
2.	How much wheat has been sold by the Canadian wheat board under the mutual aid agreement since 1st August, 1943, (a) at what prices basis No 1 northern; (b) to what countries?
3.	How much wheat has been sold by the Canadian wheat board since 1st August, 1943, and at what prices basis No 1 northern, Fort William, to, (a) United Kingdom; (ib) United States; (c) all other countries not included in the mutual aid agreement?

Questions as Orders for Returns


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the member for Qu'Appelle is undoubtedly aware that the Canadian wheat board is not required by law to make public its sales on a current basis. In any event, in disposing of wheat to the mills and shippers, the board is not necessarily advised at the time by the shippers of the ultimate destinations of the wheat. It is sufficient for the board's purposes to make sales to the shippers on the basis of a division between class I, or mutual aid and domestic wheat, and class II, or nonmutual aid wheat.
To give the member for Q'Appelle, however, some guidance in finding an approximation to the information he is seeking, I might say that the domestic sales and the official export figures of Canadian wheat and flour, together with the known prices which are paid to the board for wheat going to these various destinations, will serve in large part to answer his question. I shall be glad to make this material available later as an order for return.


MONTREAL LIGHT, HEAT AND POWER COMPANY- TAXES TO DOMINION GOVERNMENT
Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	Before its expropriation by the government of the province of Quebec, did the Montreal Light, Heat and Power owe the dominion government any taxes?
2.	If so, since when, and in what amount?


Colin William George Gibson: The provisions of the Income War Tax Act prohibit the giving of the information asked for by the hon. member in this question.


CANADIAN FORCES-LEAVE AFTER LONG SERVICE
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	Is the government aware of an article published on March 14 last in the Eighth Army News as to the complaints of Canadian soldiers now in Italy who are refused applications for leave to visit their families in America after four years absence?
2.	Has the government taken into consideration the complaints and applications of Canadian soldiers who have been thus serving in Europe for a long time and who are refused an application for leave to visit their families in America?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1 and 2. Please refer to statement of Minister of National Defence on page 1513 of Hansard, dated Mar. 16, 1944.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHURCH:: What is being done with regard to the housing emergency existing at Toronto in the way of aid to civil power there by the military forces, (a) to provide temporarily building space there to store temporarily household goods of those suffering; (b) temporary loan of motor vehicles to move household goods in this emergency, to May 1?


William Chisholm Macdonald: Return
tabled.


RADIO BROADCASTING-NATIONAL WAR FINANCE COMMITTEE
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1. Are appointments to the staff of the C.B.C. under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission?	.
2. Are appointments to the national war finance committee staff under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission?
3.	What governmental authority decides the amount of remuneration to be paid to persons appointed by the C.B.C. or the national war finance committee, and who are said to come under the class known as "uncontrolled and legally uncontrollable section of the committee"?
4.	Is there any rule in the Civil Service Act of Canada defining the status or classification of a person giving a fifteen-minute broadcast over the C.B.C. and under the auspices of the war finance committee and who is paid a stipend out of the public treasury for the same?
5.	Is there any limitation to the amount that either of the aforementioned bodies may pay to a person for broadcasting as indicated in question 4?
6.	What is the basis upon which the value or merit of a broadcast by an individual is determined?


COAL-COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	How many royal commissions have been set up to investigate the subject of coal and related subjects since 1914?
2.	What was the name of each commission,
who was its chairman, and when was each set up ?	#
3.	What subject did each commission deal with, and when did each make its report?
4.	What was the total cost of each commission?
5.	Have there been any other inquiries made
on coal and relative subjects by any other government-appointed bodies other than royal commissions ?	_
6.	If so, how many? What was the subject, and when was each report made?


CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY-GERMAN AND JAPANESE COMPANIES
Mr. KNOWLES:: .
1. Have any amounts of money been received by the custodian of enemy property from the Bayer Company of Canada, Limited, and placed

Questions as Orders for Returns
to the credit of the I. G. Farben Corporation and Farbenfabriken Vorm Fried Bayer and Company of Germany, since the outbreak of the present war? If so, what is the total?
2.	Have any other sums of money been received by the custodian of enemy property and placed to the credit of the above companies during the same period? If so, in what amounts, and from what companies in Canada, or from what sources have such other sums been received?
3.	Have any other German companies had amounts placed to their credit by the custodian of enemy property since the outbreak of the present war? If so, what is the total amount in each case?
4.	Have any Japanese companies had amounts placed to their credit by the custodian of enemy property since December 7, 1941? If so, what companies, and what is the total amount in each case?
5.	Is any interest being paid on or added to [DOT]amounts placed to the credit of German or Japanese companies by the custodian of enemy property?
6.	Where and how are these funds held?
7.	Has the government taken any steps to obtain profits made in Canada by German or Japanese companies since the outbreak of the present war?


Mr. McLARTY:: Return tabled.


SYDNEY AND LOUISBURG RAILWAY-SUBSIDIES OR OTHER ASSISTANCE
Mr. GJLLIS:: 1.	How much money was paid to the Sydney and Louisburg Railway for the years 1942-43 by way of subsidy or other assistance?
2.	How much money was paid them under the Maritime Freight Rates Act?


POTATOES
Mr. ROWE:: 1.	Are potatoes being imported into Canada at the present time?
2.	What is the present duty on imported potatoes?
3.	What is the present stock of Canadian potatoes still available?
4.	What is the retail price of, (a) new imported potatoes; (b) old crop Canadian potatoes?


DAIRY PRODUCTS-PRODUCTION SUBSIDIES
Mr. GAUTHIER:: What amount has been paid by the dominion government to farmers of each of the provinces of Canada, since 1939, in subsidies for the production of, (a) butter; (b) cheese; (c) milk?


CANADIAN FORCES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. O'BRIEN:
1.	What system exists to make cigarettes available to the Canadian forces overseas?
2.	Are Canadian brands of cigarettes plentifully available for all units and at unit canteens?
3.	What arrangements exist to provide cigarettes for soldiers, airmen and sailors whilst away from units on leave or furlough overseas?

4.	Do such arrangements prevail at the Beaver club and similar service organizations?
5.	What prices are charged for Canadian cigarettes of standard brands at unit canteens and elsewhere for purchase by our Canadian armed service personnel during leave overseas?

Mr. MacKENZIE (Neepawa):: 1.	During the past fiscal year, was hospitalization or medical care, or both, paid by the government for Canadian civil servants or employees _ injured or taken ill while serving in or passing through a foreign country?
2.	If so, how many, and in what departments of government?
3.	Was payment for medical care or hospitalization refused in certain cases? If so, why?


ALDERSHOT CAMP-DESTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS BY FIRE IN 1940
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Were certain buildings at Aldershot camp, Kentville, Nova Scotia, destroyed by fire on or about the 25th day of December, 1940?
2.	If so, bow many buildings were destroyed, and what was the value?
3.	What other property was destroyed, and what was the estimated value?
4.	Have any claims for damages been submitted on behalf of officers or other occupants of buildings, stating the total value of such claims and the amounts allowed for reimbursement ?
5.	Were any tools and personal effects destroyed in such fire which were owned or being used by civilian carpenters or workmen employed by the Department of National Defence or by contractors on construction work, and what was the estimated value?
6.	What moneys were appropriated for payment of such losses, and to whom were such moneys advanced or paid?
7.	What are the number and amount of additional claims?
8.	How did the fire originate?


EXTERNAL TRADE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I have a question I desire to direct to the acting leader of the government. I understand that a committee representing various departments of government has been constituted to deal with Canadian trade arrangements. If such a committee has been set up by the government, by what name will it be designated, what will be its functions, who will be its chairman and who will comprise its personnel?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): May I be permitted to answer the question? On April 27

External Trade
last there was adopted on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie King) an order in council setting up an interdepartmental committee which will be known as the external trade advisory committee. It was represented that the war has reached a stage at which prompt decisions have to be reached on many questions of export and import trade policy which concern several departments and agencies of government, particularly in relation to their effect upon the volume of supplies available for Canadian civilian or military use, or for alternative urgent external requirements, including relief and rehabilitation. It was thought desirable that an agency should be established for prompt consultation between departments and other agencies of government on such matters.
The membership of the committee is to consist of persons to be nominated as follows: One member by the Secretary of State for External Affairs; one member by the Minister of Trade and Commerce; one member by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, to represent the Department of Munitions and Supply; one member by the chairman of the mutual aid board, to represent the administration of that board; one member by the Minister of Finance to represent the Department of Finance; one member by the Minister of Finance to represent the wartime prices and trade board, and a third member by the Minister of Finance, to represent the foreign exchange control board; one member by the Minister of National Revenue, and one member by the Minister of Agriculture.
The functions of this committee are: (a) to serve as a medium for consultation between departments and agencies of government on questions concerning export and import trade; (b) to make recommendations and reports to ministers, departments or agencies of the government on matters relating to wartime export and import trade, or to trade during the period of transition to peace; (c) in appropriate cases to refer questions bearing upon import or export trade to other interdepartmental committees or boards for consideration; (d) to investigate matters concerning export or import trade in war time or in the period of transition to peace, and to obtain information thereon from departments and agencies of the government; (e) without restricting the generality of the foregoing, to investigate, consider and make recommendations concerning the supplying by Canada of goods and services for relief and rehabilitation purposes.
The members of the committee have been appointed. I shall lay on the table a copy of the order in council, which is being published
in the publication containing such orders in council; and annexed to it is a list of the persons appointed to the committee and of alternates to act in their absence.
The committee had a meeting on the second instant, and Mr. Sydney Pierce was chosen by the members of the committee as their chairman. Mr. Pierce is the director general of the Washington office of munitions and supply, on loan to the Department of External Affairs; he was chosen by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to represent that department on the committee. The list of members of the committee and their alternates is quite long, and if I may be permitted to do so I shall table the list together with a copy of the order in council.


Mr. POULIOT:: Pierce is a puppet prime minister.


Gordon Graydon: Was my hon. friend going to ask a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: No; I just said Pierce was a puppet prime minister.


Gordon Graydon: I am quite sure my hon. friend will not expect me to comment on that statement, but I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if it is proposed that in due course this committee shall report to parliament.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; it is an interdepartmental committee which has no executive function whatever. It is set up for the purpose of having one committee whe're the repercussions on the affairs of other departments of decisions which might be taken in connection with exports may be considered and brought to the attention of such other departments before such decisions are reached and carried out. The committee itself makes no decisions; it will afford a forum where the effect of a project to export a certain quantity of a certain commodity may be considered in regard to the requirements of other departments and brought to the attention of the appropriate ministers before any decision is arrived at and carried into effect.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour to give the house the present position of the labour dispute in the plant of the Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited at Windsor, and also to indicate the steps
Labour-Ford Motor Company

the government is taking to ensure a settlement of this dispute in order that war production may be resumed.


Humphrey Mitchell: The leader of the opposition was good enough to give me notice of this question, and I should like to make the following statement. The Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, Windsor, Ontario, had contractual relations with local No. 200 of the United Automobile Workers of America. The two parties signed an agreement in December, 1942, and renewed it with some slight changes, in January, 1944. Under this agreement provision was made for a procedure whereby stewards would handle and investigate grievances. This procedure specified that stewards night leave their regular duties for a reasonable length of time, subject to the approval of their foremen and subject also to a maximum absence from their regular duties of two hours per working day and not more than three hours in any two consecutive working days. However, if the foreman was of the opinion that more than a reasonable period of time had been taken by a steward he could decline to approve payment to the steward for such excess time.
It was the contention of the union that a practice had arisen over the last two years under which stewards serviced grievances without any of these restrictions and because the company decided to adhere to the written terms of the contract representations were made do the wartime labour relations board, that is the national board, for an interpretation or clarification of the grievance procedure in the light of the current practice. The board had arranged to hear the parties on April 25, but in the meantime the company issued misconduct slips to stewards who were considered to be violating the terms of the agreement. Later four stewards were suspended for six days, and this culminated in a stoppage of work on April 20. There was a clause in the agreement which provided that if a strike occurred the agreement could be terminated immediately, and pursuant to this provision immediately the stoppage took place the company served notice on the union that it considered the agreement at an end.
The	wartime	labour relations board(national) invited representatives	of	thecompany and the union to Ottawa, and for four days last week made an effort to conciliate the dispute. On Saturday the company and the union accepted a proposal drafted by the board. It was an important condition of the proposal that the wartime labour relations board	(national)	would determine	the	procedure	applying	to representation	and	the
tMr. Graydon.]
settlement of grievances for the period during which the parties would be in negotiation for a new contract, and that in the event of a dispute as to the interpretation or application of the provisions of the settlement or of the grievance procedure established by the board, it would be submitted to arbitration under the direction of the board.
The board submitted the grievance procedure to both parties on Monday of this week and immediately appointed one of the senior conciliating officers of the Department of Labour as an interim impartial umpire to facilitate the application of the grievance procedure and the final adjustment of disputes arising in connection therewith, his decision-and this was agreed to-to be final and binding on both parties. On Tuesday, May 2, it developed that the union objected to the grievance procedure as laid down by the board and at a mass meeting decided on a further stoppage of work which became effective at midnight of that date. According to newspaper reports the decision of the union to strike on midnight of May 2 was taken against the advice of the president of local No. 200 of the union, Mr. Roy England, and of the Canadian director of the union, Mr. George Burt. Two of the experienced officers of the department are now on the ground and are in contact with representatives of the company and the union.


OLD AGE PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: This morning's newspapers carried a Canadian Press dispatch, and I refer to the item which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail, with respect to old age pensions, dated at Quebec yesterday, reading as follows:
Premier Godbout announced in the legislative assembly to-day that the provincial government had started negotiations with the federal government with a view to having the age for the start of old age pensions reduced from seventy to sixty-five.
Will the Minister of Finance advise the house as to the nature of the negotiations, that is, whether they have been by correspondence or by conference, and would he also advise as to the present position of the negotiations?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: The only representations from the government of Quebec of which I am aware are by correspondence. Last summer we had some correspondence with the provinces in regard to increasing the maximum pension payable,

Army-Railway Draftees
which is $25 a month; and more recently we have had considerable correspondence with reference to amendments to other regulations. In the course of that correspondence it was stated by or on behalf of the government of Quebec that the government of that province would favour a reduction in the eligibility age from seventy to sixty-five.


Gordon Graydon: I am not so much interested in what the government of Quebec favours as in what this government favours. Is this government in favour of a reduction to sixty-five years of age?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is a. matter of policy which will be announced in due course; the hon. gentleman is fully aware of that fact.


Gordon Graydon: Well, I thought "due
course" might be now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION ANNOUNCED MARCH 21
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to direct a question
to the Minister of Munitions and Supply of which I sent him notice a couple of days ago. On March 21, when the minister presented his estimates to the house, he announced the appointment of a royal commission to inquire into the coal industry, with the end in view of mapping out a post-war fuel policy. Mine workers across Canada are inquiring whether the personnel of that commission have been appointed. The3r are preparing their case, and would like to know when they might expect to meet the commission. Can the minister give them some idea as to when the commission will begin to function?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I regret to say that the members of the royal commission have not been appointed as yet. There has been some difficulty in obtaining agreement as to the personnel of the commission. However the matter is being pressed forward, and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly. I am not sufficiently familiar with the matter to give even an approximate date at the present time.


WORLD TRADE UNION CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to direct a further
question to the Minister of Labour. An Associated Press dispatch, bearing a Philadelphia dateline of yesterday, states that Sir Walter Citrine, internationally known labour leader, has to-day called off the world trade union conference scheduled for London in June, and the dispatch further indicates that the meeting may be held in Canada. Is the minister in a position to inform the house of the date and the place in Canada of such meeting?


Humphrey Mitchell: I read the news dispatch to which the leader of the opposition has referred. I think the answer is that pending events in Britain made it inadvisable for the proposed world trade union conference to be held as planned in London in June next.
Arrangements for the proposed conference are in the hands of Sir Walter Citrine, general secretary of the British Trades Union Congress, and it is apparent he feels the conference could be held more conveniently on this side of the Atlantic. That is particularly so in view of the fact that a number of delegates are now attending the International Labour Office conference at Philadelphia. I am sure everybody in Canada will be glad to have the conference meet here. No doubt Sir Walter Citrine will be making arrangements with the labour leaders in the dominion as to the time and place of the conference.


Gordon Graydon: May I suggest that the
government extend to the conference an invitation on behalf of Canada?


CANADIAN ARMY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, the other day the
Minister of Labour said he would table correspondence exchanged between his department and the railways regarding draftees. Will he be good enough to do so to-day?
Humphrey Mitchell: I will do anything that is physically possible. I am not working twenty-six hours a day, because there are only twenty-four hours in a day. I think I got a good going-over on Tuesday-if I may use the language of the street. However, my hon. [DOT] friend may rest assured that as soon as physically possible the return for which he asks will be tabled.
R.A.F.-Crash in Montreal


ROYAL AIR FORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. P. HEALY (St. Ann):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence for Air. What arrangements has the government been able to make to compensate relatives of those, who were killed in the aeroplane crash in Montreal? Also, what will be done for those whose homes were destroyed by fire and who, on account of the accident, are left homeless?
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air).: The hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Healy), in whose constituency this unfortunate accident occurred, was good enough to give me notice of the question, and I have prepared an answer.
As the house is aware, a Liberator aircraft en route from Montreal Airport for delivery in the United Kingdom crashed in Montreal on 25th April, 1944, resulting in the death of a number of residents as well as the aircraft's crew and injury to persons and property.
The aircraft was under the control and direction of the Royal Air Force and the question of paying compensation for the pecuniary loss suffered as the result of the crash rests with the government of the United Kingdom and not the government of Canada.
I have been asked by the United Kingdom authorities to state that this question of compensation has been given careful and sympathetic consideration by the Air Ministry of the United Kingdom and that, without going into the question of legal liability, the ministry is anxious and is prepared to deal with this question of compensation on the same basis as would be adopted in the event of a similar accident in Canada in which an aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air Force had been involved.
In order that the United Kingdom Air Ministry may have full and complete information in each case where such pecuniary loss has been suffered, so as to assist it in determining what would be fair and reasonable compensation, and to implement its desire that compensation be dealt with as I have mentioned, the Canadian government is taking immediate action whereby those persons who have suffered pecuniary loss as a result of the accident will be able to have their claims in respect of such loss appraised on a fair and reasonable basis.
The circumstances are such as to make it desirable to have the matter dealt with with

the greatest expedition and the house may rest assured that this will be done and that every facility will be afforded those persons who have suffered pecuniary loss to have the same appraised on a fair and equitable basis.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker as it is apparent that at least for the present the government has no intention of calling either war or civil estimates of the Department of Agriculture, and as there are serious conditions existing in connection with the marketing of both grain and meat products, matters which hon. members are anxious to have discussed immediately, will the government call the committee on agriculture at once so that these matters may be brought before it?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Acting Prime Minister) :: I shall take the question my hon.
friend has asked into consideration, and discuss it with my colleagues. I may say that the passing of the items in agriculture would, I think, do about as much as anything to expedite the matters to which he has referred.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. As restrictions have been taken off the manufacture of men's clothing in Great Britain, will similar restrictions in Canada be lifted?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think that is a proper question to be asked when the orders of the day are called. I suggest it is not within the rules of the house.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 2, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

War Appropriation-Labour

[Stage Direction]
National selective service programme. $11,002,429.
Jean-François Pouliot: The only way to understand the scope of the problem of national selective service is to consider it not from an electoral viewpoint, but rather to study it objectively. The question is not that of pleasing the farmer or pleasing the army, but simply that of doing what is right, not being afraid to do so, and speaking accordingly. It will be impossible to discuss the problem of selective service so long as it is engulfed in politics, so long as it serves as a political platform for the jingoes or for those who hold the opposite view's. The question of man-power is one which concerns the future of this country to the utmost. It cannot be onesided; it must be well balanced. The Minister of Labour should be the regulator as between the requisitions of the army and the needs of industry; he should act as a pendulum. Ait no time should he be a stoker for the Department of National Defence.
It has been customary for certain club men, men who have never been in a theatre of war, men who may be graduates of military schools and possess some technical military knowledge but who have never won their spurs in a theatre of war, to say that it is a good thing to establish conscription of others for the waging of war. Conscription should, be preached only by example. I deny to any one who has not been in a theatre of war, even though he has studied in a military college and may wear a uniform, the right to uphold conscription. That is one point. I concede the right to those who have been in a theatre of war to hold the wrong view, but we have the right to discuss the matter without being told that we are what we are not.
A jingo is a -man who beats the drum, a man who thinks that all farmers should be in the army, that those who are not in the army are not doing their duty. They think that it is the duty of every man in good health and of military age to be in the army. That point of view is encouraged by talks sent over the C.B.C. at certain hours and it is encouraged also by the wartime information board and in a different way by the censorship regulations. News of what is said in the house is curtailed by the censors and does not reach the people who have a right to know what is being said in their defence.
Some half-truths are being uttered. When the Minister of Labour and his deputy wrote
to the government of Quebec that conscription would not be applied to farmers, that was true to a certain extent. It is true to a certain extent because of the fight that has been waged for the farmers by a small group of members of parliament who have the courage of their convictions and who can speak louder than any jingo can beat a drum. But it is essential that every hon. member of the committee should know what happened. If an hon. member asks the Minister of Labour to supply him with the same information that was requested by the premier of Quebec he will be told that the farmers receive special consideration from the mobilization boards. I admit that that may be true with regard to farmers who have never been in a military camp, but as soon as a man enters a military camp it is altogether different. That is why I have been asking questions about the postponements granted by mobilization boards in connection with draftees who are farmers' sons or who have worked on farms. When farmers have been in training for a month, these boards, which act under the Minister of Labour, consider it their duty to turn down most of the applications. They act simply as rubber stamps; they do not give due consideration to those farmers who are needed on the farms.
This condition dates back a long time. At one time the treatment accorded by the Quebec board to draftees who were farmers- and the same was true of other places-was rotten; it was an abomination. This condition was corrected to some extent, but many farmers who are indispensable are being sent to the training camps. The fact that they were farmers was not considered at all. As soon as these men received regimental numbers they were considered as belonging to the army and it was impossible for them to get back to the farm.
In how many cases have there been injustices? These people believed in the good faith of the government. They were at first told by every minister that the training would be for one month only. They did not ask for postponements, because they believed the statement that their training would be for one month only. The first training period began in November, 1940, an off season, and these men took the training believing they would be free for the rest of the year. Then they were called back for four months and finally had to stay there. They found it impossible to get leave after they were in the army.
I have a number of meritorious cases represented by the many files before me, some
War Appropriation-Labour

large and others not so large but just as deserving, covering men who have been placed in these camps under false pretences or because of the ignorance and stupidity of the members of the boards. Who suffers for this? In the first place it is the old father who cannot look after his farm alone, and it is also the country.
The jingo conception of conscription is that every able-bodied man should be in the army, without any consideration for the consequences of an unbalanced war effort. I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, how I would like things to work. In the first place there should be a campaign of information to educate the Canadian people and help them to understand what are the needs of this country. The farmer, the railway man, the miner, and all others who are working in essential industries should be rehabilitated in the minds of Canadian citizens who are not aware of the degree to which these occupations are essential to the state. That campaign can be carried on by the wartime information board and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. That would be much more useful than the pamphlets we receive and the little stories that are told over the C.B.C.
Next, the scissors of censorship must not be allowed to cut the reports of the two news agencies, the Canadian Press and the British-United Press but must give an opportunity to the Canadian people to inform themselves about the work that is done for them- here in this house.
Next, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour should be the boss of all draftees. I do not see why the Minister of National Defence is considered as holding a job more important than that of the Minister of Labour. Undoubtedly the job of the Minister of National Defence is important, but why should he have a priority over the Minister of Labour so that his requisitions for men must be filled at the expense of the lifeblood of the nation? This I cannot understand. It is a jingo policy when the Minister of Labour has to say "yes" to all the requistions which are made upon him by the Department of National Defence. The Minister of Labour has no information about the actual needs of the Department of National Defence. He has to take the word of its minister. What is the word of the Minister of National Defence? It is the sequel to the commitments he made when in London. The Minister of National Defence went to London and said: I will send you so many divisions. He has told us himself that he

sent men to Italy who were not requested by the British government. And we call that a fine gesture. But on account of that so-called fine gesture, which was probably inspired by international finance, Barclay's bank-


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I know that the hon. member realizes that I wish to be very tolerant, and he has been allowed considerable latitude. We have been over three days considering this one item, and in my opinion international finance should be left out of this discussion and1 the hon. member should come down to earth and discuss the item before the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: Your mind is too quick, Mr. Chairman. I hope you will let me finish my argument, and then you will see that it is closely related to the item before us. However, I will leave aside international finance and all that, and say this. The Minister of National Defence has told us himself that it w-as not at the request of the British government that he sent our men to Sicily or Italy. But it is precisely on account of commitments of that kind made in the name of the Canadian people that the Minister of Labour is called upon to pay the bill by calling up Canadian citizens who would be better employed in the industries where they are working.
I want to say to the Minister of Labour, in all earnestness, I would like to see him in a position where he could decide these matters as a real minister in charge of man-power. I would like to see him able to say to a man who is needed in industry and wants to enlist: No, your place is not in the army, it is in the industry where you work, and you are helping the war effort best by continuing to work in that essential industry. But the Minister of Labour has not this information that he should have. How can he decide between the needs of the army and the needs of industry if he has no figures on the needs of industry and the needs of the army? He has no information on those needs. He receives a requisition from the Department of National Defence for ten thousand or one hundred thousand men. It is a requisition in bulk. But does the Minister of Labour know to what extent he will deprive industry of man-power which is urgently needed in industry if he fills the requisition of the Department of National Defence? He cannot know because he has not the figures. Very often I have made a test. I have asked the Department of Labour for figures that

War Appropriation-Labour
should be on the desk of the Minister of Labour and his deputy, and it was not possible for me to get those figures. It was not because they were secret. Those figures should have been there. It is essential for the Minister of Labour to have them if he is to know what is the man-power reserve, if any, in this country.
There are other jingoes who sing the same song all the time-we must get reinforcements for our troops overseas-we must have so many divisions-we must have so many recruits, so many men for reinforcements, and so on. It is very easy to say: Just disband one division and then you will have reinforcements sufficient for the others, for the time being. How can the Minister of Labour decide between the needs of the lumber industry, for instance, and the needs of the army? I say that in all earnestness and in the best possible spirit of friendship for the minister, who has my full sympathy. I think his job is an intolerable one. He is not the boss. He is like the office boy of the Minister of National Defence or a clerk of the minister. The Minister of National Defence tells him: We need ten thousand or one hundred thousand men. Then the Minister of Labour writes to the various boards and tells them: The army needs so many men, and we must get them. But what does the Minister of Labour know about the actual needs of the lumber industry or about the needs of the farmers, for example?
What is the difference? It comes back to what I said a moment ago. On the one hand there is a requisition from the Department of National Defence for a definite number of men. But agriculture is different. The farmers are scattered all over the land, and it is impossible for them all to reach the Minister of Labour and tell him of their needs of man-power as easily as his colleague the Minister of National. Defence can. What farmer in any province .sits in council with the Minister of Labour and has the opportunity to speak to him every day, as often as he wishes every day, as the Minister of National Defence has? The Minister of Labour is in an impossible position. That is why I said to the Minister of Labour the other day that he deserves the consideration and help of his colleagues-for what? For reform. We must make it easier for the Minister of Labour to do the things he should do. He should be the minister of man-power, with full authority over draftees, whether they are in uniform or not, provided they have not volunteered. He should be in a position to answer back when the Minister of National Defence makes an exorbitant demand upon him for men. Would it not be for the good of the nation were he to tell the Minister of National Defence: "Please keep quiet and I 100-IG4
will see to it, and after I have examined the situation carefully I will tell you whether I can give you the men or not"? He should not be bound to say "yes" to all the requests he receives from the Minister of National Defence; if he does, the future of this country will be unbalanced. It is simple to say these things, and it is precisely because these things are so simple that it is so hard to get them accepted.
What happens? We write to the Department of National Defence regarding the case of a farmer who is needed on the land, and what does that department answer? The answer is that the mobilization board has not granted the application of the father to have his son back with him on the farm, and the blame is put by the army on the mobilization board, which is under the Minister of Labour. That is ingratitude. The mobilization boards cater to the army and then get the cold shoulder as a reward. That is the way it is done. In most cases it is useless to bring before the mobilization board, which is under the Minister of Labour, the cases of soldiers who have already had some training and who are in the army now. It is a most difficult thing.
I will tell the minister more than that. There are some intriguers on the board, not all of them, but some of them who want advancement and who try to intrigue to place people in the army at the expense of justice, at the expense of the right application of the regulations. That is the way it is done, and I could tell him a sad story. But my idea was to try to bring the committee back to fundamentals, back to a basis of discussion which would be different from what has been heard before in certain quarters, a basis of discussion that would satisfy the minds of the people of any province in Canada, even if they do not all agree with it. That is my view.
I have spoken of the farmers. They enjoy a certain consideration because they are numerous and because in many counties the election is decided by the vote of the farmers. If I believed the farmers' sons did not deserve postponement from training or leave from the army I would never advocate their cause, but I do so because I believe they do not receive fair treatment, to which they are entitled, and they are led into error by the false statement that conscription does not apply to them. We have conscription in this country; undoubtedly so. The sons of farmers of military age who are on the farms now have not had any training; ninety-nine per cent of those who have had training for a month or two have been kept in the army. That is the difference, and to be honest with the people,

War Appropriation-Labour

to be honest with the leading citizens of any province, this is what should be said to them if they inquire for information.
And now with regard to the railway business, I shall have a lot to say later on. But there is a distinction also between draftees and volunteers. The other day the Minister of National Defence was non-committal regarding what had been said by Major General Pearkes in British Columbia. Here however I have a statement made by Brigadier Macklin in Vernon, according to a Canadian press dispatch of April 7. He blamed recruits for refusing to enlist in the active army when he spoke in favour of the sixth victory loan, and he did not give them an opportunity to walk in parade on the occasion of the loan, those who had not been willing to sign for overseas. That is a great humiliation to put on the men, because they were acting in accordance with the law. There is nothing that forces them to go overseas unless conscription for overseas is established now, and the only thing that is needed to send these men there is a stroke of the minister's pen, and he knows that very well.
What I regret very much is the fact that it is impossible to discuss these matters without being called personal or being told that we are wasting the time of the house. It is most unfortunate that we have reached the time when legitimate criticism is considered a personal insult by certain members of the cabinet. It is not a matter of personal pride; it is a question of the good of the country. Is it better to continue saying that all men of military age should be in the army, notwithstanding the needs of industry? If the majority of the house takes that view I will say nothing further about it in this chamber, though I will do so outside. On the other hand, if it is regarded as being for the good of the nation that the Minister of Labour should be the boss and should have the right to decide what shall be done by young men who are draftees, whether they should be in the army or not, that is another point that deserves the best consideration.
There should be only one boss. The Minister of Labour should no longer be the office boy of the Minister of National Defence. That is my point and I hope it will be well understood. I referred a moment ago to the differences between the mass requisitions that he gets from the Department of National Defence and the single applications that he receives from farmers with respect to their sons. How could the minister know the need of the farms in all Canada every week if the boards do not report to him the number of requisitions that have been received and how

they have been dealt with? Even then there is no organization to inform the minister about the needs of the farmers. The only thing that is done is by members of parliament who voice the protests of the farmers in this committee. I hope that all this will be taken into consideration. I am very anxious to see the reaction to a little bit of reflection and thought not only from the Minister of Labour but from all his colleagues as well in order to correct a situation that is going from bad to worse.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not wish to add to the difficulty of the minister and his deputies in their calculations. I wish to point out what I mentioned in the house before the present minister and his deputies were in the position they occupy to-day. When the war started in 1939 we were not ready for it. I am not very much interested in the battle of wits on mathematics that has been going on. I am interested in reading the various reports and records galore of counts made on man-power in this war. It is now getting near to Woodbine time. We are in a man-power pool that is nearly as bad as the Woodbine pool. The battle of wits has been going on. Let us get down to the facts. When war broke out we had the old system of records in the three forces. Each of the forces was running its own department, so to speak. We then came along to the time when the Minister of Agriculture was the head of the national resources department and a card system of registration was established. It took months and months to count up the results of that registration. Finally, they were all counted. What was the result? The count was carried on the way the census returns are dealt with, and it took nearly a year to get the returns. I admit it is a difficult task that the minister has undertaken and it is rather difficult to straighten it out. I sympathize with him in that respect. When the war broke out in 1939 I was asked by three or four municipalities if I could do something for them in this committe and that is the only matter I wish to raise to-day. I was asked to see if there could be some change made in the system of recording man-power. The records system was a relic of the South African war. When a man enlists he signs attestation papers. The system was just copied from the one used by the mother country in the other war. They have a similar system in Washington.
We have had numerous counts, and it has been a run-around, a merry-go-round, since the war started. It is not the fault of the present minister. He is the victim of the system. Where are these returns? I received five or six returns under the first system, the

War Appropriation-Labour
registration card affair. I received returns showing that so far as the records go they could not tell how many men enlisted from Toronto, St. Catharines or the minister's own riding of Welland. There was no place where we could get the figures. This is a changing war, Mt. Chairman. Do not forget that. The war is changing from week to week, from month to month, and from year to year. What was the result? They added certain formations. The artillery was in Winnipeg and Petawawa; the infantry were parcelled all over Canada. Then, there were different branches of the air force all over the country, with the result that the municipalities got all twisted up. You could not tell how many men came from Lake Centre; you could not tell how many men came from Orangeville, the riding of South Simcoe; the minister could not tell how many came from St. Catharines, or any centres like that. What became of all these figures on the three counts that were made? My point is this: in the victory loan campaigns they have a system whereby they can tell to-morrow the amount of money collected all over Canada to-day. It is a very good mathematical system yet we cannot do it in man-power. I do not know how they do it in the victory loan, but it is being done.
An attempt was made to enforce the registration card system. Officers in Toronto would walk along the street and ask you to show your card. The municipalities are helping the minister and his deputies. I have seen it happen at public meetings in the city of Toronto. Under the administration of the present deputy the police walk into a hockey match-I have not attended a professional hockey match since the war started- and ask some spectators for their registration cards. I read in the papers that the Toronto police are going all over the city requesting individuals to show their cards. They are trying to help the minister in his work.
Under the first system you had your registration card. I fail to see how that helped at all. There were returns made to orders of the house of prosecutions all over Canada for failure to register. They show a total of 150. Of that number 97 were in the city of Toronto and the remainder were in the military districts all over the country. The military districts have been changed. Take No. 10, Winnipeg; a large portion of that includes your constituency, Mr. Chairman, and part of northwest Ontario. Take No. 3, Kingston. That district includes the city of Ottawa. You find the same condition all across Canada. You find city of Toronto soldiers all over Canada in the air force. When I asked for a return in the house they could not tell me the number of men from 100-1644
Toronto who enlisted in the air force. The present Minister of National Defence for Air gave a return for the city of Ottawa. One was given for the city of Toronto but it did not go very far. One or two municipalities wrote me about it. I brought it up in 1940 and 1941.
Then we had the 1941 census, the national registration, and the plebiscite. What has happened to the returns in these cases? Are they all counted? They ought to be. Are they shown in the returns? So far as I can see, those returns might have been invaluable to the armed forces, but they were not used and we have now this system. Some use might have been made of them if they were available. We then have the unemployment insurance and the insurance books. Then you have the Canada Year Book which gives the results of the last war and last census. Then we have Mr. Lash on the radio. He was engaged on the radio to show that Ontario was falling down in recruiting as compared with Quebec. I have the greatest respect for all provinces. I have never raised the question of the differences between provinces in this committee. I believe in the principle of the old Cornish battle-cry, "all for each and each for all."
May I refer to table 7, which was printed in Hansard"! Regardless of what appears in that table in my opinion a battle royal has been going on here. The number missing, 300,000, has been referred to, and has been going up and down. It puts me in mind of the lost tribes of the children of Israel. We started census-taking away back in 1871 and it has been continued from that day on. The Canadian people are not mathematically minded. We have never been able to count the total number of people in this country, or where they came from. I know in one census half of one of the districts that I formerly represented in this house was left out altogether. Mistakes like that are made in counts all the time.
My comment is not against the present minister's department. I am trying to justify the necessity of utilizing all the money that has been spent on the census, registration * cards, by the wartime prices and trade board, the plebiscite, and all other bodies, and coordinate it all to give Canadians the rear facts. We should harmonize all the different counts and checks that have been made on man-power in this country since the war started. Where is all this information, and why is it not used? I was in the house before this department was created. I have raised the point before. I believe that each municipality should be entitled to know how many soldiers went to the front from that municipality. Men of the city from which I come
War Appropriation-Labour

have enlisted as far away as Vancouver and Victoria, and the city gets no credit for it. It does not want any credit, of course, except for helping to win the war. This is not a political matter; far from it. I have never tried to obtain any political advantage from it; I think that is a very poor argument at the present time, because as far as I can see the officials are doing their best, along the lines I have suggested. But we are back to conditions similar to those of 1066, when the Domesday book was drawn up, in the time of William the Conqueror. They counted the number of doctors, the number of workers, artisans, pigs, and all the rest of it, and put them down in that book. Now, in the fifth year of this war, all this money has been spent and we are not getting the results we should. We had several gentlemen use the radio in order further to becloud the situation, and others have done the same thing. I have read Hansard for the last few days, and this present debate reminds me of the battle of Dundee. I am not very good in the Scottish language, but according to the history books some say we won, some say they won and some say nobody won.
Surely there could be no objection to giving the figures of enlistments by provinces, by religions and all that sort of thing. It is done in the United States and in England and it is done here in connection with enlistments. When a man signs his attestation paper he says whether he is a Baptist, a Presbyterian, a member of the United Church or whatever he may be. The heads of some of these bodies have written me in this connection. As far as table 7 goes. I believe something should be done to harmonize that table with the various figures obtained through the registrations, the monthly pamphlets, the plebiscite, and so on. It may take a long time to do that. Only two or three years ago the present acting Prime Minister said he was changing the system followed in the records office in order to be able to give some of this information. When the war is over, each municipality will have to know how many enlisted from it in order that it may help the government in the postwar problems. I have had many municipalities of the province from which I come write me in connection with this matter, saying that from the records they cannot tell where their men are scattered, what has become of them or anything else.


Mr. ROSE:: The estimates now before the committee are among the most important to be considered by this house, because whatever the Labour department does affects the morale of a large section of the population of Canada. It also affects the relationship betweeen various

classes in the country, and the whole structure of national unity necessary both for victory and for a stable post-war period. Unfortunately I find that labour problems have been rather sidetracked in favour of a discussion of missing people, and the press have taken up this matter and made it a key problem. This house has become practically a missing persons bureau, with people wanting to find out exactly how many have not reported for military service. It has become a battle over figures. I hold no brief for men who do not report for army service, but I rather detect an attempt to slur the province of Quebec in this connection, and I say that is unworthy. Whom should we blame for the fact that certain people do not report? All parties in the past have carried on an agitation in Quebec, stating that our young men would not have to go to war.


Mr. LALONDE:: They never said they
should not go to war.


Fred Rose: No; that they would not have to go.


Maurice Lalonde: Speak for yourself, then.


Fred Rose: Canadians work in similar plants at Cornwall. Why should those employed in the Quebec plants receive less than those employed in Ontario?
We are told, of course, that wages have to be low, because of competition. I have before me a report in the Montreal Gazette of a speech delivered by Mr. E. C. Fox, President of Canadian Cottons Limited, on March 8, 1944, in which he says:
If Canada is going to have a high standard of living, then she cannot expect her manufacturing industries to compete on level terms with countries of lower living standards.
By that he means that wages have to be kept very low if we are to be able to compete. That sort of attitude has to be changed. It is the kind of attitude which is not going to bring us a prosperous post-war period.
Then, what about competition from the United States? Before preparing my notes I had before me a file showing wages paid in textile mills at New Bedford, Massachusetts. There are many French Canadians down there, people who left their own province because they could get much more in wages than they could get here. They had a forty-hour week-although recently there has been a change to a forty-eight hour week. However they receive overtime for anything over the forty hours.
What other competition are we looking to? What about the far east-Japan? Qh, no; the world in the post-war period must never return to coolie wages. That is no reason for lower wages in Quebec. Not only are the wages low in the textile industry in our province, but an examination of the 1941 census showing average earnings in Quebec and Ontario for wage earners showed the following:
Average	Average
male	female
income	income
Quebec	
$ 922	$429Ontario	
1,119	577
The figures for Ontario are low enough, but there is no reason in the world why they should be even lower in Quebec. I found that there were 603,312 male wage earners and 211,315 female wage earners in Quebec. If they had got the same wages as were paid in Ontario our income would have been $159,000,000 higher than it was. That would have meant a lot to the people of Quebec, and had they received that money perhaps we would not have found so high a percentage of people who were unacceptable to the army. That is something to think about for the future. Many people ask: How will you [Mr. Rose.1
increase buying power? This is one very simple way of increasing the buying power of the people.
P.C. 1003 opens the door to company unions, and the unions will not be satisfied until they feel that company unions have been banned once and for all. I have before me an article which appeared in the Financial Post in reference to P.C. 1003, and which states:
Consistent with our democratic way of life-
It is peculiar how people can play with phrases.
-independent employees' associations are recognized and protected under the regulations.
I do not believe company unions have anything in common with the democratic way of life. And no one can tell me or anyone who has been in the labour movement for any length of time that a company union is something which the workers cry for as a baby cries for castoria; it is something imposed upon them'. P.C. 1003 permits lockouts in industries where there is no collective agreement. In the same article in the Financial Post we read:
An employer is only .restrained from locking out his employees if there is a collective agreement in force.
If there is not, he has the right to lock out his employees.


Humphrey Mitchell: You are just quoting the opinion of an individual. It is like all your other stuff-just quotations from what somebody else has said.


Fred Rose: I read this through, and I am sorry to have to say that I agree with quite a number of the things I find in this article.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend claims to speak as a trade unionist. I should like to tell him that this order in council has the approval of the parent bodies of the largest labour organizations in Canada. I know the hon. member intends to send this speech back home, and I hope he will forgive me for interrupting. There is a definite penalty provided in the code for the fostering of company unions or what my hon. friend refers to as company unions. The mere fact that the Financial Post says a thing does not mean that it is true. This order is being administered by a board made up equally of men nominated by labour and by employers' organizations. I do not think my hon. friend speaks for the trade union movement in this country.


Fred Rose: I have not considered myself as speaking for the trade union movement of this country, I am too modest for that.

War Appropriation-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: Any more than, you spoke for the Canadian people in 1941.


Fred Rose: That is all right; there is no sense in getting hot under the collar about it. I congratulated the minister; I said it was an improvement on what we had before. I believe that an hon. member has the right to point out certain weaknesses. In the past we have had a long struggle for improvement and we have got improvement, but I think I have the right to point out certain weaknesses which exist. The interpretation given in the order to employees' organizations is too broad. I would say that it could include company unions.
There is the question of certification which I should like the minister to explain. Would it not be possible to arrange that in all factories where there are collective agreements there shall be automatic certification? That would avoid going through this procedure which can lead to confusion and which may be taken advantage of by certain employers. These are a few of the things I want to say about order 1003.
Then there is the problem of labour-management relations. I am afraid that here I shall have to be more critical than I have been about order 1003. The other day I received a booklet pointing out what labour-management committees have done in the United States and in Great Britain, but it could not say much about labour-management relations in Canada. We are in the fifth year of the war and there should be many labour-management committees throughout this country. We have heard a lot of talk about them, but there has been no move by the government to help organize these committees.
This affects not only production, which is important, but also lay-offs. I am not saying that lay-offs may not be necessary when changes in production are made, because they are. Because of war conditions a plant making one thing to-day may be asked to make another thing to-morrow. A shift in production must be made and a labour-management committee could discuss the problem. The workers would feel that they had been consulted and perhaps would be ready to go somewhere else if that were necessary.
Surely labour and management can get together to discuss ways and means of using their equipment for post-war production. They should be able to work out what they can produce instead of cannon and tanks. Labour people also have brains and they should have a chance to make proposals. That is why I say we should follow the example of other united nations. In Great Britain there are 4,000 committees in the metal industry alone,
and they have done wonders. In the United States many committees have been set up, but we have very little of that in Canada. Something more than pamphlets is needed here. It should be the task of this committee which has been reorganized to go to town in helping in the organization of these labour-management committees.
Before sitting down I should like to say a few words to which some hon. members may take exception. I think they should be said in fairness to the people of the city of Montreal, the people of the province of Quebec and the people of all Canada. In saying what I intend to say I do not want to minimize in any way the heroic efforts of the men in the armed forces and the tough job they are doing. I refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), who is reported on page 2455 of Hansard as follows:
In the last three or four weeks I have seen, I frankly admit, only three Canadian cities, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, hut what I have seen in those cities is to me as alarming -as it is tragic. If I -may generalize from these local observations I would say that Canada at the moment is not so much a nation motivated by a full-out war effort, tout is on the other hand, it would seem, in many ways a nation enjoying the greatest prosperity in its history. These days appear to me to be as gilded and as giddy as those of 1929.
I think that is an unjust statement to make about the people of Montreal. Many people in Montreal live away from St. Catherine street and the centre of the city. Had the hon. member gone to see some of the huge war plants where men and women, young and old, work under conditions which are not the easiest; had he visited a night shift and seen men working who in some cases had not seen their families for days; had he visited a shell-filling plant or one of the acid-mixing rooms and seen people working under the most difficult of conditions; had he known how the people had subscribed to war loans, how they were living in poor homes, how they were giving their blood and doing everything they could, he would have arrived at a different conclusion.
Yes, the workers may drink a little more beer or whisky; for an extra glass of beer is appreciated by the working man after a hard day's work. But that by no means indicates prosperity. There is far from prosperity in Montreal at the present time, and I think the hon. gentleman should have lectured some of the members of his own party, especially a new recruit who had been given an honourable job under the government where as chairman of the national labour board he could have done something for
2(514
War Appropriation-Labour

labour. He was in a responsible position. But he left that job. He did not put victory first. He left the job and went into politics. We hear a lot of sermons and preaching, and the trouble is that we too often apply them to the other fellow instead of to ourselves.
I did not want to make these remarks, but I was in Montreal over the week-end and I know that quite a number of people were insulted by the remarks that were made. The workers of this country are willing to do everything to help the war effort, and with the improvements that have already been made-I said that at the beginning and I want to emphasize it-and with the further improvements that will be made in the Department of Labour as they become recognized as necessary, we the workers will make our full contribution to victory and towards solving the post-war problems.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Mr. Chairman, I
rise to a question of privilege in connection with a statement made in the house by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay as reported at page 2588 of Hmsard, where he quoted a statement made by M. Pare, registrar of military district F. M. Pare's statement was as follows:
It is absolutely untrue that, in Quebec district, only 9,000 out of 460,000 "callable" men have been called up, as was alleged iby Mr. John B. Diefenbaker, Progressive Conservative member for Lake Centre. In the first place, in our district, there are but 180,000 "callable" men, not 460,000.
The statement arises by reason of a misapprehension of the words that I used and their removal from the context. I never said that 460.000 "callable" men were in Quebec district F. I never said that only 9,000 men out of 460,000 "callable" men in Quebec district F were called up for service. What I did say is to be found at page 2497 of Hansard, and I feel that any misapprehension caused by failure to read the entire paragraph should now be removed. What I said was:
The number called for medical examination to January 31, 1944, was 1,449,417.
Then I paused to remark that I was not referring to call-ups for service at all but to call-ups for medical examination. I went on:
In other words, 469,942 have been called up for medical examination since June 23, 1943-
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury): To January.
Mr. Diefenbaker: Up to the 31st of January, as the hon. member for York-Sunbury says. Here is how they called them up. They called up a total from the various military districts of the number I have given. In Quebec military district, division F, they called up 8-6 per cent of the total population, or, in that period of time, only 8,724 out of some 460,000 men.

My remarks were removed from their context. The 460,000 men referred, in round figures to the 469,942 called up for medical examination throughout Canada since June 23, 1943. What I said had no reference to call-ups for military service. The call-ups referred to there were the call-ups for medical examination.


Mr. HANSELL:: I should like to say a word or two about conscientious objectors; but before doing so, in view of an observation that was made the other day, may I ask the Minister of Labour one question in order that I may understand just what the regulations are? Is any difference made in the treatment of conscientious objectors who are Doukhobors and conscientious objectors who belong to other religious faiths?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


Ernest George Hansell: I am afraid then I am seriously confused. I understood that conscientious objectors who were Doukhobors were given some little confinement in camps, sometimes in the Rocky mountains, which some members have described as a nice little holiday, but that conscientious objectors belonging to other religious beliefs were sent to other camps for some considerable time, and in fact were not released. The minister can correct me if I am wrong. In anything I have to say in this connection I do not want the minister to think I am harshly criticizing his department or his administration. I know the Labour department is one department that has perhaps a good deal of grievance because it is dealing with the public, with the working people of our country, and I appreciate the minister's difficulties and want to help him if I can. I am not going to criticize him severely.
May I say, now that I am speaking on behalf of conscientious objectors, that I am not a conscientious objector myself. I take the stand that if a country is worth living in everybody should plunge in and fight for it if the necessity arises. I have not very much sympathy with conscientious objectors. Nevertheless, I feel that someone needs to come to their rescue and present their case, because I believe they have a case. Let us analyse it for a moment.
If the principle of imprisonment and the consequent putting into work camps of conscientious objectors is adopted, it seems to me that the principle should apply to all conscientious objectors. But as a matter of fact it does not. It applies only to those who come within a certain call-up range. If they are within that age range and are called up for service and refuse to come they are

War Appropriation-Labour
prosecuted, and, if convicted, are ultimately sent to prison or to some work camp. But if one is a conscientious objector and does not come within that age group, no notice is taken of him even though he is a conscientious objector. I make that observation because I believe there is a real principle involved.
A conscientious objector is one who objects on religious grounds, and I believe that generally speaking religious people are good living people. I do not think anyone will deny that. There may be the odd one whom somebody knows something about, but generally speaking religious people with high ideals are good living people and good citizens. The conscientious objector, however, is penalized for being conscientious. There is a vital principle there. He is penalized for having certain convictions. Now one thing we need in a strong Canadian citizenship is people with strong convictions, even though fhey may differ in their convictions. These people are not penalized for robbing or for stealing something or because they are lawbreakers in the sense of coming under the criminal code, but they are punished-I say punished because that is what it amounts to-or penalized, simply because they have religious convictions and refuse to kill. That is true.
Therefore the principle on which the government is working with respect to conscientious objectors is wrong. The government could treat these people in a fair manner, compatible with their convictions, by giving them some work such as farming or in munitions factories or in some place where they could fit into the general war scheme, while overcoming that element which is described as conscientious objection.
It might be said that if this were done many people might claim to be conscientious objectors.


Humphrey Mitchell: We are doing what my hon. friend is suggesting.


Ernest George Hansell: I am glad to hear the minister say that. I should like him to comment a little on some correspondence I have had. If that is what the government are doing, I ponder how long these particular regulations have been in effect. Since I have taken some interest in this matter I have received reams of correspondence from one end of the country to the other. I am going to read a few of the observations contained in some of these letters. This is a little different from what the minister has informed me. This is with respect to the treatment given to dependents of these men. I am willing to table the letters or give the names of these people; I do not suppose they mind at all.
Here is a letter from a Mrs. Alphonse Vaillancourt of Timmins:
Dear sir: The reason why I am writing to you is due to the fact that my husband has lately been convicted like some of the worst criminals just because he does not want to disobey his Heavenly Father, which would mean to him eternal destruction.
There is nothing to be alarmed at in that statement. These people are religiously conscientious about what they do. The letter goes on:
It may be all right that we get a little relief, but nothing to clothe ourselves with. As it is, my husband is working very hard; he should be paid good wages, but what he gets is 50 cents a day and he has to clothe himself with that. I have experience of how much it costs for clothes to work in the bush, so that what he gets is not too much for himself. I want to remind you that we have three children and they are poorly clothed, so is myself. While he was with me he at least saw to it that we could get the principal things. Would you be kind enough to try and help him.
I do not know whether these people think I am the minister. That is one letter. Here is a letter from Mrs. Ernest Jutras of Kirkland Lake, who says that there is no allowance for herself and family, and she explains certain things her husband would not do on account of his religious beliefs. Then she goes on:
By taking such a stand toward Almighty God, he was .prosecuted and sentenced to gaol after which term he was escorted to Chalk River (by an order of the court). There he works in the bush, where he receives only $15 a month to pay for his clothing and personal expenses.
At the present time I have a young baby which is five months old. Due to the lack of necessities, he has been sick for more than two months, and is now seriously ill. I have tried (but in vain) to get support from the authorities, causing me to descend to mendicancy.
You can readily realize the position that I am in. There is much seriousness attached to this, and I ask for your fair consideration and assistance.
Here is another from Mrs. McKnight of Timmins:
Because of our Christian beliefs, in this democratic country are my child and I to starve? My friends are tired of keeping me in groceries and rent, and I am unable to go out to work.
Here is another from a Mrs. Lane of London, Ontario:
I have since December been left without any means of support, due to the fact that my husband Mr. Gordon Lane has been classed by the government as a conscientious objector and sent to the Petawawa forest experimental station at Chalk River.
In the past two years I have undergone two serious operations and it is almost impossible

War Appropriation-Labour

for me to do sufficient to support my family, not to mention outstanding doctor's bills, et cetera.
Most of the ready cash I had went to buy warm clothing to outfit my husband, as none was supplied to him, and this leaves me in a rather critical position.
These are some of the letters I have received and I have no doubt the minister has received a good many more than I have. I suggest that at least when these men are picked up in what we like to regard as a Christian democracy we should not penalize their wives and children. We are penalizing them for their religion. It would not be so bad if they were troublesome criminals and lawbreakers, but I do not think they are.
I would ask the minister to give some consideration to really helping the wives and dependents of these men who are picked up. It is not enough to put that on to the Red Cross by some little agreements which have been made. The fact of the matter is that we are spending billions of dollars on the war. What would a few paltry dollars mean to help out the dependents of these conscientious objectors? The position is that these men have convictions. Generally speaking I do not find the complaint that they do not want to go to goal or do not want to be interned. As a matter of fact a man does not mind going to gaol for his honest convictions. I do not think I would care a button whether they put me in gaol or not if I had honest, Christian convictions. So far as that goes I would not care if they shot me. But the complaint and the principle involved are tha-t the dependents of these conscientious objectors are penalized to the point of destitution and almost starvation.
I believe that the government would benefit themselves by embarking on a principle whereby they would feed and clothe adequately for the time necessary these unfortunate women and children. What would be the result? Let me put myself in their position. I would say this: "Well, my husband was put in gaol because of his religious convictions, but there is one thing I can say for the government, namely, they were certainly Christian in their attitude toward me." That would be the position I would take if I were the unfortunate wife or the dependent, if the government treated me properly. I do not believe the country would lose anything; I do not believe the government would lose anything by seeing that these people are adequately provided for.
I should like the minister to make some comment on that, but before he does, may I touch on another matter? The minister knows about the case to which I am about

to refer. I wrote to him about it and he answered kindly. I refer now to the case of Dietrich Remple, a conscientious objector, who had been working for a certain farmer in my constituency in the province of Alberta. They took him away from Alberta,
I suppose because his home was in Saskatchewan. He came under the Saskatchewan authorities, and the result is that while this farmer wants to employ this man he cannot do so because the man must remain either in Saskatchewan or in the camp at Seebee, or something like that. I may not have full knowledge on that part of it. Would it not satisfy all concerned if conscientious objectors were taken up, examined and perhaps put in gaol for a time-I do not know that I favour that-and if the authorities are convinced that the man, though being a conscientious objector, is still a reputable citizen, would there' be anything wrong with his being able to go to the place of his choice? I know that the particular farmer to whom I referred is well pleased with this particular man's work. He says he has worked for him before. He says:
I knew he had conscientious convictions along * that line, but he caused me no trouble. He was a good worker. He kept himself to himself and did not bother anybody at all.
Yet, in this case, that farmer is unable to employ the man whom he wants. I wonder if something could not be done in cases such as that? Once again may I ask the minister if he could not readjust the regulations governing these conscientious objectors so that at least their dependents are well provided for? I plead for consideration for the unfortunate women and children, who are the victims, and willing victims too, of what can be termed the conscientious convictions of men who want to do right;


Humphrey Mitchell: I wish to thank my hon. friend for the manner in which he has approached this problem of conscientious objectors. I think, as he indicated, he will agree with me that it is a difficult one. Like himself I believe people have to fight to. win the war. What these people fail to remember is that if it were not for people who are prepared to fight the powers of aggression and dictatorship there could not be any conscientious objectors. They would just have to do what they were told. We would have that kind of government and my hon. friend and I would have to do what we were told.
I think that is fundamental.
It must be remembered that we are dealing with one particular brand of religious people, namely, Jehovah's Witnesses. It is very difficult to deal with them. May I say this in a kindly way? Many of the letters that

War Appropriation-Lajbour
are received in my department are of an emotional character like the people themselves. The steps taken in dealing with conscientious objectors are comparatively simple. A man comes before the board, and if the board decides that that man is a genuine conscientious objector it is just a question of moving him into alternative service. But these people who go to gaol-and rightly so, in my judgment-will not even go to alternative service. Therefore, what we have to do is to prosecute them as we would have to do with a person who for some reason or another will not comply with the regulations governing those people who are conscientious objectors.
I do not think the condition of conscientious objectors is as bad as those letters would indicate. I think my hon. friend lives in a rural community. You can w'alk up and down a country road and you will find, the same kind of land on each, side of the road; the sun shines the same way and there is the same amount of rainfall; but here you see a good farm; the next farm may not be quite as good, and the third one may be much worse. The third farmer may be like ten per cent of the people that one meets in every walk of life.


Ernest George Hansell: All farmers are good.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know they are, but you get my point. May I say very frankly that my department treats these people, whether they be Japanese prisoners of war or conscientious objectors, in a humane way and I contradict any statement in opposition to that. With regard to the people my hon. friend speaks about, we are closing down the camps; we are moving them as far as we can into agriculture, except that we are keeping skeleton crews in certain camps for the people who- will not comply with the law.
With reference to the maintenance of the wives and children of conscientious objectors I would say that they are treated just as fairly as the men in the fighting forces. Where the family is large enough there is no deduction from the monthly rate of wages. In the case of the single man any amount over $25 a month goes to the Red Cross. Where there is a family and where it is warranted no money is payable to any organization; it all goes to the dependents of the conscientious objectors concerned. In addition to that, arrangements have been made with the provinces where need is shown, as indicated-and I am not suggesting my hon. friend is not correct in his statement- to be correct, the province in which that 100-1651
family resides will take care of those people and we bear all the expense. The reason for doing it in that way is to decentralize it. I am a firm believer in decentralization. I think the people of Alberta know their own problems far better than I do, particularly those of a very personal nature.
The other matter mentioned by my hon. friend was the case of the man who wanted to work in Alberta but who, unfortunately, came from Saskatchewan. I am not like Solomon; I would not cut this man in two. There is a shortage of farm labour in Saskatchewan, so that that division of my department decided that the man should work in the province of his origin. That is all there is to it. I hope I have answered all my hon. friend's questions.


Ernest George Hansell: I think so, but I do feel that some further consideration could, be given to the question of the maintenance of these wives and children, and I hope the minister will do his very best in this regard. Are these cases dealt with individually, on their merits?


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, absolutely.


Ernest George Hansell: Some cases must be more deserving than others.


Humphrey Mitchell: As soon as we took over the conscientious objectors we set up special offices in all military divisions in Canada to deal with nothing else. In addition, we have a division of the Department of Labour here at headquarters which is continually in touch with these men in the field.


Ernest George Hansell: I mean with respect to the dependents.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, yes. We do not deal with these people en masse; we deal with them as individuals.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: How long has this arrangement with the province been in effect?


Humphrey Mitchell: Three months.


Mr. WHITE:: When the Department of Labour receives a requisition from national defence for 12,000 men, we will say, to be called up, how is this number divided between the different administrative divisions across Canada? How do they decide how many are to be called from the Halifax district, how many from the Kingston district, how many from the Vancouver district and so on? Do they take' into consideration the number of men who have enlisted voluntarily, the number already called up, whether it is an industrial district or a farming community, and matters of that kind?
TVar Appropriation-Labour

Then I should like the minister to answer the question I asked on Monday, as to whether he would be good enough to place upon Hansard a table which would give a complete picture of the men who have been called up, to some particular date in 1944, in order that we might bring some order out of the confusion that now exists in reference to this loss of 300,000 men. I should like the minister to say whether this table could be placed upon Hansard while his estimates are before the committee, so that hon. members may have an opportunity to examine it and compare it with the various returns already brought down, and then make any further comments they may wish.
Finally I should like to ask the minister what further steps, if any, his department intends to take in order to locate the very large number of men who are missing. In his reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre on Monday the minister outlined in a brief and sketchy way the procedure followed at present, but I think the committee is entitled to some further information as to whether the minister intends to take any additional action to locate and prosecute these missing men. One has only to pick up any daily newspaper to read of prosecutions conducted by the wartime prices and trade board in connection with food, gasoline, rentals and so on, as a result of which citizens have been fined perhaps hundreds of dollars for minor infractions of some of the thousands of regulations which have been passed by this government. Compare that with the situation under the minister's department, in which we have thousands of young men disobeying the law with apparently very little being done about it. I should like the minister to tell the committee what cooperation he receives from the Department of Justice and what their view is in regard to this flagrant flouting of the law by these young men, and in that connection whether the minister feels he is now doing everything that can be done to locate them. If he is not satisfied with what is being done at present, what steps does he propose to take?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have tried to memorize all the questions asked by my hon. friend, but if I should pass over any of them, I hope he will forgive me and bring them to my attention. The first point he raised was, I think, how we make the call-ups, whether or not they are staggered in the various districts; I thinks that was the import of his. question. As I pointed out the other day, we are scraping the bottom of the barrel in this country as far as man-power is concerned. I think I indicated to the committee that we had to
(Mr. White.]
call six men to get one into the armed forces. The direction is given all the military districts in Canada. There is no quota; they call them up as fast as the medical boards and other machinery can handle them. It is a straight call-up; we have got away from the idea of allotment.


George Stanley White: Do I understand, then, that
as soon as a class of young men become eighteen and a half years of age they are automatically called up, all of them?


Humphrey Mitchell: They are cleaned up in
the first few' days of the month.


George Stanley White: How many young men become of military age each year?


Humphrey Mitchell: Approximately 100,000.


George Stanley White: Would that not more than
take care of all the requirements?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend must
remember that the majority of young men volunteer. In addition, there are students, those on the farms, those who are physically unfit, and so on. The hon. gentleman asked me for one figure; now he asks for a breakdown, which it is pretty difficult to give offhand. That is the situation. Many volunteer; many are unfit; many go on to school and many are postponed because they are farmers' sons, or on compassionate grounds, and things like that. With reference to the figures my hon. friend asked for, I did direct the officers of my department to get those figures, but I think if the hon. gentleman studied table No. 7 he would find a break-down of the manpower pool in this country. I cannot promise that I shall be able to get the figures he wants before my estimates are through, but I suggest that if he would use that table rather than a multitude of tables from which different deductions may be drawn, which have confused the thinking of some people, he will get most of the information for which he is looking.
Then the hon. gentleman asked if we were doing everything possible to trace those men who should report for military training. 1 would say, without fear of successful contradiction, that we are doing everything physically possible to trace those people who should comply with the law. I do not know whether I can say more than that. If my hon. friend has other suggestions to make I would be glad to listen to them.


George Stanley White: After practising law for
twenty years in Ontario I know that if anybody in this province commits any offence the police never have any difficulty in locating that person; and it seems to me very strange that, according to the minister's own figures,

War Appropriation-Labour
there could be at least 49,000 men roaming around the country, men who have committed a breach of the law and who cannot be located. I may say in passing that the figure
49,000	is open to dispute. Surely, with the machinery in the minister's department, along with the machinery of the Department of Justice, something could be done about this matter.
May I refer to what the minister said about table No. 7 which he filed on Friday. This table is prepared on a basis different from that used when the ten or twelve returns were prepared and filed; and it is impossible to use table No. 7 as a comparison, or to get the information one is seeking, when he compares this table with the returns which have been filed. I would especially ask the minister to bring down a new return which would follow the manner in which the other returns were made.
For instance, I would point out to the minister that table No. 7 does not give the total number of men available. It does not tell how many were called up. It does not tell how many refused to report. It does not tell how many did not report after medical examination. I do not think we can have any clear picture, unless the minister will bring down a table having reference to one particular date in 1944, so that we may compare that table with these ten or twelve returns. Will the minister bring down such a table?


Humphrey Mitchell: I will not get into an argument about this table. The hon. member 1-mows what he wants the table for, and I know what the table is for. This is a basic table compiled by the department. The hon. member said that we do not know how many men are available. I would direct his attention to table No. 7, where it says, "Not yet sent order, military training, 619." That is the figure for London, and the figures are given for Kingston and other districts. However, if my hon. friend wishes to have the figures I will try to get them.


George Stanley White: I must confess I cannot understand the table. Would the minister tell me, from the table, how many men out of the 1,665,504 refused, neglected or failed to reports for medical examination? How can one get that information from the table?


Humphrey Mitchell: The contention of those who prepared the report is that there are
49,000	people we cannot trace.


George Stanley White: Please explain how you get it from this table?


Humphrey Mitchell: There is the figure, right
in the tabie.


George Stanley White: Where?


Humphrey Mitchell: Under the heading "not accounted for"; that is all.


George Stanley White: That is just the point; one cannot take this table and compare it with the other returns because, as pointed out the other day by the hon. member for Lake Centre-Monday, I believe it was-it is shown in one return that there are at least
300,000	who did not report. However, I am quite willing to leave the matter the way it is, if the minister has agreed to bring down the table as I have suggested.


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to be cooperative with my hon. friend, but he thinks in one direction, while some other hon. members try to reach another conclusion, and some others are trying to reach another. We all come back to the figure of 49,000. The hon. member for Lake Centre went off the track when he got so many returns to prove a certain point that he got mixed up in the maze of his own figures-and I say that in a kindly way.


George Stanley White: The return would clear that
up.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend may be the only man in Canada who thinks so; that is the difficulty. I want to be cooperative, but-


George Stanley White: If there has been any confusion it has been due to the minister's department-


Humphrey Mitchell: No, no.


George Stanley White: -because his department has followed a certain procedure in bringing down various returns, in which certain information has been set out. But now in his department, for some reason known only to those who prepared what is known as table No. 7, a different procedure is followed. Whether it is to conceal or to mystify, I cannot say. Apparently^ the minister has decided that table No. 7 was a better way of setting out the information than the method followed by his department in the past four years. I do not disagree with the table, because I cannot check it.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just to get the record straight, may I say that civil servants do not get out tables to conceal. I did not get the table out; I gave directions to have it prepared. Let us be clear on that point. What the hon. member has said is a reflection on the people who acted under my direction. They do not do those things. We had to have
War Appropriation-Labour

a standard of approach to this matter. The hon. member speaks of certain returns. In those returns we gave members what they asked for; we have always endeavoured to do that.
There were probably a dozen different approaches to the man-power problem in a general way. We are not responsible for those approaches. The hon. member who asks the question is responsible, and that is how hon. members get mixed up. We cannot have a dozen different approaches to the problem. We have to have an absolute approach, one which must be based on the best information we can obtain. That is how table No. 7 comes about. I think it is a simple table; I can understand it, and I think if I can understand it every member in the house can understand it.


George Stanley White: The minister has agreed to bring down a table in the way I want it, and I am prepared to wait.


Mr. ROY:: A certain group of people seem to be worried about the question as to whether or not we have conscription in Canada. That matter was discussed only a few minutes ago when the hon. member for Macleod referred to conscientious objectors who, because of their refusal to answer the military call-up, have been placed in gaol. That would seem to be a sign that there must be some kind of compulsory law in Canada compelling men to serve in the army.
There are other signs of conscription, too. In my constituency many farmers and fishermen have been called up, and have been under arms for four years. Others, too, under the national selective service branch have been granted postponements. In the past, some draftees in the army were granted deferment, or leave of absence. But for a while many have been refused by national selective service or, rather, by headquarters at Ottawa.
It was stated properly only a few moments ago by the hon. member for Temiscouata that the Department of Labour is the agency of the Department of National Defence. I should like to learn from the Minister of Labour which branch it is that refuses applications for leave filed by men who have asked permission to help their fathers to fish. Is it the headquarters of national defence, or is it the headquarters of the Minister of Labour to which reference is made?


Humphrey Mitchell: When a man gets in the army it is a case of "abandon all hope ye who enter here." He is no longer under my jurisdiction; he is in the army. An application for leave must be made to his comtMr. Mitchell.]
manding officer. At this moment there are 2,317 fishermen on postponement from the army.	.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Why should national selective service, which is under the Department of Labour, have a board sitting in Quebec city, which is military district No. 5, to consider these requests for leave? This board rules upon these requests, and I emphasize that it is a board under the Minister of Labour. According to what has been told me, this board is unable to reach a decision because it does not seem to know that the fishing industry is essential to our war effort. We know that it is, to the first degree. Requests for leave are sent to headquarters at Ottawa, and we do not know what headquarters they mean. It would appear that the Department of Labour, through this national selective service board, is able to grant leave to a soldier who is in the army. That is contradictory to what the minister has just said.


Humphrey Mitchell: I thought I made that clear to my hon. friend. The impression I get is that he is jumping from one thing to another. National selective service cannot grant leave from the army; get that clear. A man makes application to his commanding officer, who may refer it for an opinion to a national selective service board. He may do that, but he does not have to. The board gives an opinion; it does not make a recommendation. As I pointed out on Tuesday, sometimes a man may not want to go home. His parents may want him back home, but, as has happened on numerous occasions, the boy wants to stay in the army. Quite often that causes some difficulty. Parents may write to my hon. friend requesting that a boy be given leave to conje home again, but, as I say, in many instances these boys have told their commanding officer that they do not want to go, that they want to remain in the army. Once a boy is in the army he makes his application for leave to his commanding officer, not to me or to any organization under my jurisdiction.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: That may be, but there is a point I do not understand.


Humphrey Mitchell: I just told you.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: The minister just stated that when a soldier asks for leave it is up to his commanding officer to recommend or refuse it. I should like to know how a national selective service board proceeds to judge whether that man is essential to a war industry. That is one thing I cannot understand.

War Appropriation-Labour
As I said at the outset of my remarks there seems to be some doubt as to whether we have conscription in this country. However, there would seem to be signs that we have conscription. A few days ago the Minister of National Defence made a statement in the house to be found on page 2383 of Hansard. He said:
It was thought highly advisable that the army should do its duty with regard to the raising and maintaining of the volunteer army overseas of which Canada is exceedingly proud; and I have not heard anyone in this 'house or anywhere else suggest that the volunteer army was not a desirable thing. I have indicated repeatedly that I prefer a voluntary army, and I think most Canadians will agree with me. In that connection the army has its duty to maintain, if it can, that volunteer army; and for that purpose the army has engaged in recruiting activities for the last three years.
We have that statement by the Minister of National Defence which is bound to give the impression that we have no conscription in this country.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would point out to the hon, member for Gaspe that we are not discussing the question of conscription. The discussion should be confined to the item before the committee.
Mr. ROY; I will abide as closely as possible to your ruling. The reason why I got away from the item was that I .heard a lot about conscription and the calling of draftees since this debate started; People are wondering whether we have conscription, and that is why I referred to the statement of the Minister of National Defence. Men are called up by the Department of Labour.


William Chisholm Macdonald: The Minister of National Defence was speaking about conscription for overseas service when he stated his preference for a volunteer army; he was not referring to call-ups for Canada.
Mr. ROY; In answer to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence I would say that there is only one law which empowers the government to call up men. It does not say that it is for Canada. I think we can take it in a general way-


Humphrey Mitchell: I rise to a point of order. I think I have been pretty patient as I have been sitting here for four days. If my hon. friends are going to start a debate on conscription-


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Not exactly.
Mr. MITCHELL; My hon. friend says, " not exactly," but I know the kind of speeches he is making in the eastern part of Quebec.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: The minister does not know the kind of speeches I am making in Quebec. I have not made any on that question at all.
Mr. MITCHELL; The hon. member is the first one who has not. I think we should stay strictly within the rules of order. Let us be sensible about this thing. We have a large legislative programme before us; yet we are in the fourth month of the session and the war appropriations are not concluded. I suppose next week we shall have a long debate on the Bank Act. Let us be rational and sensible men about this thing. We have spent four days on one item. I am not objecting, provided we stay within the item, but for goodness sake let us stay within the rules of order.
Mr. ROY; I will try to keep within the item, but I should like to ask the minister a precise question and I hope it will be possible for him to give a categorical and definite answer. If we have no conscription, why is the minister calling up men to serve under arms at the rate of 9,000 a month or approximately 100,000 a year?


Humphrey Mitchell: Who said that we are calling up men at the rate of 9,000 a month?


Joseph Sasseville Roy: It was in a report tabled a few days ago. I am sorry; I should have said
6,000	a month.
Mr. MITCHELL; Only fifty per cent out.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Hon. Leon Casgrain, attorney-general in Premier Godbout's cabinet, declared in the Quebec legislature a few days ago that we have no conscription in Canada, and similar declarations are being made all over the country, that we have a volunteer army, and this and that. I ask the Minister of Labour this question: If we have not conscription, why is he calling up men at the rate of 6,000 a month? Let me quote from part 1 of "Instructions to Employers and their Male Employees." It says-


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is a member of this House of Commons, and he knows that those regulations were prepared under my direction. There is no secret about them. My hon. friend went to school like myself, and I suppose he looks at the dictionary occasionally. Yet he insists on asking me simple questions. I do not know officially what a member of the Quebec legislature said the other day; I did not read about it. My hon. friend has asked me a hypothetical question, a question of a character on which I am not even clear myself. I do not know just what he is driving at. If he has any
War Appropriation-Labour

question to ask of my department for information I shall be glad to give it, but I cannot give him a lift in his efforts out in the country, back at the little red schoolhouse.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I apologize for not knowing the language of the minister very well, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps that is why he does not understand me. I will try to be so clear that he will understand me. I was going to quote from part 1 of his "Instructions to Employers and their Male Employees". To be brief, I shall quote only the latter part of paragraph 1, which defines "employer":
The dominion government, the governments of the provinces, as well as municipal institutions are employers for this purpose. The term "employer" includes also any farmer operating a farm, who has working for him a male employee, even though such employee be a son or other relative.
My question is this: If we have no conscription in Canada, why arc men called up to serve under arms in Canada by the Department of Labour? My question is: Have we conscription in Canada, yes or no?


Humphrey Mitchell: I will tell my hon. friend what we have. We have the military call-up for the defence of this country. If my hon. friend wants to call that conscription, that is his business, not mine. If it is any advantage to him politically to use that language, he is entitled to it. But this is still a free country because men have the courage to go out and defend it.
As to the other point my hon. friend raised, I know that a big play has been made over that in certain parts of this country. The hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough spoke of the men we have not traced yet. It is in our effort to trace these men that we have laid down the principle that before a man can be employed he must show some credentials, either that he was discharged from the army, the navy or the air force, or that his call-up for military service has been postponed. There is nothing wrong about that. If I may speak personally for a moment, both my sons are in the fighting forces. I have raised my children to tell the truth and obey the law, and I know what I would do when the instructions to employers from which my hon. friend has quoted came to my attention. I would say, "Son, have you got your clearance?" Would that not be the natural thing for any father or mother to say to their children? It is just as simple as that. To suggest that this is the most despicable thing there ever was-I read that language the other day-just does not add up, and my

hon. friend knows it. If he wants to know the attitude of the Minister of Labour I will repeat what I said this afternoon, that it is my duty to trace these missing men, and this is one of the simple procedures we have adopted in an endeavour to trace them. The hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough was complaining that we did not have enough machinery or that it was not as good as it should be. But the procedure from which my hon. friend quoted was adopted by us in an endeavour to locate these men. We laid down the rule that before a man can get a job or retain his employment he has to be able to show some document from the armed forces or from some other organization proving that he has complied with the law with respect to the military call-up.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I suppose that is because we have conscription? The minister has not yet answered my question.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is not going to ram his sixteenth century opinions down my throat. Let that be clearly understood. He is not going to put that kind of language in my mouth, not while I can stand on [DOT] two feet. He may get away with that kind of language in other places, but not here, in the presence of his peers. This is still a free country, thank God, and it is a free country because our young men from every province in Canada are prepared to defend our institutions, which we have had handed down to us after muck bloodshed and struggle. I have been to countries where you do as you are told or you do not live. I hope never to see the day when that will be the way of life in Canada. Let us be clear about this: If we do not defeat this man Hitler in Europe; if we do not defeat this other chap in the Pacific, there will be no House of Commons in Canada. There will be no languages, no religion, no racial culture in this country at all. I was in Berlin when Hitler put over his revolution. I saw it happen, and there was no more commotion on the main street of Berlin than there is on Sparks street to-day. Germany had the most powerful labour and trades union movements, and only yesterday, you might say, they were running that vast country. To-day they are not even a memory. Unless we destroy this tyranny everything that my hon. friend and I hold dear will be swept by the board. Let him go out and preach that gospel to the people whom he represents.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

War Appropriation-Labour
After Recess
The committee resumed at 8 o'clock.


Mr. DORION:: I should like to ask the
minister a few questions, but before doing so I wish to say that we are not here to receive any lessons in loyalty, because for my part my military record of 1918 in the Royal Air Force compares with that of anybody else.
I think it is much better to discuss the subject on its merits. I have P.C. 1355 with regard to the national selective service mobilization regulations 1944, dated March 4, 1944, section 6, subsection 1 of which reads:
The minister, upon being informed by the Department o-f National Defence that a specified number of men are required for military training, may instruct any registrar to apply these regulations to a specified number of men from his division, and may inform a registrar how many French-speaking men are required.
My first question is, why is this proviso made regarding French-speaking men called to the army? On April 20, as appears at page 2177 of Hansard I asked this question:
Has the Minister of Labour given instructions to registrars under order P.C. 1355, section 6, subsection 1?
The one I have just read.
If so, (a) to whom; (b) at what date; (c) what were those instructions?
The answer given by the parliamentary assistant to the minister (Mr. Martin) was:
No. The Minister of Labour has not found it necessary to act under section 6, subsection 1, or order P.C. 1355.


Humphrey Mitchell: That answer given by
the parliamentary assistant stands; it is not changed.


Frédéric Dorion: I wish to ask another question. I have here sessional paper 142G tabled on Thursday, April 27, 1944. It came after a question I asked, which read:
Has the Minister of National Defence, since the 4th March, 1944, reported to the Minister of Labour that a definite number of men were required for military training? If so, (a) at what date was this information supplied; and (b) what did such information contain?
The return shows that in April and May, 1944, 292 men were called daily in April and 236 men were called daily in May.
My second question is: If the answer given on April 20 is right, in virtue of what regulation were these men called, as shown in this return tabled on April 27, 1944? This return, 142G, shows that in April men were called as follows, daily: for the district of London, 17; Toronto, 48; Kingston, 22. That makes a total of 87 in Ontario. In Quebec: Montreal, 55; Quebec, 31. That gives a total of 86.
In May, men were called as follows, daily: London, 14; Toronto, 39; Kingston, 18. That is a total of 71. Montreal 44; Quebec, 25. That is a total of 69 for the province of Quebec. In another answer that was given me, as will be seen at page 2375 of Hansard, it will be noted that the military district of Kingston, district No. 3, comprises counties in the province of Ontario and in the province of Quebec, and the figures given show that the population of the district of Kingston in the province of Ontario is 753,863, the total population according to the 1941 census, and the counties of the province of Quebec in the district of Kingston give a population of 183,125. That is, about twenty per cent of the total population of the military district of Kingston, come from the province of Quebec.
If we take the figures I have just mentioned and deduct this twenty per cent from the military district of Kingston, coming from the province of Quebec, we get a figure of eighty-three men called daily in the province of Ontario during the month of April and sixty-seven in the province of Ontario called daily during the month of May; and in Quebec we get a figure of ninety men called daily in the month of April and seventy-two called daily in the month of May. That is, a proportion of thirty-one per cent in the province of Quebec and twenty-eight per cent in the province of Ontario. I mean that these are the percentages of the men called to the army. I have here a booklet called "Canada 1944" and certain figures are given at page 53. We see the total population of the dominion in each province, and it shows that between the ages of nineteen and forty-five there are in the province of Quebec 612,396 men, while in the province of Ontario there are 736,486; that is to say, a proportion in Ontario, in relation to the total population of the dominion of the same age, of thirty-five per cent, and twenty-eight per cent in the province of Quebec; I mean the proportion of men of the same age in the dominion. We come to the conclusion that in the province of Quebec we' have twenty-eight per cent of the men between the ages of nineteen and forty-five, and the return I have mentioned shows that in April and May there were called thirty-one per cent of these men, while in Ontario there were called only twenty-eight per cent.
My third question is this: Why is the number of men called in the province of Quebec greater than the number called in the province of Ontario?
My fourth and last question is this: Is it not true that during the last war not a single
War Appropriation-Labour

man called to the services under the conscription law reached the battlefields of Europe, and that to-day we have many men overseas who, before going there, were called to the army under the mobilization act of 1940?


Humphrey Mitchell: I will answer the last question first. As my hon. friend knows, many men who are called up eventually volunteer. That is the natural thing for young people to do who have some regard for their country. I think that is the answer to that question. What my hon. friend has been trying to point out to the committee is that you can break down patriotism, of this country on a percentage basis. It cannot be done. I know it is probably convenient at times. My hon. friend spoke of the province of Ontario. If he will look more closely into the question he will find that our call-ups do not always coincide with military districts. Take as an instance that great patriotic district-if I may use that term-of Port Arthur and Fort William. They come within the purview of the military district centred on Winnipeg, which my hon. friend overlooked. He spoke of military district No. 3, based on Kingston. It does not go across the Quebec border. While the military district goes up the Gatineau and north of this community, it does not come within the jurisdiction of Kingston; it comes within the jurisdiction of Montreal. My hon. friend is making the same mistake-


Mr. DOEION:: May I ask a question?


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member told his own story and made his own deductions to suit his own convenience. As I pointed out before, my hon. friend is trying to work out the patriotism of this country on a percentage basis and apparently by what he thought previously he has not his facts right. He talked about Ontario, but he forgot about that great northern part of the province which comes within the jurisdiction-and quite naturally- of the mobilization board of the city of Winnipeg, because it is more convenient.
As I pointed out before, we call up people at the present time as fast as the various military districts can handle them. There is no quota. We are all Canadians, whether we come from British Columbia or Nova Scotia, or wherever the case may be. What my hon. friend tried to do was to break them up into compartments. He is trying to label us all as different Canadians. In our approach to the problem we say there are so many men that we require, and as fast as the medical officers and other officers that are necessary can handle the men in the military districts they are called up. That is the simple answer to my hon. friend's question.


Mr. GREEN:: There are three or four questions in connection with national selective service that I should like to place before the minister. My first question has to do with the sources from- which he proposes to draw man-power from now on. I thought he did not make that quite clear in his original statement. He used these words, which are to be found at page 2444 of Hansard:
Even with the utmost effort, it has been increasingly difficult for some time to obtain the number of men required by the Department of National Defence each month.
This afternoon he stated that we are scraping the bottom of the man-power pool. I think these statements disclose a very serious situation. I suggest that we are entitled to know just how the government proposes to meet that situation. The minister said in the course of his summary on April 28:
. . . that we will soon have to rely largely upon those at present deferred and the young men coming of age.
He has said here to-day that there are about 100,000 young men who reach the age of eighteen and a half each year in Canada; and then he said, and I think quite properly, that a large proportion of that number either will be going active, joining the navy or the air force, or will be found unfit for military service or will be deferred because they are farmers or for various other reasons. I ask him to tell us how many he plans to get during the present fiscal year from the eighteen and a half year old group, and then give us information regarding the other source which was given as those men who are now on postponement. He should tell us what particular type of man will be called up. That is only fair to the young men who will be affected.
At page 2453 of Hansard hon. members will find table No. 10, which gives the details with regard to the men on postponement. The total number is 252,625. They are divided into ten different groups. I wish the minister would tell us which group or groups will be called upon to make up the necessary number for the call-up. The first group listed is farming, and the number 145,529; the next is fishing, numbering 2,317; the third is lumbering, 5,382; the fourth is mining, 2,562; the fifth group, essential industries and services, 52,341; the sixth group, students, 14,497; the seventh group, conscientious objectors, 8,285; the eighth group, merchant marine, 2,729; the ninth group, compassionate, 2,443, and the tenth group, all others, 16,540. I should like to know from which of these classifications the men will be drawn. The minister will realize that many of these men who are on postponement are older men; they are not

War Appropriation-Labour
in the younger groups, and probably the number that can be drawn from the whole 250,000 is comparatively small. I would also ask the minister to state whether the government has in mind calling up the lads as they become eighteen rather than at eighteen and a half.
I would not want to be taken as advocating that that should be done. I think actually it would be a crime to call up those young lads while we still have in our home defence forces in Canada 50,000 fully trained men not fighting, who could, if the government saw fit, be sent to fight overseas.^ I ask the minister to tell us what the policy is with regard to the eighteen year olds. As I understand it now, they are liable to call, but they do not actually get a notice to report for medical examination until they reach the age of eighteen and a half years. Then I ask the minister to tell us the next source from which he plans to get the men; that is, after the supply of young men who become eighteen and a half years old has become exhausted, and all men on postponement have been used up; what sources does the government plan to draw from at that time?


Humphrey Mitchell: I wish the hon. member would ask me these questions individually. If I miss any I shall be glad to answer them later. I shall take the last one first, the question of calling boys eighteen years of age. I cannot tell what the future may hold in store for the free peoples of the world. At this moment there is no intention of calling boys eighteen years of age. I do not know what may happen during the course of the next twelve months, but I would point but to my hon. friend that in the United States young men of eighteen are called and that in Great Britain the callable age is seventeen years and six months.


Howard Charles Green: But neither of those countries has a home defence army.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am talking about calling up people, no matter what kind of army it is. My hon. friend asks who compose the manpower pool. First, there are the men coming of age, the 100,000 a year whom I mentioned this afternoon; then there are the men on postponement, and in addition we are continually reexamining' those men who have been turned down, particularly by individual physicians. At this moment, and for some considerable time past, we have what I might call a staff of industrial engineers combing the industrial structure of this country for ablebodied men for the armed forces. That is going on continuously. As I pointed out a couple of days ago, in order to get one man we have to call up six.


Howard Charles Green: According to the return you are trying to get five thousand a month now.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not talking about figures; any fool can figure.


Howard Charles Green: It was a fool in the department who gave this figure.


Humphrey Mitchell: What I am concerned about is getting men for the armed forces. You give me a man with a stack of figures, and look out. Figuring is the easiest thing to do.


Howard Charles Green: I do not want the minister to be in error on this. I referred to the return requested by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, which stated that the army had called upon the Department of Labour for
5,000	men during each of the months of April and May.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was talking about figures; so many people can play around with them. As I indicated to my hon. friend, we have to call six to get one, which is an indication that we are just about at the bottom of the barrel. As I stated the other evening, I could put 160,000 men at work to-morrow if I had them; that is, for the essential industries of this country. Does that not indicate that we have just about reached the saturation point, if I may call it that, in connection with production and men for the armed forces? After all is said and done, we are dealing with a continent, not a nation. If we had 160,000 men out of work it would be a reflection upon the Canadian people. But here we have the largest fighting force in our history; we have built an industrial structure which, on a per capita basis, equals or surpasses that of any other nation in the world; with much less labour available, our farmers have produced the greatest crops in their history. All these things are to the credit of the Canadian people. This is a democracy, where we have to be more or less cautious about pushing people around. The fact that we have reached that point is an indication that this nation-not this government, but this nation-is not only pulling its fair weight in this war, but pulling a load equal to that of anyone else engaged in the war, and in my judgment that is a condition of which the opposition, the government and the country might feel rightfully proud. I do not know whether I can say anything more.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has made quite a speech, but as yet he has not answered either question. I asked how many men the minister expects to get from the lads who will become eighteen and a half years of age during the present fiscal year. The other question which he has not answered was, from which class of
War Appropriation-Lo.bour

deferred men will he call the remainder who are required? Will it be from the farmers, from the miners, from the loggers or from the men who are working in industry? I am not asking that information for myself, but I think the men who will be called should know what they may expect, and -surely the government knows which of these groups of deferred men will be called.


Mr. DUPUIS:: The first group to be called should be the imperialists, if they are willing to go.


Howard Charles Green: They would be the first group to go.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course I do not know the physical condition of these young men or of the other people who will be called, so that any figure I give will have to be a guess; but we estimate that about 50,000 of those 100,000 will be in the armed forces, while the rest will come from the other classifications.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any policy as to
which of these deferred groups will be called? In other words, is it the intention to call upon the farmers who have been deferred, or upon the miners, or upon the men in industry?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know. I am very close to this problem; I live with it every day in the week, and my personal opinion is that we cannot deplete the manpower on the farms of this country. Notwithstanding the opinions of armchair critics, three things are basically necessary in a war. The first is sleep-I am not talking about the House of Commons now, but about the men who are fighting-the next is food and the next is equipment. These are the three fundamental needs. I know that many times during the last war I was so tired I wished a bullet would come the right way, and I am sure my hon. friend has felt the same way; that was why I put sleep first. I do not think we can take any more people from the farms of this country and hope to meet our obligations to those people in Europe who are in dire need of foodstuffs in order to carry on the fight against the enemy.


Howard Charles Green: Then may we take it as probable that the group to be called first will be the men who are in essential industries and services?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think so, on a basis of priority.


Howard Charles Green: They are given as numbering about 52,000?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Then has the minister given any thought to where the men would- come from; after that source has been exhausted?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think when we are through with essential industry we are at the end of the road, except for those just coming of age. I do not want to inject the theme of conscription into this debate, but I consider it fair to say that without conscription this country is as well organized as any country on the side of the united nations. Let us be clear about that.


Howard Charles Green: It is the only country that does not have conscription.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not want to discuss the principle to-night; we discussed it long enough two or three sessions ago, but that is what the figures would indicate. Any place we can find a man we will go after him, but you have to keep men in the basic industries. You cannot fight a war without steel or nickel or copper or lead or zinc.


Mr. JAQUES:: What about gold?


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall leave my Social Credit friends to talk about gold. I am not a fanatic in regard to gold, but we may be thankful for the gold- we have when this war is over. However, we are watching the situation very closely, to keep within the framework of democracy and to keep the balance equally divided between the requirements of the industrial, agricultural and commercial structures and the fighting forces. In a big way I think I can say we have been reasonably successful.


Howard Charles Green: Then am I fair when I say that at the present time there is no policy with regard to what source will be tapped after the men who are on deferment have been used up?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not going to admit that; I am not going to allow my hon. friend to go throughout the country and say we have no policy.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister can explain it, that is all I ask.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would say that this is a day-to-day problem, and the administrative board of selective service meets regularly to survey conditions. In the light of changed conditions we alter our policy on the distribution of men and women between the armed

War Appropriation-Labour
forces on the one hand, and the industrial, agricultural and commercial structure of the country on the other.


Howard Charles Green: That is a very indefinite policy.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, it is not indefinite.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps that is as far as the minister can go.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend were sitting where I am sitting he would not say that is an indefinite policy.


Howard Charles Green: I might be worse. [DOT]


Humphrey Mitchell: That may be true, too. Last session we heard a great deal about the man-power muddle. Not long ago I was in the United States, and some people over there are talking about a muddle in that country. Under free institutions, such talk is inevitable, because there is a right to criticize the government. Up to now, however, free institutions have proven more successful than dictatorships, because under that type of government every man goes where he is told, or does not live. When one sees the results of free institutions, the number of aeroplanes in the skies to-day, and the number of ships at sea, he has confidence in those institutions.


Howard Charles Green: We all agree with that.


Humphrey Mitchell: You get my point. I wish I could get it over to some other people in the house. Despite what is believed to be confusion, with our ingenuity we are going to free those people in Europe and in the Pacific

and make no mistake about it.


Howard Charles Green: I have a further question respecting the calling up of aliens. In the national selective service mobilization regulations provision is made for what are known as non-declarant aliens. I understand that it does not apply to enemy aliens. If the nondeclarant alien does not choose to answer the call or to join the forces of Canada, he may make a declaration which appears in the schedule to the regulations, and contains the following, among other paragraphs:
I make this declaration with full knowledge and understanding that I am thereby deprived forever of all rights and privileges to be naturalized in Canada as a British subject, and that I thereby become liable to deportation from Canada whenever such deportation may -be practicable.
I presume the aliens who would come under that provision would be, for example, Swedish people, Turks and Spaniards, because another section provides for nationals of the united nations. Will the minister tell us what the experience of the department has been with
respect to the calling of aliens, and in connection with their taking this particular declaration? I did not know, in fact, that there was authority to take a declaration of that type. How is the authority derived, and approximately how many men of each nationality have been affected by these provisions?


Humphrey Mitchell: We have had no great difficulty. Some of them sign the declaration for deportation after the war-and I do not see why that should not be.


Howard Charles Green: I am not questioning that. But under what authority is it done?


Humphrey Mitchell: Under the authority the hon. member has just read.


Howard Charles Green: Where do we get the authority for a provision such as that?


Humphrey Mitchell: Under the War Measures Act.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us approximately the number of aliens called up under this regulation?


Humphrey Mitchell: My opinion is that when they get into the army we lose track of them, and they are good Canadians,


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister the figures?


Humphrey Mitchell: There are 9,867 who have signed the declaration that they are prepared to be deported after the war. I hope I am Minister of Labour then.


Howard Charles Green: What is done with these men? What sort of work are they put at?


Humphrey Mitchell: They are subject to compulsory transfer. They come under the civilian regulations of selective service.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us of what nationalities they are? I had no idea there would be that number who would take the declaration. That is nearly 10,000 who have asked that they be sent out after the war, rather than serve.


Humphrey Mitchell: I cannot break it down into nationalities.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister the list of nationalities, or can it be obtained?


Humphrey Mitchell: If you give us enough time, after the session is over.


Howard Charles Green: Well, that is long enough.
My next question has to do with men wanting to go to the United States to work. On the Pacific coast that has become an important question. There has been a rumour with respect to lay-offs, although, fortunately, there have not been many so far. As a result,
War Appropriation-Labour

however, quite a number of men have been anxious to go to work in the United States. I understand in practically all cases permits have been refused. What is the government's policy in connection with such applications, and is the policy applied in the same way in all provinces? Are men from certain provinces allowed to go across, while others from other provinces are kept in Canada?


Humphrey Mitchell: There is no differentiation between provinces. The man in that category has two hurdles to jump, the military and the civilian; and I would say that the civilian hurdle is probably more rigid than the military. It is only common sense that, in view of the tremendous amount of man-power required at the present time, the number of permits to go to the United States is very small. The guiding principle is health.


Howard Charles Green: They are allowed to go only for reasons of health?


Humphrey Mitchell: I can assure my hon. friend that exit permits are rigidly controlled. Very few are permitted to go to the United States, in view of the extreme importance of man-power in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Then, for all practical purposes, the government policy is that of prohibiting anybody going across to work in the United States?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: And this final question: I understand there have been seven compulsory transfer orders issued. The minister said the other day that there had been about 15,359 transfers. Is it the intention to issue any further compulsory transfer orders?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would say yes. And I would add that w'hile 15,000 is not a very large figure in the man-power pool, yet it is an indication that nearly everyone in this country is in the place where he or she should be. I believe that is a fair observation to make. As the position gets tighter, we are insisting upon compulsory transfers. May I pay tribute to the Canadian people for the manner in which they have accepted the principle of compulsory transfer. There have been very few complaints about it.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister free to give us particulars of the further compulsory transfer orders that are expected?


Humphrey Mitchell: Much as I should like to, I cannot do that. I may have opinions of my own. However, it is the keystone of selective service policy to have nothing done affecting the lives of the people of this country without

first having consultation with the national selective service advisory board, composed of representatives of various departments, including the Department of Labour and representatives of the fighting services and of employers and labour. We never set in motion any policy unless it is approved by that body. I hope we never shall-although we may have to; one cannot tell.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: Mr. Chairman, before this item passes I should like to discuss briefly some questions which come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour and which are of special concern to women. I make no excuse for holding up this item while these matters are being discussed. Perhaps one of these days, instead of just having women sitting in the galleries of this chamber, we shall have dozens of them occupying benches here, and then I hope that the problems of women will be more adequately discussed than I can possibly discuss them alone. But there are certain matters which I feel should be brought before the minister for his consideration.
When the minister was introducing his estimates he gave the latest figures of the employment of women in industry, and they were really astounding. He told the committee that it was estimated that on October 1, 1943, no fewer than 1,075,000 women were gainfully employed in Canada as compared with only
638,000	in August, 1939. We all realize the tremendous number of women, both English and French speaking, who have taken their places in industry because of the war. Most of these women had no previous industrial experience, yet they are filling places which it was thought that women could never fill in our gun factories, shipyards, steel mills and other industries.
I understand that to-day women are performing over seventy per cent of the operations necessary in the manufacture of machine guns, and more than eighty per cent of those working in the instrument factories are women. We have heard of the large number of people who have left the farms and of the women who have replaced them. According to the minister's figures this number is 750,000. I should like to say something about women working on farms, but that is not the matter with which I want to deal to-night. I intend to refer more particularly to those who are working in industry.
It has been recognized by employers in this country that wherever it is a question of dexterity or accuracy or patience or pride in work, women are not second to men. They become good trade union members too, once they understand the democratic functions of

War Appropriation-Labour
trade unionism. I have spoken to large numbers of women who recently have been enlisted in trade unions, and I found them enthusiastic about the necessary work of trade unions and the carrying out of democratic procedure within their shops and work places.
Not only do the women in our armed services not receive equal pay for equal work, but all women in employment have suffered this liability. I am not the first to raise this question, nor is this the first time I have raised it. It has been brought up in this chamber by other hon. members. I want hon. members to realize that in urging the government to make it the law of the land that there shall be equal pay for equal work, to accept this principle, I do so not only to protect women but to protect the employment of men as well. If employers find that they can employ women to do work just as efficiently as men and pay them less, we shall find, when the war is over, that perhaps they will use these women as a reservoir of cheap labour and thus deny our working men opportunities for employment. I bring this to the attention of the committee because I believe many hon. members are already aware that, since this principle has not been embodied in our statute books, this discrimination exists in a great majority of our industries.
This principle has been acknowledged by the great trade union groups of this country. They have asked that it be embodied in our labour code. We have had a ruling of the national war labour board on this issue, and 'I should like to quote from the Montreal Gazette of March 15. Decisions in two cases had been given by the board, and this paper had this to say:
The national war labour board in decisions given to-day went on record supporting equal pay for equal work for men and women on a basis of efficiency.
Dealing with appeals involving two Niagara district companies

the Electric Metallurgical Company of Welland, Ontario, and Welland Chemical Company of Port Robinson, Ontario.
And later on:
Mr. Justice C. P. McTague, giving a unanimous decision by the board, said that wage control regulations made no distinction between male and female workers. The principle of equal pay for equal production was not dealt with in orders in council and the board felt the time had come when it should declare its policy.
Equality of pay should be based on efficiency and support of the principle did not necesistate a general revision of pay to all female workers, but only to those on jobs similar to those held by men.
In the United States it has been the policy of the war labour board to accept the principle of equal pay for equal work. I urge
strongly upon the minister that he recognize the necessity of having in our labour code definite authority whereby employers will be forced to put this principle into effect. I endeavoured to get some information about this matter of equal pay for equal work. Hon. members may remember that I placed a question upon the order paper a while ago. I asked if, from the material collected by the war labour board, figures could be given with regard to the number of larger industries in this country that were giving equal pay for equal work. The parliamentary assistant to the minister stated that he would try to get this information for me, but he assured me that it would take at least six months and would cost a tremendous amount of money. For that reason I was willing to drop the question for the time being. However, I would ask the minister to try to get from his officials statistics which will give us some idea of how far employers in Canada are accepting the principle of equal pay for equal work.
The government is not giving a lead in this matter in its own contracts. In government contracts, where the government itself is an employer, there is no provision for equal wages to women who are doing the same work as men. I understand that under P.C. 7679 covering government contracts women may be paid twenty-five cents an hour, while men receive thirty-five cents an hour. If the government recognizes the principle of equal pay for equal work it should put it into effect in its own contracts.
I think I am correct when I say that women to-day are doing a tremendously difficult job in taking care of their own homes and families to the best of their ability in addition to helping in the war production of this country. But they are wondering what their position will be when the war is over. They are wondering about their right to continue to work. This concerns not only industrial workers but professional women and women in other groupings. They want to know what attitude the government will take. Are the government and our employers going to say to these women, "Well, girls, you have done a nice job; you looked very cute in your overalls and we appreciate what you have done for us; but just run along; go home; we can get along without you very nicely." Is that the attitude that will be taken, or shall we realize that the prosperity of Canada after the war will depend upon our ability to develop our natural resources, to maintain our industrial development, to
War Appropriation-Labour

expand our national income and to give employment to all those, whether they be men or women, who can help to add to the general progress of this country?
We should rid ourselves of the old Victorian idea or perhaps the idea that we had in the depression years that women, when they want to work in industry and elsewhere, are usurpers in taking men's places. Women would like to have a definite understanding that this government recognizes they have a place to fill in the years of peace just as they had a place to fill in the years of war. As regards all those young women who are doing war work, those in the armed services and in industry, young girls finishing school and soon to become young women, I do not think I would be incorrect if I say that their one great hope and desire is that very natural desire to marry, to have a home and children. That is the foremost hope of all young women, provided, of course, they have some idea that their home will not be a slum or a tenement, and provided they have a fair justification for believing that if they have a little family they can bring up their children with health, pleasure, and a certain degree of education. But there is this, too, to remember. Canada has not yet paid the price for freedom. Before this war is over we may have lost part of a generation of our young men. There may be thousands of young Canadian women who, having worked during the war to help win the victoiy, may be engaged to a boy overseas, and there are young women who hope to marry some boy now overseas. But many of them may be denied the privilege, the natural right of all women, to have a home, a husband and children. We must not forget these things.
I can remember that during the last war I had a sister, quite a few years my senior, who was married to a man fighting in the armed services of England. He was killed in the month of the armistice. My sister had her first and only child one month after her husband died, and I have often wondered in the long years since who paid the greatest price, who made the greatest sacrifice, whether it was the man who died or the woman who went on living.
At least we as a nation can guarantee to our women the right to live, work and make a home for themselves if they are not in a position to have the advantages which would naturally be theirs by marriage and a home and children of their own.
We must also realize that during the war many women have developed skills and a knowledge which they did not have before the war. They will feel, having developed a certain degree of skill, frustrated if they are no

longer able to give of their skill and use it in the interests of their country and in the interests of their own living and building for themselves a better and happier home. There are these women to consider.
There are also the women to consider whose husbands may come back from the war disabled, with a pension, of course, we hope; but these women will nevertheless feel that if they can go out to work they can greatly add to the finances of the home and to the opportunities they can provide for their children and their children's education.
These various things women are thinking about, and they are wondering to what degree the government of this country is going to safeguard their rights in having the opportunity to work without being regarded as usurpers of men's places. They also want to know whether the government will guarantee to them' the right to have equal pay for equal work. Some hon. members may have read the report of the subcommittee of the government's committee on reconstruction which had to deal with women's problems in the postwar world. I should like to quote briefly from a summary of the findings of the committee because, after a considerable period and quite a little research work with respect to women who are working, the committee arrived at some very decided conclusions.
The subcommittee expresses the following opinions:
1. To women in each group-
That is, whether they happen to be industrial workers, professional workers or workers in some other lines.
-the right to choose what occupation she will follow must toe conceded as a right to which every citizen is entitled. She must also have the right to equality of remuneration, working conditions, and opportunity for advancement.
We believe that the right to choose is not going to operate to make every woman, or even much larger groups of women want, to leave their homes for the labour market. It is the right to choose which is demanded. Happier . homes, and, therefore, a happier democracy, will result from the recognition that women choose or do not choose marriage as their vocation. It must be remembered that for many single women marriage will be an impossi bility because of the casualties of the war.
Many women in all three groups will find their situations changed in the post-tvor years. A large proportion of the women now working, both married and single, have been earning money for the first time, or the first time since marriage. They have gained an entirely new realization of their skills and capacities. Many will return gladly to home life. Others will feel a sense of frustration if they have not the opportunity to exercise these abilities. For some public activities will serve, others will wash to be gainfully employed.

War Appropriation-Labour
For those women who want to continue working, facilities which have been developed during the war should be continued and expanded. For example, war-time day nurseries should be continued on a peace-time basis. The subcommittee to the advisory committee on reconstruction suggests that day nurseries should not only be used for the children of working mothers, but should be developed as nursery schools and should become part of the educational system. The subcommittee lists their advantages to the children as follows:
(1)	Supervised play.
(2)	Space and adequate play equipment.
(3)	Companionship.
(4)	Consistent routine.
(5)	Careful supervision of health.
I would suggest that there are women already who are working who do not come within the provisions of the various forms of insurance which are given to men. Women teachers and women nurses do not come under the employment insurance benefits which are open to men and I feel that a grave injustice is done to these women in that regard.
For those women who feel that they have not the ability or the education or the skill or the liking for other occupations, there is of course a very large demand that they should work at domestic service. But there again, in that field of women's work, I believe we have to do a great deal to make it attractive to them and to safeguard them. A little while ago I received an interesting letter from a young woman, who addressed her letter from the Y.W.C.A. in Edmonton, Alberta. It was a well written letter, such as would indicate that the writer was an intelligent and well educated girl. I should like to read the first two paragraphs of her letter:
Two or three of us who are in domestic work here are hoping to work up some interest in a union for domestics. We should greatly appreciate your advice.
I have been interested in this work for a number of years, though I have not been able to work at' it steadily. I have been working for some months as cook general at the home of Lieutenant-Governor J. C. Bowen and lost my position a few days ago immediately on their becoming aware of my union activities. I was given no notice.
That is not perhaps indicative of the usual way in which capable and good domestic servants are used by their employers, but it indicates that there is no protection in a case such as this for a young woman who has loyally and faithfully served her employer as a domestic servant, and who yet expresses the desire to belong to a union of her choice to protect her rights.
These women wish to protect their rights, hours of labour, pay, the length of time they should be given by way of notice before leaving employment, and so on. I would say there is great need that we should protect
women in domestic service. The committee to which I referred a little while ago, the subcommittee of the government's committee on reconstruction, has the following to say regarding the employment of women as domestic servants and in household work:
(1)	A standard of proficiency should be set by a training programme financed by the dominion and provincial governments. The cost of training should be borne by the government, but the student should carry her own living expenses with the help-if necessary-of government loans at low interest rates.
(2)	A signed agreement made between employer and employee, made through national selective service, would protect both by providing a definite statement regarding wages, termination of employment and other working conditions. Any dominion or provincial labour code should include household workers.
_ (3) Labour legislation should be amended to include household workers under the minimum wage acts and related legislation.
(4)	Occupational branches of social insurance should be open to household workers, that is, unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation.
(5)	An organized supply of trained part-time workers should be made available to fill the need for various types of household service. This kind of service is particularly required in homes of moderate income where it is impossible for the housewife wth several children to have full-time assistance.
I realize that the women of this country have not as yet formulated their wishes with regard to these particular problems, but I noticed in the Montreal Gazette, in March of this year that the women of Australia had been far ahead of their Canadian sisters in working out for themselves a certain code embodying their wishes and desires and the demands for which women in Australia will consistently fight until they are successful. I should like to commend the women of Australia for the progressive steps they have taken, and I only wish the women of Canada would see the wisdom of themselves doing something along the same line. From the Montreal Gazette of March 22 I quote the following:
An Australian women's conference here prepared a women's charter which they managed to compress into a mere 5,000 words, but it took them a long time to do it. Further compressed, here it is:
Woman as citizen:	No discrimination in
respect of the responsibilities and rights of men and women as citizens.
Mother and homemaker:	The indispensable
service rendered to the community by mothers demands special consideration of fullest maternity services, nursery schools and opportunity for creative work; and, as dependent economic status denies liberty, opportunity and justice to the homemaker, and that economic independence strengthens character, we recommend a personal endowment of a minimum of 30 shil-
War Appropriation-Labour

lings ($5.50) a week be -paid to her foy the commonwealth, operating on the same system as child endowment which shall continue.
Woman as voluntary worker to be recognized for her great contribution to the community, and have opportunities, and be given expert training in the social services that she may attain professional status.
Woman in the services be granted the same status, pay, dependents' allowance and other benefits and opportunities offered to men.
Woman in the country foe afforded facilities in rail transport, telegraph services, water conservation, special mobile health and baby care services.
Woman in public life to be given opportunity to go forward and stand as candidate for national and international delegations, legislative bodies, diplomatic posts, responsible administration, and as members of boards, and commissions, in order that their potential capabilities may be developed and utilized for the national good.
Woman as peacemaker:	The part women
have played in their country's struggle to win the war justifies that they foe given wide representation at international peace table.
I wish the women of Canada would urge that the same liberties and freedoms, the same justice be accorded to them in this country and that they, too, have the right to represent a part of Canada at the peace table when that happy time comes.
In what I have said to-night, I am of the opinion that were we to grant these further privileges and rights to the women of Canada, it would not mean -that they would wish the more to forsake the home. They would rather, I believe, feel that motherhood was their primary duty, and as long as marriage and motherhood was not the only avenue open fo them they would, I believe, embrace it with all the more love, feeling that they had chosen it because it was the thing that was nearest and dearest to their hearts. When women do have all the free pursuits of a great nation open to -them they will, I believe, become better citizens and, because of that, better mothers, and they will bring to the home the feelings of equality and devotion as the basis for happiness to a far greater degree than they do at the present time.
Before closing I would ask the Minister of Labour to indicate whether or not he is prepared to press the question of equal wages for equal work being made a part of the labour code and enforced in the country.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am afraid my hon. friend is a little out of date. As a matter of fact, it was twelve months ago that I was chairman of the national war labour board, and while I was so acting the principle of equal pay for equal production was laid lown

by the board. That in itself was a revolution. I think we were the first free nation that laid down that principle.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: What has been done about it?


Humphrey Mitchell: A great deal has been done about it.


John Horne Blackmore: What, for example?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not going into the
45,000	cases that come before the board dealing with the employment of men and women in the industrial structure, but as minister I am saying this and it should be enough, for my hon. friend, that the principle was laid down by the national war labour board when I was chairman.


John Horne Blackmore: One or two examples will be enough.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not carry all these decisions around in my pocket. If my hon. friend is ever unfortunate enough to hold this portfolio he will find it rather difficult himself.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Has the government applied the principle in practice?


Humphrey Mitchell: Not the government but the national war labour board. They are the people who adjudicate on the wage structure. No one knows that better than my hon. friend. Let me pay this tribute to the women. The other afternoon when introducing my estimates I said that without the assistance of the women we could not successfully wage the war. The contribution made by the women of Canada has been magnificent. When I point out that 1,043,000 women are engaged in the industrial structure and that the women in the armed forces number 32,000 and on the farm, 760,000, according to the figures of September last year, hon. members will get an idea of the part played by the women of this country.
As I pointed out before, I was in Great Britain late in 1942, and I vividly remember speaking to the general council of the British trade union congress. I made the observation that the women were doing a better job than the men, and I suppose that is instinctive. In the family circle the women will fight harder for the children than will the average man. Therefore, when the nation or state is in jeopardy it is instinctive that our womenfolk will fight just as valiantly, and perhaps a little more valiantly, for the survival of the race and the state. My hon. friend can rest assured that this government

and I think I can speak for every government in this country and every party in this House of

War Appropriation-Labour
Commons-have just as much interest, and might I say real interest, in the progressive affairs of the womenfolk of this great dominion as anyone else. What my hon. friend said is quite true. Basically, I suppose, it is'as old as history itself. Men chase the good-looking girls. That is instinctive. The most natural thing to do, I suppose, as my hon. friend pointed out is settle down and see that there will be someone here two thousand years from now to call this country Canada. That is as old as history itself.
I appreciate the constructive suggestions made by my hon. friend this evening. She can be sure that not only this government but, as I have said previously, every government, whether provincial or municipal, will share the same views as my hon. friend with reference to the rights of the womenfolk in this broad dominion.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I wish to ask one more question. The minister has stated that the national war labour board and the government acknowledged the principle of equal pay for equal work. What happens then when a group of women in a certain factory are not receiving equal pay for equal work? Must they bring their case before the national war labour board?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend knows this as well as I do. There are ten war labour boards in this country. They are the boards that adjudicate on the question of wages, whether they be men or women for that matter. Any individual engaged in any civilian pursuit has the right as an individual to place her case before either the regional board or the central board. If my hon. friend were engaged in a civilian pursuit she would place her case before the regional board in Saskatchewan, since that is her own province, or if she were engaged in a national industry, before the national board. That is the machinery and that is the mechanics of it. While it is comparatively new, I suppose in the course of time it will develop a greater degree of supervision and will create working standards for men and women in this country.


Mr. LOCKHART:: I do not wish to delay the committee very long, but I have one or two questions I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. There have been special medical boards set up in certain industrial areas. I want the minister to pay attention to this inquiry because it is of paramount importance. Medical boards were set up in certain industrial areas outside the regional centres. They were established to examine men in the plants instead of their having to go to the regional district officers
or boards. As a result of the tapering off in certain industries recently, a great number of men were examined. In other words, as intimated by the hon. member for Vancouver South, there was a definite move on the part of the army to get thousands of men from industry into the army. That has been accomplished in part. Men hav been examined and moved into the army, men who have had complete mechanical training on all types of machine practice during the whole course of the war. A considerable number of these men have moved into the army because they were in certain types of industry which have tapered off their war production. Would the minister indicate what is to happen to these men who have been trained. It has cost industry a considerable amount to train them. They are going to be extremely useful because the Minister of Munitions and Supply has now demanded that certain types of munitions go back into peak production. Are these men to remain in the army, or will provision be made to have them go back to industry? The minister is probably aware of what I am saying and that it is correct. I wonder what it is proposed to do. Are these highly skilled men to remain in the army, or are they to be brought back to industry to help meet the requirements of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, of which he gave information a week ago? I should like some indication of what is to be done in this case.


Humphrey Mitchell: There are special places where we have boards, places like St. Catharines, Fort William, and so on.


Mr. McIVOR:: It has worked well.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, I think it has. I assure my hon. friend that these highly skilled men such as toolmakers, coppersmiths, and so on-I could go on and give a list of these highly skilled trades that take many years to master; it takes years to make what we call a tradesman-will be moved to higher priority industry.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: They are in the army now.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me come to that. If my hon. friend will wait for a moment I shall cover that. Do not forget that this is a mechanical war. I think my hon. friend and I sometimes make the mistake of thinking of this war in terms of the last war. This is an entirely different type of warfare. The number of mechanics required to-day is out of all proportion to the number required in the last war. That applies to the army, the navy and the air force. I can assure my
War Appropriation-Labour

hon. friend that any man with mechanical ability or training will find his proper niche in the three fighting forces of this country. As I pointed out earlier, these highly skilled tradesmen, such as toolmakers and coppersmiths, will be transferred to a higher priority industry. It takes many years to produce a toolmaker; but we are seeing to it that they are transferred to a higher priority industry.
I do not think my hon. friend was in the house this afternoon when I made the observation that we have a group of industrial engineers going through the industrial structure of Canada and working in cooperation with employers in an effort to comb out those industries in order to supply the necessary man-power for the fighting forces. There is nothing new about that. That policy has been undertaken in Great Britain for at least the last three years. Of course, they are under the influence of the blitz and the nearness of the enemy, and for that reason a much more rigorous and vigorous campaign is being carried on there than here. I can tell my hon. friend that due regard is being given to the needs of the industrial structure of this country. As I said earlier this evening, there is a limit to our man-power. It is my department that has to make the decision; and in this stage of the war I would say this, outside of those highly skilled trades the needs of the armed forces must, by the very nature of things, come first, unless in the light of future events another policy may seem more expeditious.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I wish to ask one more question. Then I am to gather from what the minister says that the very men who have been making munitions of war for four years and have become highly skilled and proficient are now to be taken from those industries and put in the army, navy or air force, and will remain there and that we shall have to go back and train other men or women to do exactly the same job and make exactly the same munitions as were being made in certain plants throughout this country before. I draw that deduction from what the minister says.


Humphrey Mitchell: You are not going to draw that deduction from what the minister says. I am not going to let you get away with that. It is not as simple as that. We are not a gang of waifs and strays or trained seals.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Well,-


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right. Wait a moment. My hon. friend was somewhat vigorous in the question he put to me. I want to try not to be as vigorous as he wTas. v


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: You are talking about trained seals.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right. We have a degree of common sense, I think, and that is the yardstick. The men who are going through these plants are sensible men. They are not like ships that pass in the night; they do not just pass through the plants without saying a word to anyone. They are talking to the management of these plants, sizing up conditions in the various industries across this country.
That is that side of it, but there are always two sides to a medal. At the present rate, for various reasons approximately sixty thousand men a year are being discharged from the armed forces, so that we shall have those sixty thousand men coming into our commercial, industrial and agricultural structure with these other men leaving the three important structures in the life of this dominion to take their places. That is the balance.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: But only a small percentage of the men returning go back into industry, and they are not skilled.


Humphrey Mitchell: I pointed out while my hon. friend was not in the house-


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I was in the house all afternoon.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think I mentioned
previously to-day that I could put 160,000 people at work to-morrow morning if I had them. There has been no serious difficulty up to the present in placing every man who has been discharged from the armed forces.
I will go further in that regard. We have a rehabilitation and training plan for men discharged from the armed forces. Notwithstanding the many thousands who have been discharged, up to this date-and I am speaking now from memory-only three thousand have availed themselves of the training facilities made available by the government, which is an indication that all the other tens of thousands have found their way through selective service back into the industrial structure.


Howard Charles Green: It may be that the allowance offered them was not large enough.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not talking about that now; there will be a time and place to argue that matter. They have found their way back into the commercial, industrial and agricultural structure of this country.


George Stanley White: Before the dinner recess I asked the minister a few questions, and we were talking about table No. 7, which the minister explained had been prepared under

War Appropriation-Labour
his direction and which was a complete breakdown of man-power distribution, totalling some 1,665,504. If the minister will look at that table, which appears at page 2451 of Hansard, he will note that the first item gives the total number in the armed forces. The second item refers to men applying for and on postponement, men in "A" category only. Item 3 applies to unfit men, "B", "C", "D" and "E" category, totalling 138,497. The next item covers men unfit for front light combatant duty, namely active service, and includes "B", "C", "D". and "E" categories and rejections on enlistments, and totals 456,185. It appears to me that the men in item 3 have been counted twice, because they also appear in item 4, which distinctly says, "and includes 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E' categories and rejections on enlistment." Therefore, instead of having a total unaccounted for of 49,001, we should add the number appearing under item 3 of this table, or 138,497, which gives a total of 187,498. I wonder what explanation the minister has as to that. I was assured that this was an accurate table, prepared under the minister's own direction.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is making an after-dinner speech now; I thought we had solved the problem of the 49,001 men.


George Stanley White: I am not making a speech at all; I am trying to pry a little information out of the minister.


Humphrey Mitchell: There may be some
indication of duplication in those two figures, but there is not any duplication.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is trying to prove a point but he cannot do so. It so happens that these figures deal with the "B", "C", "D" and "E" men, men on the farms and men in industrial life. Different boards have different ways of approaching this problem, but my hon. friend may rest assured that there is absolutely no duplication.


George Stanley White: If the minister does not mind, let me put it in this way. Am I to assume from this table that item 3, which reads, "unfit men, that is, 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E' category," covers all men in those categories in all the administrative districts across Canada. Is that correct?


Humphrey Mitchell: Probably I did not make myself clear. That is item 4.


George Stanley White: No; I am dealing with item 3.


Humphrey Mitchell: Those are unfit men on postponement. It is a fact that certain boards give postponements to unfit men. I think there are three boards following that practice, the boards at Montreal, Quebec and Winnipeg.


John George Diefenbaker: Are "E" men called
up?


Humphrey Mitchell: No, they are not called up; it is just the policy adopted by these boards. They place them on postponement; that is the way they do it, because they are on the farms.


John George Diefenbaker: Are "D" and "E" men put on postponement?


Humphrey Mitchell: No; but that has been the policy adopted by these three boards.


George Stanley White: In the second item you use the word "postponement" in showing the number of "A" men, but the word "postponement" does not appear in item 3 or 4. I do not see how the minister can place any other interpretation upon it than that item 4 includes all the unfit men in categories "B", "C", "D" and "E."


Humphrey Mitchell: That is right. I have explained about the three boards. The total number of men on postponement is in item 2; that is, fit men in "A" category only, while the unfit men in "B," "C," "D" and "E" categories are in the next two items. The third item covers the number of men actually on postponement; I have told the hon. member about the three boards which leave these men on postponement notwithstanding their medical categories. The fourth item covers men unfit for front-line combat; those are the men coming under the other ten boards. Of course those men are unfit and are not liable to call.


George Stanley White: Then do I understand that in "B", "C", "D", and "E" categories there is a number of men on postponement who are unfit for something?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


George Stanley White: Then there is a second category of "B", "C", "D" and "E" men who are unfit for front line combatant service. Is that right?


Humphrey Mitchell: Item 4 covers men who never applied for postponement but who are unfit.


George Stanley White: I must confess that I cannot follow the minister's reasoning, taking it at its face value.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not reasoning at all; I am stating the facts.


George Stanley White: This is the statement to which the minister referred me. He mentioned the confusion I was trying to create and referred me to this statement. Accordingly I examined the statement carefully, and now I am trying to point out how impossible it is to arrive at any correct conclusion from this
War Appropriation-Labour

statement which has been prepared under the supervision of the experts in his department. I still maintain that these 138,497 men are being counted twice, as this statement is prepared.


Humphrey Mitchell: I cannot help the deductions drawn by my hon. friend, but to begin with it would be dishonest to do what he suggests is being done. I may sometimes speak in ignorance in this chamber, but I have never tried to mislead it. Let that be clearly understood by my hon. friend.


George Stanley White: What is the difference between a man in category "B" under item 3, and a man in category "B" under item 4?


Humphrey Mitchell: I tried to explain that. What I shall have to do is get a blackboard, I suppose. The answer is that the man in item 3 applied for a postponement and the man in item 4 did not.


George Stanley White: Does the minister know what categories are exempted from military service? Does he call only the "A" group?


Humphrey Mitchell: Everything below "A"
is exempted.


George Stanley White: Then it is not misleading to show that men in "B," "C," "D" and "E" are on postponement? What are they postponed for, if they are not eligible for military service?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have to keep on with this repetition. I think I pointed out that these three boards had that way of dealing with it.


George Stanley White: Who gave them authority?


Humphrey Mitchell: And they still have. We just put it in there because they still have that method of procedure. Now, it may be right or wrong.


George Stanley White: Where are those three
boards?


Humphrey Mitchell: Winnipeg, Montreal and Quebec.


George Stanley White: The minister will notice that under items 3 and 4 there are figures for all the administrative districts across Canada, with the exception of Port Arthur. So that now, if the minister is correct when he explains that there were some three boards which exempted men under item 3, how do they appear under all the military administrative districts across Canada?


Humphrey Mitchell: There is an answer to
that, too. They all used to do it, and item 3 still does it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not wish to be misunderstood by the minister, but he will remember that on Tuesday I asked him to table the correspondence between his department and the railway companies regarding draftees with experience as railwaymen?


Humphrey Mitchell: During the dinner recess I got that correspondence. I shall hand it to him ' now.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for
tabling the correspondence, and I shall look into it in due course. I regret it was not tabled before, because I note that it is all mimeographed, and therefore it should have been in the department. The minister was not fair to me when he said that he would have to work twenty-six hours a day to table that correspondence when, in fact, it was mimeographed. I do not believe that the minister does that kind of work. I admit he works hard, but not at that kind of work.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let us get the record
straight. I do not think it is mimeographed; if my hon. friend will look at it he will see it is typewritten.


Jean-François Pouliot: Even if it is typewritten, it was not the minister who worked at the machine to write it. I will play the game with him; I will be fair with him; but when I ask a question I mean to get the information in time, and especially when it is promised by the minister. I am sure there was _ some negro in the woodpile who told the minister not to table the correspondence at _ three o'clock this afternoon, but to wait until late to-night, until after 9.30 in the evening, to let me have it. It could not take a whole year to copy a few letters. The first part is mimeographed, and the second part is probably typewritten. But with the staff the minister has under his direction, it would be very easy to prepare this information. I do not wish to impose work upon him which he is not supposed to do. Everyone knows the minister has not time to do the work of transcription, and I do not expect him to do it. But he has paid officials who are there to do it, at the request of members of the House of Commons, and when information is asked for and is required for discussion, the tabling of that information should not be delayed.
In case I may be told that I do not know what I am talking about, and that the minister is a former railwayman-probably he still belongs to his union-let me say that when I speak of railway employees I do know what I am talking about. In case that is denied, however, let me say that I hold in my hand the most serious railway publication printed on this continent, namely the "Railway Age",

War Appropriation-Labour
published in the United States. This is an old periodical, dating back to 1856, and I find in the recent issue of February 19, 1944, the following editorial respecting new employees and accidents:
Reports of recent accidents continue to emphasize the serious and frequently fatal results that come from mistakes made by new employees. Brakemen and firemen with less than a year's experience continue to prove, beyond any question, that a railroader cannot be made overnight, and that, regardless of the alertness and competence of these men, there is no substitute for experience in railroading.
This situation places an enlarged responsibility upon railway officers and older employees. Increased vigilance is demanded of them to prevent the new men from making tragic mistakes. They must keep everlastingly at the teaching of new men, acquainting them with the complexity of railway operation. They can never assume that a new man knows the railroad, merely because he has been over it several times.
The intimate knowledge of every switch, siding, station and signal that is so necessary to prevent accidents cannot be attained suddenly, and no one except older employees and supervisors make good this deficiency.
While there is much that railways can and should continue to do to meet their needs for competent labour, the final solution to the difficulty lies in the hands of selective service boards. The withdrawal of experienced manpower has reached an extent which cannot be corrected by makeshifts and expedients.
Note the word "expedients."
The selective service 'board which calmly told a railway in a vital area that a good man could be taught telegraphy and made a train dispatcher in six months presents a typical example, rather than an isolated case, of the sort of ineptitude

And mark that word.
*-that is ruining the railways' ability to maintain their vitally needed transportation.
I am pleased to quote this, because while it was printed in the United States, it deals with similar problems. The article goes on:
Perhaps the railways themselves have contributed to such misunderstanding on the part of those responsible for recruiting men. They have cooperated wholeheartedly with selective service authorities, and have given freely of their best officers and men to the battalions of the military railway service-perhaps inducing the opinion that they had plenty of personnel to spare. This cooperation is laudable-
And I agree with that.
-but it is now even more patriotic to resist the further depletion of the ranks of skilled railway labour.
I agree with that.
Colonel Johnson of the interstate commerce commission merits wholehearted cooperation from the railways in his efforts to awaken the authorities to the grave national danger in depleting railway forces 'below the point adequate to maintain the nation's war-time transportation.
And then on page 397:
B. & M. Advertises Against Man-power Losses.
Asserting that "you can't run as hazardous and as complicated a business as a railroad with a majority of green men," the Boston and Maine has begun what it terms an "out" in the open approach to the question of man-power deferment. Its answer to those who attack army-age trainmen for being out of uniform, and who charge them with being slackers, comes in the form of an advertisement which now is being run in all newspapers along B. & M. lines.
Entitled "Who says, 'You Can't Fight with a Lantern?"', the advertisement describes railroading as a "tricky business"-"where safe things to do are learned only 'by experience."
May I remind the minister that this is not a joke; it is a serious matter and this is not the time for him to laugh. The article continues:
For the benefit of the uninformed, the message points out that there are now 3,053 of the 16,000 regular B. & M. employees now in the armed services. Moreover, many of the younger men have sought their release from the railroad, asking that the draft board be notified to cancel their deferments. The railroad reply, it is explained, has been "no," because "if all of them went, it would mean that there'd be chaos-accidents, delays in moving the many important things for fighting men which are being manufactured in New' England's war plants."
Is that not what has been said by many hon. members in this house, especially by the member for Temiscouata. I continue:
The advertisement argues that "an experienced trainman on a passenger train isn't just a fellow who opens the door and yells 'Swampscott' and then waves a lantern". He must be familiar with scores of rules, signals and train schedules, that trains can speed with precision and safety. Nor can the experienced trainman on a speeding freight train, who performs his task with unnecessary delay and without accident, be spared. "It's far too important a job to trust entirely to inexperienced men, and it's a job that must have the alertness and the quick judgment of seasoned employees."
_ So, requests the Boston and Maine, "the next time you see one of our younger employees doing his most important part in the fight to win the war, we ask that you ponder a bit before you say, or think-slacker".	"He's in fighting
uniform right here at home", says the railroad.
I have this large file containing letters between Mr. Coleman and the Minister of Labour. It starts with a letter from Mr. D. C. Coleman and Mr. Vaughan, the presidents of the two large railways, dated March 31, 1943, addressed to the Minister of Labour, and reading as follows:
Since the outbreak of war in September, 1939, there has been a steady and progressive decrease in the number of trained personnel available for essential railway occupational classifications The calling up of men for military service irrespective of the essentiality of their occupations and the exercise by numerous employees
War Appropriation-Labour

of the right to leave railway service to volunteer for the armed forces have combined to produce in railway ranks a shortage of qualified manpower that has assumed serious proportions.
Is that not what the member for Temis-couata has said repeatedly This is over the signatures of the presidents of both the large railroads. The letter continues:
Efforts of the railways to train replacements have only partially alleviated this condition and it is now clear that any further aggravation of the situation will have such effect upon the operating efficiency of the railways as may in the near future curtail or render impossible maintenance of certain railway services essential to the national war effort.
With a view to formulating a practicable and comprehensive plan to ensure the continued operation of rail transportation services at the maximum efficiency for the duration of the war, representatives of the railways conferred on several recent occasions with officials of the national selective service, mobilization section, at Ottawa. The suggestions made by the railways were sympathetically received and officials of the national selective service, mobilization section, cooperated in every way possible. They pointed out, however, that a permanent solution of this very urgent problem involves a radical departure from the current governmental manpower policy and suggested that the factual data presented to them together with the railways' recommendations thereon should be placed before the government for its consideration and decision.
The railroads were trying to keep their men, and it was a departure from the government policy to take men from the railroads.
The letter continues:
Pursuant to this suggestion there are submitted herewith analytical statements designed to illustrate the magnitude of the existing shortage in essential occupational classifications and the crippling additional drain on railway manpower the current system of call up for compulsory military service will inevitably entail.
At February 28, 1913, there were 24,832 employees of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways in the armed forces of Canada serving at home or abroad or in the merchant navy. Of this number a substantial proportion were engaged prior to enlistment or call in essential occupational classifications. In addition, 33,406 employees now actively engaged in railway work are in the age groups subject to compulsory military call, of whom 21,417 are in essential occupations, and the remainder must be replaced if and when called.
It is the considered view of the railways that any further loss of employees in the essential occupational classifications cannot be sustained without a serious and perhaps disastrous impairment of vital transportation services, and that this threat of a further drain on their already limited man-power should be removed once and for all by governmental action. It is, therefore, respectfully suggested that the government should adopt with the utmost dispatch a policy that will ensure definite deferments of compulsory military service for all railway employees engaged in essential occupational classifications.
The loss of man-power to the armed forces, however, is only one aspect of the situation.
[Mr. Pouliot.l
Not only have the railways been faced with the problem of securing suitable replacements for those in military service but owing to the unprecedented war-time demands for transportation they have also had to secure and train large numbers of new employees. Some conception of the magnitude of this task may be gathered from the fact that in 1942 the average number of employees in both the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific totalled 150,623 as compared with 123,671 in 1939, an increase of 26,952 or 21-8 per cent. This compares with an increase of 90-9 per cent in traffic in the same period as measured by the increase in the combined traffic units of the two railways.
Another factor which has contributed to the difficulties attendant upon the maintenance of tile high standard of efficiency of Canadian railways during war time is the strain placed upon experienced employees as a result of having to work side by side with inexperienced employees. This places upon the experienced men additions responsibility especially during the training perod when the new employees are unfamiliar with their duties. Employees such as locomotive engineers, locomotive firemen, conductors, trainmen, yard switching forces, telegraphers, track forces and others, upon whom the safe operation of trains depends, are thus required to labour under most trying conditions. The railways view with increasing concern the consequent impairment, at this time of heavy wartime traffic, in the efficiency of these experienced and essential employees.
Mark that.
The railways view with increasing concern the consequent impairment, at this time of heavy war-time traffic, in the efficiency of these experienced and essential employees.
It goes on:
In addition to the loss of experienced men in the essential occupational classifications the railways have sustained a further depletion in qualified personnel due to the loan to the government either on a full-time or part-time basis of a substantial number of officers and other employees for special war work, and to the transfer of a large number of officers and skilled men to munitions work. These officers and men have been made available regardless of the inconvenience to the railways.
The urgent need for conservation and utilization to the fullest degree of the existing supply of available man-power is recognized by the railways and every effort in that direction has been consistently made since the outbreak of hostilities. A number of men physically fit and willing to continue working are being retained in service after reaching normal retirement age, and likewise in some cases retired employees are being reemployed for the duration. The hours of service in essential occupational classifications have in many instances been extended and certain positions usually reserved for men are now being filled by women. It is the intention to- extend these practices as conditions permit. As far as possible the railways are prepared to further extend the transfer of employees to territories where due to fluctuation of traffic temporary shortages exist. However, with the uncertainties involved in traffic fluctuation as between one territory and another and the man-power situation in its present critical stage, the transfer of employees, except as a temporary expedient to meet some particular local emergency, no longer offers the

War Appropriation-Labour
opportunity for full utilization of man-power that it did in the first few months of the war.
Railway officers in conjunction with representatives of the employees are constantly exploring every possible means of making the fullest use of all available man-power in the essential occupational classifications.
The factual data contained in the attached analytical statements have been prepared with the object of presenting a clear picture of the man-power situation of the steam lines of each railway, with separate statements for each of their affiliated activities. Employees have been divided into two classifications: namely, essential occupations and other occupations.
The railways are of the opinion, as already indicated, that in the interests of the national war effort the continued drain on essential railway man-power should be immediately and effectively stopped. Railway employees now serving with the armed services in Canada should be given leave to return to their former essential employment if they so desire.
It is impossible to get them out of the army. Moreover, they are taken from the railway and brought into the army, but when a request is made to get them out of the army and back to the railways it is impossible to get them out.
It goes on:
The only workable and practicable solution of the problem appears to be the adoption of a governmental policy in respect to compulsory military service that will ensure automatic deferment of calls of all railway employees engaged in essential occupational classifications on March 31, 1943.
In view of the seriousness of the situation and the urgent need for remedial action, it is respectfully requested that this matter be dealt with as promptly as possible.
Yours truly,
R. C. Vaughan, Chairman and President, Canadian National Railways.
D. C. Coleman, President,
Canadian Pacific Railway Co.
This letter gives matter for thought. The Minister of Labour then took the right course. He sent a copy of this letter to the three defence ministers. There was an acknowledgement from the minister for the navy, some correspondence from the air ministry, and a memorandum from the Minister of National Defence. Here is what the navy minister had to say in reply, on April 14. I shall not read it all because I have not much time. I shall read a paragraph. If the minister wants the rest put on Hansard I shall be glad to do so. This is what the navy minister had to say:
It is suggested that your department should set out definitely what are considered to be essential services, and instructions could then be issued to the armed forces to the effect that no men employed in any of these occupations shall be taken into the services. As far as the naval service is concerned, any men applying for entry into the service, _ when formerly engaged in farming, fishing, mining, lumbering,
et cetera, are to be fully questioned, and if it appears likely that they will ever need leave to return to their previous occupation, they will not be entered in the service. Furthermore, any men released from the navy to return to their former essential occupation will be discharged, and not reenrolled unless there is a change in the general situation.
If it is desired I shall consider whether instructions shall be issued to the effect that no railway men shall be enrolled in the naval service, and that railway men now in the service may be discharged to resume their former occupation.
Very good. 1 would not have thought the navy minister would have written, a letter like that about this matter to the Minister of Labour. It is a good letter. Now let us see what the minister for air had to say. In the first place, he replied on April 12 that the suggestion was being explored. Then on April 29 he sent a memorandum from his department through the air secretary, as follows:
In answer to your memorandum dated April 12, in regard to railway employees now enlisted in the service, it will be a considerable job to determine the numbers of service personnel with previous railroad experience and investigate the practicability of releasing them to civil occupations.
In view of the fact that the average age of air force personnel is approximately twenty-three years, ft is not anticipated that many would fall into the category mentioned in the above letter from the two railroads. The service has already invested a considerable amount of money in the training of any railroad employees of mature years, and their release at the present time would effect an appreciable loss.
Under the new policy now being put forward for the minister's approval, any particular individuals required by the railroad and whose services can be spared will be eligible for discharge to return to civil employment.
That is very good. Now let us see what the Minister of National Defence wrote. He sent the Minister of Labour a memorandum, dated April 26, which reads as follows:
I have your letter of April 6, concerning man-power demands of the railways. I am in general agreement with the terms of your reply to the presidents of the two railway companies but wish to add the following comments.
Demands for exemption of essential workers are becoming daily progressively more numerous. We have discussed miners; the requests of fishermen, railroad men, teachers et al are put forward.
But the point is that, as you know, machinery already exists for postponement of essential workers (section 10 (8) N.S.S. Mob. Regs.).
That is the mobilization regulations. It goes on:
Regarding the suggestion in your penultimate paragraph concerning the setting up of a board: I myself do not see any need for a special board for railway men or any other occupation. Your mobilization boards can dispose of these questions pretty soundly if the evidence is placed before them. In any case, if you have some technical body to advise these boards



War Appropriation-Labour
regarding railway applications, such a body would not be complete without having among its members a representative of national selective service and a representative of the district officer commanding as well; otherwise the board would be entirely one-sided.
I fully recognize the importance of the railroad problem, but I very much doubt whether the army has drawn disproportionately upon the railroads for man-power. The fact that there are still 33,406 employees subject to call indicates that the mobilization boards are acting with due consideration of the transportation demands.
As regards effecting a return to the railroads of ex-employees now in the army, I must point out that personnel in the army here constitute potential reserves to assist in the maintenance of the army programme overseas and it would for that reason be detrimental to the success of that programme to sanction the release of personnel.
What programme? The army programme overseas, precisely the commitments that the Minister of National Defence made while he was in England-what I spoke of this afternoon.
Recognition must also be given to the fact that such personnel have received army training costing time and money and, furthermore, the army is now organizing railway troops for overseas.	[DOT]
Talk about training costing money! How much does one month in the army cost compared with years of salary paid to experienced men in the service of the railways?
May I add this further word purely by way of suggestion because it is out of my "line of country".
There are possible avenues of relief open to the railroads, other than by drawing on the army or taking men who are eligible for service, viz.,
(a)	Drawing on civilian industries to which railway employees have gone;
(b)	Increase of employees monthly mileage limit;
(c)	Reallocation of surplus personnel between east and west as seasonal traffic fluctuates;
(d)	More energetic consideration of the retaining of personnel beyond normal peace time superannuation age.
Thank you for calling attention of the railways in your forthright letter to the shortage of men for the armed forces.
Respecting railway employees now in war service: I am led to believe-
1.	That most of the former employees now in tile armed forces come from the casual or parttime employees of the railroads, and
2.	that a substantial proportion of the 25,000 former employees now in war service are from the marine divisions of the companies and serving in the R.C.N. or mercantile marine.
"I am led to believe." Who told him that? What is the proof? It is signed J. L. Ralston. This is the letter of a jingo, and I have read enough to make the mouth of every member water and to make every member anxious to get the whole story. I thought the ministers

for the navy and the air were at one with the Minister of National Defence in insisting upon getting men from the railways into the army, but it is not that. Their letters are most reasonable; the only unreasonable letter comes from the head of the Department of National Defence, and that was written last year. Here is the answer that was sent before by the Minister of Labour to the heads of the railways:
I have before me your joint letter of March 31, which was presented in person by Messrs. F. W. Edge and H. D. Brydone-Jack, relative to the man-power situation as it affects the railways.
The problem of the man-power situation as it affects the two major employers composed of the railway systems of Canada is a matter which has been giving the department great concern. We have been aware of your difficulties through reports we have been receiving from our employment offices across Canada. Since the mobilization activity was taken over by the Department of Labour, we have been giving some study to the question of postponements from service for employees in "key" positions. For these reasons I was very glad indeed to have the opportunity of discussing the situation with your chief personnel officials.
I feel that it will not be out of place for me to, at this time, express my keen appreciation of the work the railway companies are doing and despite the considerable expansion in personnel, with a minimum of labour relations difficulties. Many of the labour policies of the government are made possible by the fact that this is so. I wish to go on record and thank you and your officials.
Coming to the question of mobilization of railway employees, we stand ready to give you every possible cooperation in this regard, and the representations will ibe given most careful study.
There are one or two brief comments I will make at this time.
In the classification of essential positions there are a few occupations which might, in the minds of the members of the mobilization boards, be doubtful. Those of "helpers"; "assistants"; "coal men"; "instrument men"; "work equipment firemen"; "section men" and possibly waiters on dining cars.
Your officials know your requirements better than we do, of course, but it does seem, wise at this time to explain that we are terribly short ot men for the armed forces.
The second point I wish to make is that in respect to getting new employees which you mention on page 2 of your letter, I would like you to feel that the full resources of the chain of employment offices across Canada are available to yon.
The third point I would wish to make is the question of identifying "essential men in essential occupations". Your officials stated that, while section men were listed, it was not the intention that all section men be considered as essential. How are we to identify the essential men from the non-essential? It did occur to me that a board composed of officials of the railways and possibly representatives of the labour organizations might be set up and doubtful cases could be referred to this board.
The last point I would mention at this time is the question of allowing men to return to

War Appropriation-Labour
their occupations who are already in the armed forces. There was some suggestion that older men now in the armed forces be exchanged for younger men in railway service. This idea, if workable, appeals to me; however I will confer with my colleagues who have the responsibility for the armed forces, in respect of this particular point.
Yours sincerely,
Humphrey Mitchell.
"This idea, if workable". The Minister of Labour was reasonable. The only one who spoke like a jingo was the Minister of National Defence. Copies of this letter were sent to the three defence ministers.
I have nothing to withdraw from the praise I have given the minister. I have said that, and I am in full sympathy with him. I think he has the treatment of a dog from the government. It is most unfair to put that responsibility on him, to hear complaints that come from your left, sir, when we know very well that the Minister of Labour does his very best to settle the matter in an amicable way, in a way that would not prejudice the country. It is just because we have one man who has no Canadian feeling, who has priority over his colleague, that it is impossible for him to do his job. "VVe see letters written by two men who are not supposed to be disciples of any nationalist in the province of Quebec or anywhere else, two men who are highly considered by the government, men who have been praised by the veterans themselves.
Why are we complaining so much and fighting the cause of the employees as we have been fighting the cause of the farmers? Why are the brotherhoods and unions dumb now? Why do the unions not do their duty in fighting this case as we do not only on behalf of the men, but on behalf of the railways? I do not know. I have no consideration at all for the leaders of brotherhoods who do not do their duty by fighting for the men and by fighting for the railways, as the chiefs of the railways themselves have done. To-day we poor people have to do that. How many times did I say in the house last year, the year before and in 1941, exactly what is said by both Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Coleman in their letter written last year to the minister? I have never seen that letter before. Is it not a justification of what I have been saying here in the house, justification to which there is no reply at all? I have been doing my duty. I have been fighting for the railways and sometimes I have been abused. I have been called a bad Canadian. I have been told that I do not understand the duty of the country to move reinforcements overseas all the time at the expense of the railways. It was not so long ago-it was yesterday or 100-166J
the day before-that we saw a dispatch in the press to the effect that in Australia manpower had reached rock bottom, that there was no more man-power. It is enough to listen to the letter written by the heads of the railways, men who are in an independent position to speak about this very matter. Then, due to the suggestions-I will say "suggestions"-made by the Department of National Defence there are men who had a month's training, who were brought from the railway to the army where they are rendering much less service than they could render in the railway business. Is that good government? I sympathize with the Minister of Labour. Someone forced his hand; and I deeply regret the importance that is given to the imperialists. I regret it the more because the Minister of Labour has judged the situation as a former railway man. He has understood it and he has put the facts before the war minister.
According to democracy we must have the rule of the majority. In that case they were two against one. They should have decided according to the decision of the two and the one should have been left aside, because the country should not be responsible for the dangerous commitments that he has made in London. They should be disapproved and he should be fired. That is what I have said many times. I cannot stand for it. Here I have as a testimonial two witnesses, the two heads of the two largest railways in this country.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think I should say just a couple of words, not in full reply to my hon. friend. He spoke for forty minutes; I expect to speak for just a couple of minutes.
There is nothing unusual about the letter written by the railroads to myself in connection with the labour situation of these important undertakings. I suppose not a day goes by but what I get a letter couched in a similar vein. There is nothing new in a difference of opinion between individuals; that is why this House of Commons exists. But I wish to say this, Mr. Chairman: if everybody had their Way about the withdrawal of men from the armed forces we would not have any armed forces. Let us be clear about that. Again, we have set up the machinery between the railroads of this country and the Department of Labour in order that there might be an orderly withdrawal of man-power from the industry that is necessary under the present conditions.
Notwithstanding what is being said at this very moment, the railroads are moving more freight this very day than they have ever moved in the history of this country. Why
War Appropriation-Labour

are they moving that freight? In the great majority of cases because there is a war on across the Atlantic, because they are supplying the forces that are engaged in this conflict. I want to pay just this tribute to the two main railroad systems of this dominion, a tribute to both the management and employees on the contribution they are rendering at the present time. It is a difficult situation; of course it is. Everything is difficult in war time. There is not an industry in this country that is not going through a difficult period. When I say, "industry" I mean industry in its oroadest sense. It includes the farmers and :hose in commercial life. But it can be truthfully said, notwithstanding the criticism offered by my hon. friend-and I do not have any objection to that-that the railroads and their employees have carried on in what I might term a magnificent way, along with all the other industries; and whether we like it or not, this tightness in the man-power situation will continue until Hitler and that man in the Pacific are defeated.


Mr. CHOQUETTE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say just a few words before this item is carried. I would not have risen at this time had not the hon. the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) stated on May 1 that a man who works on the farm has only to state that fact in order to obtain a postponement automatically. It is not as simple as that. In the first place, applicants must state the facts in an affidavit, and those who have been granted a postponement are told a, few months later that such postponements are no longer valid, and that they must file a new application.
We are told that postponements for farm work are readily granted. I know that such is not always the case. Besides, here is what the minister said on April 28 last, as reported on page 2445 of Hansard. I quote:
We are now finding it more difficult to fill the army requisitions- As the war progresses it is evident that wk. will soon 'have to rely largely upon those at present deferred and the young men coming of age.
And the minister placed on Hansard, at page 2452, table No. 9 from which I take the following figures. From March 20, 1941 to March 31, 1944, 245,443 applications for postponement filed by agricultural workers have been examined; out of that number, there were on the same date, that is on March 31 last, 145,529 postponements still valid. What about the other 100,000 applications which include the postponement applications that were denied and the applications for renewal which were not granted? Therefore,

less than three-fifths of the postponements for which applications were made are now valid. This proves conclusively that it is not so easy as he has intimated for farm workers to obtain a postponement.
Now I wish to say a word in regard to the order which was signed on January 28 last and in regard to the Employer's Guide published at the same time, which require every employer to report to the registrar any of his employees who are not in good standing under the mobilization act. This order and these regulations are inhuman, for they compel a brother to report his brother, a father to report his son. The employer is compelled to play an odious part, and if he fails to do so, he is liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine of not less than $25 but not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and a day, or to both fine and imprisonment.
I say that this order and these regulations must be repealed because they are antisocial and inhuman.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot be misled any longer, we have overseas conscription in disguise. On March 6. 1944, the government, in reply to a question asked by a member of this house, stated that men who had been called up for home defence, and who had not volunteered for overseas service, were sent to Newfoundland (including Labrador), to the British West Indies, to Bermuda, to Alaska, including Kiska. This is quite clear to anyone with an open mind.
Why does not the minister say to the house and to the country that the man-power pool is being depleted and that he is endeavouring by every possible means to attract men to the armed services?
(Text)


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In order to complete the record concerning the treatment of railway employees under the mobilization act, I wish to add something to what has been said by the hon. member for Temiscouata. The hon. gentleman has related the first chapter of the story; I should like to take a few minutes to relate the last chapter, which from the point of view of the railways and the railway employees is the most important.
I may preface what I have to say by stating that until the presidents of the two railways made representations in writing to the Minister of Labour, as related by the hon. member for Temiscouata, there was no central office of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or the Canadian National Railways organized to ask for postponements for rail-

War Appropriation-Labour
way employees called up for military service. Circular letters had been sent by the Canadian National Railways to district officers from one end of the country to the other, asking them to support applications for postponement when the men called up were considered essential in the operation of the railway. As might be expected, with several divisions and many more subdivisions, there was no uniformity in the interpretation of such essentiality on the part of local or district railway officials. As a result, in some districts railway employees who made application for postponement had their applications endorsed by their superior officers, while in other districts the superior officers would consider people employed at the same work as nonessential. So that dissatisfaction among the railway employees came to the attention of the heads of the railways, and representations were made to the Minister of Labour.
As a result of those representations, national selective service mobilization regulations were given an interpretation, and on June 14, 1943, circular memorandum No. 858 was forwarded to all chairmen and registrars. It has to do with applications for postponements by railroad transportation employees engaged by the Canadian National Railways or the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and the consideration thereof, pursuant to subsections 7, 8 and 10 of section 10 of the regulations. In order to bring about uniformity and afford the railways some relief, the Department of Labour recognized fhe necessity of giving consideration to employees who were essential in the operation of the railways, instructed the registrars and officials of the mobilization boards to give consideration to representations made on behalf of the employees by representatives of the railways, and for that purpose asked the two railways to set up a committee of responsible men who would pass upon the applications and decide as to the essentiality of the applicants in the operation of the railways. As a result, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company nominated Mr. Brydon-Jack, acting manager of the department of personnel, and the Canadian National Railways nominated Mr. Frederick W. Edge, director of labour relations.
This regulation was put into effect on June 14 and became operative on July 1, 1943. From that date to December 31, 1943, some 2,807 employees of the Canadian National Railways who were called up made application for deferment because they thought their employment was essential. Their applications were passed upon by Mr. Edge and the other members of the committee, and of all those
applications for deferment only sixty-eight were not approved by the committee because those men were not considered so essential that they could not be replaced by men not of military age or not subject to military call. This indicates that the new interpretation placed upon the mobilization regulations and the centralization of the consideration to be given by the railways have worked out very satisfactorily at least as far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned. I have not the figures for the period from January 1 to date, but I have been informed that the same proportion of applications have been approved. So that since July 1, 1943, relations between the Department of Labour and the two great railway systems of Canada have been most cordial, and applications for deferment for employees of military-age who were considered essential in the operation of the railways have been approved by the board.


Mr. BURTON:: After sitting here for a number of days listening to the discussion that has taken place, I have finally grasped something of the enormous task confronting the Minister of Labour, and at this late hour I have no wish to delay further the passing of this item. I should like, however, to mention a few matters to the minister. I am quite prepared to admit that I know very little about his problems and those of labour in the large industrial centres, though, as I say, I have come to realize that those problems must be enormous. But I do wish to draw to his attention the fact that the selective service board does not seem to function to the best advantage in the smaller centres. I shall not go into detail or belabour the point to any great extent, but shall mention only a few cases to show that it is not working satisfactorily in the smaller places.
I have in mind a man in my constituency. This man is beyond military age, and yet he is anxious to do *whatever he can. For over a year he has been in correspondence with the national selective service board, but that man still has not had satisfactory placement. Then I know of a young woman who had been in an egg-candling plant. After she had been in that plant for a considerable length of time the work slackened off. She then was laid off for the time being. As a young married woman she proceeded to attend to her household duties. Later on, the manager of the plant asked to have her return to work. She left her home at seven o'clock in the morning, and at one o'clock in the afternoon the selective service officials in that city had not yet prepared the necessary authoriza-
War Appropriation-Labour

tion for her to resume work in the plant in which she had been working formerly. I could mention quite a number of cases like that where men and women have suffered the loss of hours of work, through seemingly unneees-sarjr red tape. The loss would be great, if totalled.
Another matter I would draw to the minister's attention is unemployment insurance. In some parts this, too, does not work to the satisfaction of the people in the smaller communities. I shall give one or two examples. For instance, an elevator man receiving only a very small wage contributes to unemployment insurance. He has a family to take care of. Then the elevator is closed down, and he has no further possibility of earning money for several months, until the next crop season comes along. If that man accepts the terms laid down by the unemployment insurance officials under which he must accept employment at some other place, very often he would be working at a rate of pay which would leave nothing for him or his family, after the necessary amounts for living expenses away from home were deducted.
Some other cases were drawn to my attention during the Easter recess. People who had been working at comparatively small wages could not take advantage of the unemployment insurance to which they had contributed, when they were laid off for short periods of time.
I draw these points to the attention of the minister, realizing that his problems are great. The industrial and larger centres may have a more orderly way of working out the details, but I must point out to him that in the smaller centres it is far from satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National war labour board and regional boards, $522,960.
Gordon Graydon: I should like to say something by way of suggestion rather than criticism. It is my view that there should be some better way of distinguishing between the trvo boards over which the department has control. I refer to the national war labour board and the wartime labour relations board, and make the suggestion that their names are too much alike to permit of a general understanding of their respective functions and duties. I suggest that the minister consider, for public convenience and the convenience of hon. members, and others who may not do business daily with the boards, that a different nomenclature be adopted. They handle entirely different matters, so far as the labour field is concerned. It would be a great help to the public generally if the boards had names
(Mr. Burton.!
which distinguished their duties and functions more accurately than do the names now employed.	.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What are the specific
functions of both boards?


Humphrey Mitchell: One deals with labour relations, and the other with wages. The same principle is adopted in the United States. One deals specifically with the recognition of unions and working conditions, and the other deals with wages.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is there any reason why one could not be called a wages board?


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall give thought to the matter, and I thank my hon. friend for the suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Wartime bureau of technical personnel,
John Ritchie MacNicol: W'hat are the duties of the bureau ?


Humphrey Mitchell: That bureau is the
selective service for the professional people, such as engineers, technicians and people of that kind. As a matter of fact it was the guinea-pig for selective service. The engineering and professional societies came to see the then Minister of Labour, and the old national labour supply council, and made the suggestion that with their cooperation we might try out the bigger principle of selective service among the professional people.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And the officials are
located where?


Humphrey Mitchell: In Ottawa, and right across Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Toronto, Montreal, and so on?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In selective service offices?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes; and we have an advisory council with representatives of leading societies in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to the provinces in connection with training for aircraft manufacturing, the training of ground mechanics for the R.C.A.F. and providing educational refresher training for R.C.A.F. aircrew personnel, including undischarged commitments of previous years, $1,800,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Does "payments to the provinces in connection with training for aircraft manufacturing" refer to technical schools? For instance, in Toronto in the

War Appropriation-Labour
last few years many students have been trained for various work in reference to aircraft production, and have then been sent out to aircraft manufacturing plants.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is correct. The war emergency training programme was a big programme. We spent upwards of $20,000,000 on it, and trained between 330,000 and 350,000 people. We could not have done that without the assistance of every province. In a large degree we used technical schools, and the resources of the various provinces for that purpose. The army, navy and air force use them for basic training in mechanics.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the students who train at the Toronto technical school, for instance, be paid while they are training?


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, yes, they are paid.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the school paid for the cost of teaching and other materials supplied?


Humphrey Mitchell: We paid out-of-pocket expenses to all the boards of education across Canada that cooperated.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to ask a question with regard to men who had training and the necessary experience in the air force who rose to the rank of commissioned officer and then were found unfit for further operational duties, after which they were eased out of the force. The minister will remember that on Tuesday the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked what was being done with commissioned officers who were found medically unfit. I wondered if any provision is being made under this item to give men such as these training which will enable them to fit into other activities.


Humphrey Mitchell: Provision is made under the rehabilitation section, and men discharged from the armed forces can receive training under this plan.
Mr. BLACIvMORE:	Suppose an officer
discharged from one of the armed forces decides to enter one of these schools; would he then be exempt from call-up while in the school?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, absolutely.


John Horne Blackmore: I was talking to-day with some boys who are greatly disturbed about the whole situation. It looked to them that the only course which would be open to them would be to enter some other activity in life, wait a few days and then be called into the armed forces and have to go through
all the drudgery and misery which an ordinary recruit goes through and then probably not be able to rise to the rank of sergeant. They would thus suffer loss of money and loss of dignity and prestige.


Humphrey Mitchell: If a man has been discharged medically unfit from the army he has a right to enter a training class.


John Horne Blackmore: I am thinking particularly of the air force.


Humphrey Mitchell: From the army, navy or air force. There is nothing undignified in being a private in the army, navy or air force.
I was one myself in the navy during the last war.


John Horne Blackmore: Did you go through it
twice?


Humphrey Mitchell: I was there all the time, but there is nothing undignified in being a private.


John Horne Blackmore: What is bothering these boys is the possibility of having to go through it all again. They have gone through the misery of being a private once and they rose to the commissioned ranks. They are faced with the possibility of having to go through it all again. That sort of thing does not make these boys feel very good and I was just wondering if there is not some way out.	'


Humphrey Mitchell: I cannot imagine a situation developing such as that to which my hon. friend refers. If a man is discharged as medically unfit from one of the services I would think he is out of that service. As I said earlier this evening, we do not know how this war is going to develop or what may be necessary a year from now. I should not like to project my thought so far into the future. As I said before, however, I cannot conceive, once a man is medically unfit and discharged from the forces, that he will be called back again; that is under normal circumstances.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister will
remember that when the matter was being discussed on Tuesday the question arose of a man being colour-blind to an extent to render him unfit for operational flights. That might result in his discharge, but it would not unfit him for duty in the army, and the result is he would be called up as soon as he got out of the air force.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would say that it is every man to his own last. I am running the Department of Labour, not the air force, navy or army. They have their own departments to worry about. Giving my own opinion only, I - can see many reasons why a man might
War Appropriation-Labour

become unfit to operate an aeroplane or carry out some specialized task in any one of the services, although he might be perfectly efficient for some other job. I think I referred to seasickness the other day. I suffered from it myself and I know what it is like. I can quite understand where a man would be discharged from the navy because he could not stand the motion of ships. There are many admirals in the British and other navies who suffer from seasickness. If such a man were discharged from the navy he might prove to be A1 for the air force or the army.


John Horne Blackmore: The difficulty arises from the fact that he may have risen in the ranks beyond the rank of sergeant. Then he is discharged and he finds he has to start all over again. I wonder if there is not some course of training he could take so that he would not have to go through that drudgery again.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have tried to be as plain as I possibly can. I understand that the air force have personnel advisers to advise their men as to what vocations they should follow when they leave the air force, and that there are developments along similar lines in the other arms of the fighting forces. We have to train them.
_ Mr. BLACKMORE:	I understand the
implication of the minister's remarks to be that where a man has entered one service and has done his bit, he ought to be entitled to go home and enjoy a bit of peace.


Humphrey Mitchell: I agree with that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
, To assist in meeting the extra costs of universities in accelerating courses in medicine and dentistry and to provide financial assistance to students who are ineligible for assistance underdominion-provincial student aid plan, $300,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Does this apply only to professional men who are going into the armed forces?


Humphrey Mitchell: We have some control here. It applies to medicine, dentistry and the sciences. When the courses are completed the men who are fit have to go into the services. If they are not fit to enter the services we have the right to direct them where they will be most necessary, to industry or to other forms of endeavour in the war effort.


Joseph William Burton: How many students are involved in this plan?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have not the statistics in front of me, but I shall be glad to give them to my hon. friend to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
'.VIr. Mitchell.]
Vocational training for discharged members of Canada's armed forces, including undischarged commitments of previous years, $7§0,000.
Mr. PERLEY:: I should like to have a little information with respect to this item. How many of these vocational training schools have been established, particularly in the west? How many are taking courses at the present time? There seems to be some misunderstanding with respect to these courses. I have had some correspondence with the superintendent of vocational training in Ottawa and also with the district rehabilitation board at Regina. They started one of these schools in my home town, so that I know whereof I speak. Under the arrangements made with the man who took on the job of giving this training, provision was made for eight men. Six turned up to take the course, with the understanding that when they had completed a four months' course they would be given some assistance in becoming established and starting up. The course was in shoemaking, harness-making and repairing. Quite a lot of expense was gone to in changing over the premises and equipment, and then when one of the men who were taking this course was ready to start up for himself, he rented a place at Whitewood and prepared to start. Then he was informed that he could get no assistance. Of course it came to the attention of the others who were taking the course that possibly they would not get any assistance in starting up when they had completed the course. There evidently must have been some misunderstanding, in which the man in charge of the school shared, because it was understood by them all that they would get assistance in establishing themselves once they had completed the course. What are the arrangements made with those taking these courses? Also, how many of these vocational schools are being set up in Saskatchewan? I have correspondence here between the men and the department, but it is late and I shall not read it. It is, however, evident from the correspondence that there must have been a misunderstanding. The department says in one of its letters that it is surprised that the man in charge of the school had the impression that the men were to receive assistance in starting up. I presume the facts as to what was paid for turning over the establishment are confidential. I repeat my question. What arrangements are made with the men who are taking these courses? Are they to get any assistance when they are ready to start up for themselves, or are they not? I hold in my hand a bulletin entitled, "Post-war Planning Information," got out, I presume, by the minister's department, and it is clear

War Appropriation-Labour
from this pamphlet that the men taking the course were to get assistance, not only so much a day for their keep and expenses while taking the course, but other assistance. How many similar courses have been started in Saskatchewan?


Humphrey Mitchell: We do the training and the placing of the men. Any further assistance would be under the jurisdiction of pensions and national health.


Ernest Edward Perley: L will read the last paragraph on page 2 of this pamphlet, "Post-war Planning Information". It states:
The reestablishment orders provide six types of maintenance allowances, plus other financial assistance, to ex-service men and women. . . .
And so on. Then it gives the rates for a single person, for a married person and so on, and it says that assistance will be given when they have finished their course.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The six types of maintenance referred to are the benefits under the order in council. My hon. friend is probably quoting from one of the regulations with reference to benefits while the men are undergoing the training courses, so much for a married man, so much for a single person. I have not the exact figures, but approximately three thousand men who have been discharged from the forces have taken these courses. I shall be able to give my hon. friend the exact figures when my estimates are before the committee, also information as to the nature of the courses given and the places where they are being taken! We also give vocational guidance. The Department of Labour does the actual training for us. The benefits are given by the Department of Pensions and National Health, and the counselling is done by our expert advisers.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have the correspondence here and I am prepared to pass it over to the minister. I know some of the boys who are taking these courses, and in view of the misunderstanding, I think they should be given some assistance in starting up for themselves. One fellow has finished his four months' course, and if the others are to be told that they will not get the assistance which they were promised in starting up after completing their course, it would hardly be fair to them because they certainly understood that they were to get such assistance. Even the man in charge understood it that way. Therefore I ask that special consideration be given to these men. I make the suggestion that the men who have finished 100-167
their course be given assistance in establishing themselves, with the understanding that it shall be repaid, if necessary, after a certain given time, perhaps so many months. One fellow who has finished his course has a good chance to start up now in Whitewood. I make the plea that these men be given this assistance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will my hon. friend send me over that circular?


Ernest Edward Perley: I shall be glad to do so.


Mr. FAIR:: What percentage of the men who took the training have found employment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A very high percentage. I have not the exact figure with me, but I shall be glad to get it for my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any provision for giving this vocational training to men who are in pensions hospitals? The suggestion has been made to me that men in pensions hospitals are unable to get different types of courses such as educational courses, training in handicraft and work of that type.
Mr. LaFLECHE: As soon as my estimates are before the committee I have a statement to make which I am sure will satisfy my hon. friend that the men in the hospitals of my colleague the minister of pensions do get the benefit of the Canadian Legion educational services. I speak with assurance because 1 have been inquiring into that matter for the past two days.


Howard Charles Green: I am referring to vocational training, which is a different matt-r from educational training. What provision is made for giving vocational training to men in hospitals?


Humphrey Mitchell: We just train in the
field, not in institutions. I would assume that my hon. friend's question should be directed to the Minister of Pensions. We are training thousands of people, but we do not go into institutions.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any reason why
vocational training could not be given to men in hospitals?


Humphrey Mitchell: No. I quite agree with my hon. friend. They may be doing it now; I do not know.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister find out about that and let us know to-morrow?

Canol Project-Oil Resources


Mr. EOSS (St. Paul's):: Is this money paid to the individual who is being trained or to the people who are training the individual?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is paid to the provinces, as follows: Nova Scotia, $30,000; New Brunswick, $30,000; Quebec, $127,000; Ontario, $225,000; Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, $67,500 each. That is a tentative allotment.


Robert Fair: That is, $67,500 to Alberta and each of the other western provinces?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 5, 1944