1945-10-30

Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It has to do with the report of the proceedings of this house yesterday.

Privilege-Mr. Bracken
Yesterday Your Honour ruled out of order a bill to amend the Judges Act introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In giving your reasons Your Honour stated as follows, as reported in Hansard, page 1569:
I would draw to the attention of the hon. member the fact that I am under the impression that this bill is out of order, because it involves an expenditure of money. So I rule the bill out of order.
And a little later on Your Honour made the following comment:
As I have said, I believe that the bill as drafted deals with public expenditures, and therefore is out of order.
It is clear that Your Honour's reason for ruling the bill out of order was your impression that it involved an expenditure of public money. I have not seen the bill, so I have no opinion on that subject.
However, in Votes and Proceedings of yesterday, No. 37, which document I believe is the binding and authoritative record of this house, there appears the following statement:
Mr. Speaker ruled that the introduction of such a bill was out of order on the ground that alterations in the salaries fixed by the Judges Act and judges retirement annuities, even by way of reductions, cannot be moved in the house by a private member, but that they can only be proposed by a minister of the crown on the Governor General's recommendation to be considered in committee of the whole by resolution prior to the introduction of a bill.
Mr. Speaker, nowhere in Your Honour's words can be read or implied the reason that appears in Votes and Proceedings. The matter is of some importance, as it affects the rules of the house. I do not believe that Votes and Proceedings should ascribe ' to Your Honour words or reasons which you did not use in addressing this house and therefore create a precedent for the future. The reasons which Your Honour gave are not those recited in the Volei and Proceedings, and the reasons given in Votes and Proceedings are, I suggest with all deference, not well established. If allowed to pass without protest they might eventually lead to a precedent, which would make it impossible for a private, member to move in committee of supply for the reduction of an estimate.
I would respectfully ask Your Honour to take the matter into consideration and to communicate to the house, at a later date, your opinion on the matters I have raised.


Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I say just a word on
the matter referred to by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken)? I did not know
that he was going to raise the question, but I am grateful to him for the interest he ha3 taken, not on my behalf but on behalf of all members of the house. If Your Honour accedes to the suggestion of looking further into the matter I would ask that you consider the fact that on March 6, 1944, a bill exactly the same-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -was introduced and allowed by the Speaker of that day for first reading.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I may say to the leader
of the opposition that I have noted his remarks.
' [Later:.]


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the leader of the opposition raised a point of order this afternoon at three o'clock with respect to a bill which I had introduced yesterday, not knowing that he was going to do so I was unable to turn up quickly enough two references which I wish to draw to the attention of His Honour the Speaker. In view of the statement made by His Honour that the matter would be noted, may I ask that when he does so he take into consideration the rulings on similar matters referred to in Beauchesne, third edition, at pages 457 and 529. One of these references deals specifically with a bill that did require later on the appropriating of money, which Mr. Speaker Sproule ruled was not a money bill, and the other refers to a case where a former speaker made a decision similar to the one made yesterday, but later gave an opposite ruling.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I shall bring
the hon. member's representations to the attention of His Honour the Speaker.



PRIME MINISTER ATTLEE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	*
John Bracken: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. May I ask him whether the government has any information regarding the reported visit of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Attlee, to this continent? *Will an invitation be extended to Mr. Attlee to visit Canada, and has consideration been given to inviting him to address the members of the Senate and the House of Commons?
1626
Prime Minister Attlee

Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): I had anticipated the first part of the leader of the opposition's question, and I have a short statement to make in that regard, which, will serve as an answer to that part of the question.
Hon. members will be interested to leam that the following statement was issued this morning by the President of the United States:
Prime Minister Attlee will visit the president in Washington early next month to discuss with him and Prime Minister Mackenzie King of Canada problems to which the discovery of atomic energy has given rise. The Prime Minister is expected1 to arrive in Washington so that discussions can begin about November 11.
In this connection, I may be permitted to recall that on October 3, in a message which President Truman addressed to congress on the subject of the domestic and international control of atomic power, he forecast the forthcoming discussions in Washington in the following language:
I therefore propose to initiate discussions, first with -our associates in this discovery, Great ^Britain and Canada, and then with other nations, in an effort to effect agreement on the -conditions under which cooperation might replace rivalry in the field of atomic power.
The arrangements Which have now been *completed for this preliminary discussion -between the 'heads of the three governments which have been associated in this vastly important new development make it necessary for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to alter his plans. He will return to this continent sooner than he expected and he has been compelled to forgo his intention of visiting the Canadian troops stationed in Germany and the Netherlands and also of seeing something of conditions in the countries of western Europe.
As to the second part of the question sub-, mifted by the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), as Secretary of State for External Affairs, has been dealing with all the arrangements relating to Mr. Attlee's and his own visit to Washington, and I have no doubt he has had very much in mind the considerations which have prompted the latter part of the question. As soon as we receive any information from him in this regard, I will very promptly communicate it to the house.
IMr. Bracken.]



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I have a further question to direct to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that the united nations' charter has been approved by both houses of parliament, what action has been taken to ratify the charter on behalf of Canada? Has the instrument of ratification been forwarded to His Majesty for approval, and when is it anticipated that this instrument will be deposited with the United States government, in accordance with the terms of the charter?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): Anticipating the probable approval of the resolution pending before the senate last Thursday, the instrument of ratification was forwarded in the diplomatic bag to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in London to be completed by him there as soon as advised by cable that the formal approval had been assented to by the senate. This information was cabled to the Prime Minister on- Thursday night or Friday morning, as soon as it became known to the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, and he was to complete the document there and present it himself to His Majesty for signature and return it with as great dispatch as possible; because we were anxious, if we could do so, to deposit it with the Secretary of State of the United States before November 1. We may not have it before November 1, but we expect to receive it within the next two or three days.



REPRESENTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT AT THE CONFERENCE BEING HELD IN QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (Labelle) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, whether it is the government's intention to be represented by one of the ministers at the international conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization now being held in Quebec, before the proceedings of that body are concluded?
Hon. LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, to-morrow night at Quebec the Canadian government will entertain at dinner all the members of the confer-

Veterans Affairs
ence, and the intention is that it should be represented on that occasion by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and by myself.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. FERGUSON (Simcoe North):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, and at the same time raise a question of privilege. On Friday last, as reported in Hansard on page 1520, the Minister of Finance advised this house that returned soldiers were not refused permits to enter into business. I have in my hand a copy of a letter from the wartime prices and trade board


Some hon. MEMBERS:: .Order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -refusing to two returned veterans-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: a [DOT] licence to enter business.


James Horace King: Order. I do not see any question of privilege in what the hon. member has stated. A question of privilege is raised for the purpose of vindicating the integrity, the honesty or the privileges of hon. members, and I do not see that the privileges of the hon. member are infringed in any way. I therefore rule the question out of order.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Acting Prime Minister) :: The hon. gentleman gave no notice of his question the other day, or of his question or statement to-day, but if he will give notice, putting the question on the order paper, I will make a full statement in answer to it respecting the matter with which he is dealing.


James Horace King: I would advise the hon. member to put his question on the order paper.


Mr. LOCKHART:: That raises a question immediately, Mr. Speaker. Is it necessary to give notice of a question in a matter of this kind?


James Horace King: The rules of the house state definitely that a minister may refuse to answer a question, especially when he is. not prepared to answer. The hon. member no doubt understands quite well that when questions are asked of ministers they may not always be in.a position to reply, not having in
hand the necessary information; consequently it is expedient that notice should be given of such questions so that ministers may be prepared to give clear answers, not only for the benefit of the member who asks the question, but for every member of the house.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to
a point of order. The hon. member asked the minister a question the other day. The minister gave a certain answer which was contrary to the facts as disclosed-


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am not saying that the minister did it intentionally, but it is contrary to the facts disclosed in this letter. It is of prime importance to the veterans of this country that a question such as this should be permitted before the orders of the day are called.


James Horace King: For the benefit of the
hon. member I should hke to draw attention to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition at page 124, citation 306, which read as follows:
In questions of a grave character, a minister is entitled to ask that notice should be given.
If a, minister desires that notice of a question should be given him, an -honourable member should comply with that request.
Citation 307 reads as follows:
A minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal, and ii sistence on an answer is out of order, no debate being allowed.
A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such refusal. A member can put a question, but has no right to insist upon an answer.
An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon, if the answer be refused by the minister on the ground of the public interest; nor can the question be placed on the notice paper. The refusal of a minister to answer on this ground cannot be raised as a matter of privilege.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: That does clarify the
situation. The question can be asked of the minister, and his decision must be accepted; but it does not prevent the member from asking the question if it is a matter of public importance. That is clearly understood.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: This is a matter of
public importance. Is it suggested that- the minister does not have to .answer the question if it is urgent? Here we have two veterans who are ready to go to work but cannot get work.
Revision of Rules


Mr. R. W. GLADSTONE (Wellington South):: May I direct a question to the acting Prime Minister or to the acting leader of the house? It relates to a question asked on October 4 by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson), with whom I joined, in regard to the setting up of a special committee of the house on standing rules and orders. Can the minister say now that this matter has received further consideration?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): In reply to the hon. member for Wellington South-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Put it on the order paper.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This affects the rules of the house.


James Horace King: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This question cannot be placed on the order paper as it affects every group and every party in the house. I immediately took steps to consult the leaders not only of the loyal opposition but of the various groups in the house.


John Bracken: Does that include the disloyal opposition? '


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I found that there is a general feeling in favour of having this committee set up by the house. Therefore we shall get in touch with the whips of the various parties at the earliest possible moment and reconstitute the committee along the lines of the committee of a year ago.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction. According to yesterday's proceedings, bill No. 21 was referred to the railways and shipping committee with instructions to report back to the committee of the whole house. According to the rules of the house forty-eight hours' notice is required before the report of a committee which has been presented can be concurred in. This was not done. I am not objecting to that now, but I
{Mr. Ferguson.]
should like to ask the minister why the quorum of the railways and shipping committee was reduced on October 18 from twenty-three to eight as is shown by the report of the committee which was concurred in the other day. Also, will deputations be heard when this bill is dealt with by that committee, as it affects many interests? The report of the committee was presented and concurred in without anybody seeing it or knowing what was in it, and it struck out a "committee of supply" from the text of the reference of October 16.


James Horace King: If the hon. member desires to put a question it should be short and to the point.


Thomas Langton Church: My point is this, and this is the last thing I will ask the government. If a report of this committee is to be presented and concurred in without anybody seeing it or without its being printed, will deputations be heard oh bill No. 21 when it is examined by the committee? If the rules of the house are to be flouted in that manner, will deputations who are affected by the financial aspects of the bill be heard? Is a quorum of eight out of twenty-three a majority of the committee?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: I say to my hon. friend that a committee of the house is the master of its own rules and proceedings. The committee is not one of which I am a member. I had no knowledge of its arrangements with respect to a quorum. I believe committees of the house usually see deputations, but it is a matter for the committee itself to decide.


Thomas Langton Church: The principle of the bill is adopted on second reading. You might as well refer the bill to a committee of one hundred.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is usual for the principle of a bill to be adopted on second reading. I suppose the principle was adopted, but the bill will come back to the committee of the -whole house to be examined section by section. The examination by the committee on railways and shipping is intended to be helpful rather than otherwise, in that members of the house are given the opportunity to debate the bill with a full knowledge of its provisions.


Thomas Langton Church: According to the rules of the house the principle of the bill is adopted on second reading, notwithstanding any reservations; the whole proceeding is out of order.

Demobilization-Army



WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, October 29, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures deemed necessary or advisable in consequence of the war- Mr. Usley-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

Mr. ARSENAULT:: At this point of the debate on army estimates, I wish to draw the attention of the house to certain facts and make a few suggestions in the light of two important events of recent years, events which, whether we desired them or not, made of Canada, not only a nation, but a nation occupying a most important strategical position among the other countries of the world.
The first of those two historic events occurred without conflict and without any shock. To begin with there was Canada's constitutional change from a crown colony to a sovereign and autonomous state. Then came the more and more preponderant part our country has played in international affairs. Finally, the last five years of war have made Canada a nation among other nations of the world, a nation which on the morroW will proudly confer the title of "Canadian citizen" on the peoples of this vast and rich country, a nation which will have its own flag and, I hope, its own national anthem.
If Canada is one of the smallest nations in respect of her population, she is-one of the largest in terms of her contribution to victory in the recent war, and precisely on account of her international status and her astonishing growth, she has contracted heavy obligations toward her own people as well as toward other countries of the world.
The second historic event seized the world with fright. The day the first atomic bomb burst with unbelievably destructive force on the Japanese city of Hiroshima a new world took shape before us, a world in which there is. no place for international isolationism; a world where human society, whether British, American, French, Chinese or Russian, is joined; a world where it will be necessary to find peace formulas more fruitful than those dictated by national or individual egoism. By reducing the city of Hiroshima to dust that day the atomic bomb made of a point north of Alberta a strategic position comparable with
Gibraltar, the Dardanelles or the Panama canal. In that area are located perhaps the richest deposits in the world of uranium pitchblende, the basic material used by science to fashion the most murderous and destructive war weapon the genius of man has ever invented. From a glance at the world map one realizes that these deposits lie much farther from eastern Canada, for instance, than from such other countries as United States and even Russia. This should give every one of us Canadians serious concern when we consider our wealth, the immense possibilities of our natural resources, and the unlimited potential power of this young nation of ours.
The time has come for us to realize, whether we be English or French speaking, that our rich country, due to the fundamental changes and scientific developments which have taken place in the world during the last five or six years, stands to-day as an open field almost beckoning an invitation to potential invaders. The importance of this blunt fact can never be over-emphasized. Therefore, because of Canada's strategic position in the world to-day; because of the vulnerability of her rich soil which stands as a target at the crossroads of modern warfare, and because of the unprecedented chaos in which the nations of the world find themselves to-day, Canadians soon will have to decide whether they should build and maintain a first class post-war military force to protect their territory and meet their obligations toward humanity, or whether they should leave this task to other friendly nations. The last alternative obviously would mean the eventual establishment in Canada of British or United States forces, if not international forces, commensurate -with our strategic importance and our wealth in uranium and natural resources.
This is the issue that will have to be faced sooner or later. Whatever we decide, we should break away from the past.. We should adopt a new mentality, the mentality of a nation which has reached maturity, a nation where isolationism in the future will never be able to find serious supporters, either in Quebec or elsewhere.
As far back as we can go in history there have always been wars. For thousands of years the world has survived only as the result of armistices. After every great war the world has lulled itself with wishful thinking that there would be no more wars, only to be brusquely awakened by the clatter of more and more destructive war machines. I am one of those who hold the strong belief that as war always came in the past, dangers of war
163C
Demobilization-Army

still lie ahead. We all believe that to a greater or less degree, otherwise we would not be debating the army estimates this afternoon. On October 11, in a statement issued by the Canadian press, General Crerar made the following declaration:
The time is long overdue when we Canadians should think mainly in terms of the next generation and not so importantly in terms of the next election.
Then he continued:
I plead for the abandonment of "wishful thinking" and a general realization on the part of all Canadians that for the future we must be able quickly to mobilize important and efficient armed forces if we are to do our share, not only in maintaining the civilization we have so far reached, but also in developing our social relationships, national and international, to a yet higher standard.
In the years preceding the last world war, Mr. Speaker, the entire democratic world was more or less Maginot-line minded. There is a danger to-day that we may become atomic-bomb minded. The atomic bomb is not an antidote to war; it would only make wars more destructive, more inhuman and more terrible. Thank God if the wisdom of democratic leaders can gear this world to permanent and enduring peace; but due to present imperialistic rivalries bluntly displayed by the failure of the recent five-power conference I am much more inclined to believe that, barring a miracle, to-day we stand much closer to a third world war than we stood to a second world war on armistice day,, 1918.
To be prepared for dangers which may come is of the utmost importance. (Canada had its experience with unpreparedness in the past. Lessons of history must signify something to our generation and to this parliament. Therefore, because Canada has now become an important nation, she needs a well-reorganized, well-equipped, well-trained and well-paid army. She needs a permanent army of which every Canadian can be proud; an army which should be made attractive to all young Canadians of whatever racial origin; a Canadian army which will be a sign of strength, not of weakness. Obviously all this will cost money, but it must not be forgotten that the price paid for the organization and maintenance of an army constitutes an insurance premium on a policy which all civilized and progressive nations of the world are called upon to pay for their own security as well as for the obligations contracted toward other friendly nations.
Now. as to the participation of French-Canadians in the Canadian army, I was indeed proud the other day to hear the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) pay an impressive tribute to the French-Canadian soldiers. The
fMr. Arsenault.]
hon. member recalled that it was at Passchen-daele in 1917 that he won the Victoria Cross while fighting with French-Canadians. Many of those who fought and died at Passchendaele were sons of Bonaventure constituency, which I represent in this chamber.
I was also much interested to hear the hon. member for Nanaimo give a striking description of the outstanding performance of the French-Canadian soldiers from Le Regiment de Hull stationed at Vernon and Courtenay, British Columbia in 1943, many hundreds of whom were also from Bonaventure county. The hon. member knows that French Canadians are not cowards, as they have been directly or indirectly described during the last few years for purposes of political expediency. The hon. member knows that French-speaking soldiers have always given proof of as much bravery on the battle-fields as have any other soldiers in the world. But those young men from Quebec are looking for leadership; you can lead them, but you cannot drive them Let us not claim equality of sacrifice from them if at the same time we are not'prepared to give them equality of opportunity. The other day questions were placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), the answers to which showed that there were more absent without leave from the army in the province of Quebec than m any other part of Canada. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are. Obviously there are; and I am surprised to see that there are not a greater number absent without leave to-day in Quebec considering the attitude of some politicians toward those young men in recent years, and the treatment given the young soldiers from Quebec in certain parts of this country during the last world war. '
I have here letters of protest signed by 133 French-Canadian soldiers stationed at Vernon, British Columbia, in 1944, describing to some extent the harsh treatment that those young men received who belonged to the N.R.M.A. personnel, under the Pacific command. Scores of protestations were sent to province of Quebec officials and newspapers by French-Canadian soldiers stationed at Vernon, Courtenay, and many other points in Canada during the last war. As a result the matter was brought up by provincial members in the Quebec legislature, and the Quebec city council repeatedly sought, under resolution moved by Alderman Joseph Matte, copies of which I have here, to have a royal commission set up to investigate the treatment of French-

Demobilization-Army
speaking soldiers. But the investigation was never granted. The defence minister of that time, Colonel Ralston, took the responsibility to refuse it repeatedly. French Canadians once more felt that they had been frustrated in the granting of most elementary rights.
A large number of these young men could not say two words in English, and were farmers' or fishermen's sons who in the first instance should never have been brought into the army. They had asked for farm leave, but their requests were always flatly, systematically and bluntly turned down by stupid officers, in spite of the right they had to be granted farm leaves. The first chance they had to go home, they went home and they stayed home. Who to-day should be surprised to find those unfortunate young men on the AWOL lists, considering that everything has been done to make them hate the Canadian army? Who should be scandalized when French-Canadian soldiers throughout the war were treated in this country as poor relatives, when they were not depicted as cowards, zombies or shirkers, and then to be offered on the very eve of Japanese surrender sermons on equality of sacrifice and conscription for Japan? Surely that is a discriminating situation.
Let us give the young men of Quebec equality of opportunity in a reorganized Canadian army, as free of stupid brass hats as possible, and no one will have to come along in Quebec and preach equality of sacrifice to them.
And yet to-day there are scores of young French Canadians who fought throughout the whole war with the R.C.A.F. who volunteered for service in the Pacific, and who are told that they must accept their discharge, despite their wish to stay in the permanent force. I also know numbers of brilliant French-speaking officers in the army who are desirous of following a military career, but they are flatly discarded by the brass hats. This is done in spite of this government's policy of establishing in Canada a military force in keeping with the importance of our country and of our obligations.
I know that the Minister of National Defence is doing some housecleaning at the present time. He certainly deserves the support of all parties in the house for his outstanding performance as an upright, courageous, effective, sincere and far-sighted Minister of National Defence.
And if the committee wants to hear more about French-speaking Canadians not having had equality of opportunity in the Canadian army, may I refer bon. members to the list of personnel at National Defence headquarters in Ottawa at the time Colonel Ralston was minister. The following is the list of personnel:
Principal Secretary:	Miss 0. J. Waters
Deputy Minister (C): Lt.-Col. G. S. Currie, Deputy Minister (D): Lt.-Col. H. Desrosiers, Assistant Deputy Minister: Mr. Jack Pembroke. Parliamentary Assistant to Minister: Mr. W. C. Macdonald. Military Secretary: Colonel H. A. Dyde. Judge Advocate-General:	Brigadier
R. J. Orde. Director of Public Relations: Colonel F. X. Jennings.
Of the nine members on the staff, only one, Lieut.-Col. Desrosiers, was French Canadian.
Of the seventeen members on the branch of the general staff, there was not one French Canadian.
Of the twenty-eight members of the branch of the AdjutanLGeneral, only two were French Canadians, namely the Vice-Adjutant General, Brigadier M. Noel and the Director of Records, Col. C. L. Laurin.
Of the ten members on the branch of the Quartermaster-general, there was not one French Canadian.
Of the seventeen members in the branch of the Master-General of the Ordnance, again there was not one French Canadian.
The grand total for national defence headquarters in Ottawa stands at three French Canadians out of a total of 72. Is that what can be termed a Canadian partnership? And the same discriminatory situation applied all the way down the list, as far down as that little Quebec farmer's son who did not speak English, and found himself lost, hundreds if not thousands of miles away from his home, where he was often requested to speak "white", or had to hunt for a translator to try to explain his wants, if not his grievances, to the officers-some intelligent and broadminded, and others very stupid and narrowminded, but who, whether intelligent or stupid, did not know his mentality and were not in a position to find out what his aptitudes were because they did not understand his language.
It is under such circumstances that a certain category of politician during these last years has thought it a very smart idea to try to climb to power by representing the young men of Quebec as being disloyal at a time when scores of French Canadians were merely the victims of a disgraceful system and others of a stupid, shameful and anti-Canadian boycott in the Canadian army. Their plea for

Demobilization-Army

equality of sacrifice, made in a way which was interpreted in Quebec and outside of Quebec as being directed against Quebec, did not carry them very far. They had been warned over and over again of the depth of the ditch into which they were heading, but instead of taking the advice of the man on the street, they listened to the sweet whisperings of the men of Bay street.
But they learned at their own expense that there was no anti-Quebec faction in this country or among the servicemen which amounted to anything worth while. They were also bluntly told by the electorate on the same day that no political party can ever dream of getting into power or being maintained in office in Canada without securing a fair support from the French-speaking population of this country and that, in order to win that support, one must deserve it.
If human means can achieve equality of sacrifice on earth, and I do not know of any gauge yet invented by man to measure it, it will be achieved in our country the day equality of opportunity is assured to all young Canadians; of whatever racial extraction, creed or language. Therefore I submit that we should undertake a complete reorganization of our militia system, getting rid of anything that tends to restrict the army to the time-worn system of other years and taking the necessary steps to give French Canadians equality of opportunity in the Canadian army. I urge that a French-Canadian college, similar to the Royal Military College at Kingston, be established in the province of Quebec. In order to create a better feeling and improve harmony and efficiency, I suggest that members of both the permanent and reserve forces be given their training in various provinces and that all officers having French-speaking Canadians under their command be bilingual.
This would help young men from all parts of Canada to understand the problems of each other. It would provide an excellent opportunity for an important section of our population to learn both official languages of this country. This in turn would lead to greater unity. We will need greater unity because no one dare say that Canada may' not be the battlefield in another world war. Until now we have always thought of raising armed forces to fight in other countries in wars that at times appeared to be the business of others rather than our own. We know that our forces overseas helped to keep war away from this continent, but in the next war it is quite

possible that this fair land of ours will be one of the first to be attacked, not because of any particular animosity toward our people but because of the riches of our uranium deposits, our industrial possibilities, and the wealth of our resources. I think our returning veterans will agree that if another war should come, Canada will not go unscathed.
Speaking of veterans, and this is my last word, I would urge that we do all possible to help them rehabilitate themselves and that we see that they do not suffer as a result of their absence on the most unselfish job man ever took, that of offering his life for the happiness of others. If we treat our veterans rightly, they will be the leaders in the spreading of unity throughout the country. Then with our own national flag, our own national anthem and a truly Canadian mentality, w:e will be able to march shoulder to shoulder to that place in international affairs that belongs rightly to a young, virile and ambitious nation such as ours.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Mr. Chairman, we have heard a very strong plea for the consideration of one phase of national unity. I think this is one to which the minister probably will reply or in respect to which he will at least make some comment. Since the question of discrimination has been raised I am taking this opportunitj'' of bringing the attention of this committee to another form of discrimination, that is, discrimination in our army because of the unpopularity of a young man's political views. We like to think of Canada's army as a citizens' army, an army in which every young man, regardless of his political views, will have exactly the same opportunity and be given the same sort of square deal.
I regard it as unfortunate that during this war we did not follow the example set by the army of Great Britain. They encouraged every sort of discussion, including mock parliaments, in the British army, and a man was not penalized because he discussed current affairs from any point of view. We all remember the story of the eighth army in north Africa when a mock parliament was established at Cairo and the outcry there was when it was proposed to discontinue that type of discussion. I have good reason to believe that in our army, men who held views that were not alw'ays acceptable or in conformity with the status quo were sometimes penalized. In order to make myself clear I am going to cite one particular case of which I have intimate knowledge.
I am thinking of a young man who was a student at Queen's university. When he became of age he enlisted as a private in this

Demobilization-Army
city. He trained first of all with the armoured corps at Camp Borden. He was recommended for training as an officer at Gordon Head, British Columbia. He graduated from there as a second lieutenant. He was then returned to Camp Borden to qualify as a first lieutenant and was there for five months. At the end of the five months the young man was reported as having failed to qualify for the full lieutenancy and was struck off strength and sent to the Ottawa depot for disposal. At Ottawa he appeared before Brigadier Armstrong and was informed that he was released from the army, to be subject to recall under the mobilization act. The reason given was that he was incompetent as an officer. Now by chance this young man's father had an apartment to let, the mother having died. It was advertised, and one of the gentlemen who came to see if the apartment was suitable was a brigadier from national defence headquarters-I may as well be specific; it was Brigadier Nash. Knowing the father, he drew the boy's file, and he told the lad's father that this young man was reported to have extremely radical tendencies, that it was alleged he had incited troops to disorder, was incompetent as an officer, and had failed to pass the required examinations at Camp Borden. Now the only possible explanation was that this young man, who is known to me as a very quiet lad.-one who never took any particular interest in politics although his father was a former member of parliament-on one occasion, when there was a discussion group, joined in a discussion on the employment prospects which were likely to be found following the war; and it was undoubtedly on the basis of what happened on that occasion that this young man was let out or about to be let out of the army, to be recalled under the mobilization act. Fortunately the brigadier to whom I have just referred knew this boy's background and decided to give him another chance. He was transferred to the infantry camp at Aldershot, Nova Scotia. Before he went he was advised by national defence headquarters to ibe inconspicuous in his behaviour and to be generally pretty quiet, with the result that he failed to qualify at Aldershot, and when he inquired the reason, the reason he was given was that he was too quiet and had not enough initiative. He presented his case to the commanding officer at Aldershot, who overruled the recommendation that had been made to him, and the young man qualified as a lieutenant, against the reports which were made concerning him that he was not suitable officer material and so on.
In 1944 this young man proceeded overseas and took a commission in the British army. He served in all the major campaigns against Germany as a combat officer in the 21st army 47696-1041
group sector, and he was slightly wounded on D-day. When he recovered he volunteered for the airborne troops. He was at Arnhem. One of the war records photographs of the imperial army shows this young man with his rifle, and under it is the explanation that he was the last man to defend the headquarters at Arnhem. He attempted to escape from the Germans, and was captured when crossing a river. He was placed on a train, and with other persons he escaped from the train. He joined the Dutch underground1, and after several weeks of operations with the Dutch underground he succeeded in regaining the British lines; and then, because of his initiative and ability he was asked if 'he would work in Intelligence No. 9. I am quite sure that some of the military men here know the implication-of "Intelligence No. 9': as a matter of fact, highly dangerous work, highly secret work, operating week in and week out with the underground movement except for the times when they came out from behind the enemy lines; and for the remainder of the war this young man was constantly doing intelligence work behind the German lines.
I have seen his pass, which he brought back [DOT] with him, signed personally by General Eisenhower. It gives this young man the right to pass at any time through the allied lines without question, to requisition at any time any facilities he might require, whether it were a jeep, an automobile, or a plane, and that if he were accompanied, as the pass indicates, by persons in civilian clothes they were to pass through, if he vouched for them, without any further question. This young man was subsequently promoted to captain and-incidentally-awarded the Military Cross. While I am not advertising the book, he was requested by Macmillans Limited, a large publishing firm in Great Britain, who knew his story, to write the story, which is about to be published under the title of "Escape from Arnhem." Now, when he got back to the Canadian army, again he was reduced in rank to that of lieutenant, this being the rank he was given upon his return to Canada. The minister and his predecessor tell me, of course, that that is quite the normal procedure, that there is no authority to confirm that rank; and I am not complaining about that now. All I am doing this afternoon is to point out that here we have a young Canadian who has rendered very distinguished services to the country in this war;, he had initiative; he had everything that went to make a good officer, but because he was alleged to have extremely radical tendencies-


An hon. MEMBER:: C.C.F.?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Yes, C.C.F.
Demobilization-Army


Mr. WHITMAN:: Why did they not send him to China?


Major James William Coldwell: He was let out of the army; and I have been toldi on the highest authority-I will use just that term-that this is not the only case of that type.


Frederick Primrose Whitman: They should have sent him to the Chinese embassy.


Major James William Coldwell: I know the reference. I suppose some of my hon. friends are annoyed because a man of outstanding ability in this country, one of the few men born and educated in China, and who can speak the Chinese language fluently, Squadron Leader Chester Homing has been given a position by the government to go to Chungking, in spite of the fact that he is a C.C.F. supporter.


Frederick Primrose Whitman: We are not annoyed.


Major James William Coldwell: Any man who happens to be a member of this organization has to have pretty high qualifications to get a position of that kind.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: He would not be a member if he had the highest qualifications.


Major James William Coldwell: We will let that be a matter of opinion. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I am bringing this story to the attention of the committee because I feel this way about it: if we are to have a people's army fighting a people's cause, if we are to have a citizens' army, we must see to it (a) that the army is under the control of the representatives of the people-in other words, that is answerable to this House of Commons; for we cannot afford to establish any armed force which is not under the control of this parliament; and (b) that in this army men have the right to express themselves, the right to discuss questions as other citizens have the right to discuss them, because they have to come back and live among their fellow citizens after the wars are over. We hope there will never be another war. But in order that they may exercise the rights and duties of Canadian citizens they should not merely be permitted but be given every facility to know the problems of their own country, to discuss those problems intelligently, and, like all others, to come to an intelligent conclusion.
I thought it best to discuss this matter not in a general way but by placing before the committee a case, every sentence of which can be authenticated from the records. I do not need to put the name on record; I will give it to the minister privately. That may be the way to deal with it. But instead of chewing over matters of past policy, I suggest that we try to formulate in our department of
[Mr. Coldweil.l
defence a policy that is consonant with the ideals of most of the young men and women who fought for this country in the last war; and to my mind that can be done only by building up an army that is a citizen's army in which men and, as far as there are women in the army, women as well, are free to think and to discuss the problems of the day and of their own country.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: I wish to make only a brief comment on the remarks which have just been made by the member for Rosetown-Biggar. I followed with a great deal of interest his statement of the case of a particular officer whom he had in mind, and I am sure he knows I agree with him, as I believe every hon.. member agrees, that political opinions should not be made the basis for discrimination in any Canadian army. Any cases that come to my attention, and I have no doubt that any that came to the attention of any of my predecessors, were promptly and fully investigated. But I suppose we have to realize that in an army of two, three or four hundred thousand men, with a very large number of officers, and human nature being what it is, there will be some officers who do not adhere as strictly as they should to the principles which we here think should be followed. So far as all of us here are concerned, however, so far as I am concerned, no question of promotibn or advancement shall be affected by means of political opinions.
As to the right to express political opinions in the army, I agree so far as citizen soldiers are concerned. I am not quite so sure about the relatively small professional army which we have. It has always seemed to me that the officers of the army should be pretty much on the same basis as civil servants, and I think it is at least open to question whether fulltime soldiers, members of the permanent forces, while such, should take active part in party political discussions. I think there is a good deal to be said against it. They have never done so in the past, any more than members of the permanent civil service are allowed to do it. But with that reservation I agree that members of the citizen army should be free to express political opinions and that members of political parties should engage in political discussion without prejudicing their position in the army.


Mr. GARDINER:: I do not know that I should take part in a discussion of the estimates which are now before the house, but in listening to the story which has just been told I thought that something should be said with regard to the matter itself which is under

Demobilization-Army
discussion. In the first place, I cannot think of any reason why a man with the record which has just been given to this house should have any objection whatsoever to having his name presented. I think he should consider it an honour to have his name presented anywhere.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say that I withheld it on my own initiative. I am quite prepared to give the name. It is Captain Leo Heaps.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, with the name before the house, most hon. members who have been here for some years will know of course that he is the son of a previous member of this house, as has been stated. But it was not that in particular that I wished to bring to the attention of the house. It is the fact that, one can check the record of any organization in this country, army or otherwise, and find young men who have entered upon a profession or into an activity in connection with politics, it might be, or in connection with anything else, who in the early stages of their endeavours were not as successful as they were in later years or even in later months. As a matter of fact, one has only to read history to know that men even as great as Lord Clive had some very difficult experiences in the army and elsewhere, though eventually they had a very enviable record and one which made them famous in history. And so there is nothing at all unusual about that.
But the suggestion has been made-and I presume it was for that reason that the speech was delivered-that someone somewhere objected to men being in the army who had the views that were held by persons such as Mr. Heaps, while he was in this house-and I presume his son holds similar views. All one needs to do is to check the records over a very short time to know that there has been no such thing in the army during this war. There may be individuals who for one reason or another were barred from making advancement in certain directions in certain places, but anyone who examines the records knows that some of the highest officials of the organization which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldiwell) leads, the C.C.F., have been advanced along the way, in the army and in association with organizations connected with it, without any obstruction whatsoever, when everyone in this country knew their views, not only those who were in the army but those outside it as well. No less a person than one of the members of the government of Saskatchewan had a record in the army, where he was advanced from one position to another. I have no doubt he gave good
service. He went overseas, came back, ran an election and is in the government. Everyone knew what he was before he went away, and everyone knows what he is since his return. I refer to Mr. Sturdy. But there are others even in this house who have advanced views from the floor of the house, very freely from time to time, and who had exactly the same experience in the army, and their views were just as radical as those of any man who has been spoken of this afternoon.
Mr. COLD'WELL: But his views were not radical; that is the point.


James Garfield Gardiner: Maybe they were not, and that is all the more reason for saying that he was not refused promotion for being radical.


Major James William Coldwell: That was the reason given, though.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those men who have been advanced in the army were known to be what is called radical. I do not know whether my hon. friend vrould agree that they are radical, but the views he is speaking of, the views held by C.C.F. members in this house and outside, are sometimes spoken of as being radical, and I have never heard that radical views of the C.C.F. ever prevented anyone getting anywhere in the army.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Just from getting into the House of Commons.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact the main complaint that you hear from time to' time is that there are far too many of them in the army in different parts. My friends over on the other side of the house have been, bragging, ever since the war started, that they could command more votes in the army than anyone else.


Mr. WRIGHT:: More of the privates.


James Garfield Gardiner: If they could command more votes than anyone else I do not see that anyone was being obstructed on entering the army and proceeding along the line of advancement as rapidly as others who had other political views.
I do not know why the speech was made; I can conceive of its being made except for one purpose only, namely, a political purpose, and therefore I made the observations which I have made as a check upon it.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, the
speech was not made for a political purpose.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes, it was.


Major James William Coldwell: The speech was made with deliberate intent to do something else. It was made with the deliberate intent to put
Demobilization-Army

before the committee the idea that if we are to have an army in Canada, let it be a citizens' army where there is freedom of speech, and freedom of discussion. That was the object I had in mind. I thought I could attain it best "by putting this case before the committee. Let me say to the minister that he missed my point in that regard. I rose to .make that point, and if I did not succeed in making it, well, then, I should regard my remarks as having failed in the objective I had in mind, because I think that in the future it is important that we shall have men and women in the army who, if war comes, understand what they are fighting for and the implications of what they are fighting for.
The minister himself says that in the small professional army there might be some reason why the men who are in that army should not take part in active political discussions, because they are in the position of civil servants. I myself have always wondered why civil servants should be debarred from discussing political affairs. The more we get socialized industry and socialized organizations, even under the present government, the more we shall find that a large number of our .ablest citizens are debarred from taking an active interest in the affairs of their country. To my mind that is all wrong.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Do you advocate
socialism?


Major James William Coldwell: I advocate what I
believe to be right.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: So everybody should .shut up?


Major James William Coldwell: No. Of course, this lion, gentlemen apparently imagines that a loud voice makes up for everything else. But I want to tell him that behind the voice you have to have some ideas; and those of us-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You are not very
effective.


Major James William Coldwell: Those of us who are called socialists at least have some ideas; otherwise we would not be content to be in the organization of which we are a part. But what I want to impress upon the committee is that in my opinion there should be absolute freedom among our men and women in the armed forces. I know there has been an unwritten rule-I believe it is unwritten-that in an officers' mess, for example,'politics shall not be discussed. I am not sure whether religion is not in the same category.


An hon. MEMBER:: And women.


Major James William Coldwell: There may be other matters, too.
tMr. Coldwell.l


Frederick Primrose Whitman: Did not that apply during the war?	[DOT]


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, I am told that so far as politics were concerned it did apply during the war. In my opinion, if we are to have a citizens' army-and it is the only kind of army we should tolerate in this country- it should be under the control of the representatives of the people, and not under the control of any military hierarchy. All Canadians must have freedom of speech and freedom of discussion.


Mr. ADAMSON:: I find myself in substantial agreement with what the leader of the C.C.F. has just said. I know this may be a surprise to many hon. members; nevertheless I know something of the case which he has just mentioned. At one time I happened to be in the branch of the service which he mentions, and I happen to know the group in Camp Borden which were having these discussions. I attended some of those meetings. They were led by various officers. At one time they were led effectively by one of the padres at Camp Borden; they discussed political problems, and covered a very wide field. Naturally a report of those meetings was submitted to the district officers commanding and to National Defence Headquarters; and these meetings probably horrified the permanent force senior officers, because possibly rightly and possibly not, they considered policies as something that was never discussed in military life. I do not know that there was an adverse report made, but there was a great deal of adverse comment about the meetings of those groups at Camp Borden. The report came to me, and being a politician myself I could see no possible-


Mr. MacNICOL:: A statesman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Agar Rodney Adamson: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Where?


Agar Rodney Adamson: And certainly I have
made no attempt at any time, whether in the service or out of it, to withhold any condemnation or disapproval of actions of the past and present government. But this was something new; those discussion groups were something that was unknown to the permanent force officers. I believe that they did a lot of good. I believe they showed what the troops were thinking: I believe they gave the staff a far more useful cross-section of the opinion in the army than a great many other methods which were tried to evaluate morale.
The war just concluded was not like the previous war. In a camp such as Borden the officers do not know what the men are thinking; in a training camp, where the soldiers are constantly passing through, the officers have very little opportunity to get to know the men. There will be a draft going through every two or three weeks or even oftener. Training camp life differs greatly from regimental life where the officers know the men intimately. I believe those discussions, even though sometimes they were quite frankly radical, were a good thing, and I should like to commend the leader of the C.C.F. party for having brought this subject to the attention of the committee. This is one of the few occasions on which I have agreed with that party at all. We had a citizen army, and though we wore uniforms we were still citizens of the country, and could not be expected to refrain from expressing our political views.


Mr. BAKER:: It is hard to be seen down at this end of the chamber, Mr. Chairman; this is my fourth attempt to get the floor, and at last I have succeeded. First I want to say
that some remarks were made from the other side of the house yesterday to the effect that it rather seemed there were not many members on this side of the house speaking on national defence matters. There are a few over here, such as the hon. member for Fraser Valley and myself, who are inclined to be a little bit shy, but after a while we will improve.
I think we all agree that during the war the Canadian army was very efficient. The first Canadian corps marched side by side with the eighth army, and was quite as efficient as that army, by which it was highly regarded. It formed an integral part of that wronderful fighting force, which will go down through the ages as one of the most famous in the Briitsh empire. The Canadian army was also part of the 21st army group in northwest Europe, where it made an enviable reputation for itself. It will be known wherever the 21st army group is known; I think we can all agree on that.
I want to get down to a few basic facts, because after all we are really discussing these estimates and I do not think it is fair to digress too much, since time is precious. One question I should like to bring up is the matter of military law, which I think in its application should be streamlined in relation to active service. This is something I always hoped to have a chance to have discussed in this House of Commons, not knowing I would be able to do it myself. During a campaign, officers should not be called from duty with fighting units to act on courts martial. There should be mobile courts composed of men trained for the job, men who could be sent out to units from time to time to get unit training if that should be considered necessary to advance their general knowledge as far as dealing out jurisprudence is concerned. I believe that if we had these mobile courts of inquiry or courts martial we would find that the justice meted out would be more equal. I maintain that officers who are not fully conversant with the procedure of courts martial and who are suddenly called in to sit on a court are rather at a loss; I believe most of the former officers in this house will agree with that statement. So I hope the legal procedure as it refers to the army will be streamlined in the near future.
One other point I should like to bring up, which I mentioned in another place to-day, is in relation to the term "brass hats". We all use that phrase and have a good laugh. I know most people use it to refer to a certain type of officer, but I maintain that expression should not be used so generally, because the so-called brass hats with whom I have had anything to do have been very able leaders, men I have been glad to follow through the
163S
Demobilization-Army

campaigns in Italy and northwest Europe. They really knew their jobs. Many of them have worked their way up, some even coming from the ranks. Therefore we should not use that term so generally in this house and have it get into the press, because then the rear rank private, the gunner or the sapper, as the case may be, reads in the newspapers about the brass hats and says, "Those are the fellows leading us." In all fairness I ask hon. members to be very careful in using that phrase.
Then I want to say that you must trust your officers who are on the ground. If officers who are actually in the theatre of war or, as is the case now, in the army of occupation in Europe, make suggestions, let us not throw those suggestions out and say they only come from brass hats. Of course this house can throw out any suggestion it chooses, but we should give them due consideration because otherwise we simply undermine the discipline and strength of the men who are carrying on the administration overseas. Anyone who has had the control of troops in foreign countries, particularly when they have come out to rest after hard fighting, realizes what a difficult problem it is to deal with those men. You must be tactful; you must be firm; you must be a doctor, a lawyer, an Indian chief; you have to be everything in order to keep those men happy and out of trouble. If the officers who are overseas send back suggestions, as they have in connection with this point system, certainly those suggestions should be considered. Yesterday we were told the names of the officers who had worked out the point system. They are all officers for whom I have ' the highest regard, and for whom I think everyone in this house has a great deal of respect. I do not say their suggestions should become hard and fast rules, but following the request of hon. members opposite the minister nas stated that he will inquire into this matter. If the overseas officers still say the point sj'stem is satisfactory, then let us examine it very carefully before we disagree with them.
I am not saying it is right or wrong; I think the minister is following the proper course in referring the matter to the officers actually concerned, upon the suggestion coming from the other side of the house.
Now I should like to say a wrord or two regarding the future of the army. I believe we must develop our N.P.A.M. along modernized lines, and must consider it a necessary part of the army. This is a very important matter, and these N.P.A.M. units should not be run like clubs. I know there is a certain amount of club life in connection with them, rMr. Baker.]
but they must be efficient, well trained units; they must be provided with proper training centres, and we must not stint their supplies of ammunition and other types of equipment. I feel this can be done. I also hope the 'Canadian army will continue its research work, because that is most necessary. The allied armies picked up a good many pointers from Jerry in this last war, and that should not be the case; we should always be one jump ahead of any potential enemies, if at all possible.
With regard to political discussions in the army, I was interested in what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) had to say. But political discussions as such, that is straight party discussions, as I see it cannot be permitted in a permanent force, inasmuch as these men are servants of the crown and that army is fighting for the crown, not for any political party. We have seen what has happened in Central and South American countries when politics have become rife in the army; inevitably there has been trouble. The same thing happened in Russia many years ago, as will be remembered by anyone who has read Russian history. Therefore I say political discussions as such should mot take place in any mess, mess hall or other meeting place of that kind; but I do maintain that you can discuss the issues of the day, as we did in Europe. We had what we called the A.B.C.A., which is familiar to many hon. members; that is the army bureau of current affairs, which covered a broad field in a most interesting way. I found that if officers really wanted to do their work and took an interest in their men, the men enjoyed it. They might ask questions which the officers could not answer, but they would try to get the answers later. Then we also had "Canadian Current Affairs" sent to us. I think all troops should be encouraged to study political issues in a broad'way, but we must not bring the party element into it, so long as those men are in the employ of the crown. I believe there is no need to emphasize that point further. In view of what has happened to political armies in other countries it must be realized that that is a dangerous procedure, whereas in the British army they did not have that trouble. Politics, religion and women's names are good things to be left out of the mess.
Having covered the main points in which I was interested, I would ' also say that we should try to have more French-speaking officers in the Canadian army. I am not so sure that I agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Bonaventure that French-speaking Canadians should have a separate military

Demobilization-Army
college. If that were done, it seems to me that instead of getting together we would drift apart. It could be made compulsory that a military college be bilingual, but if we were to set up two separate colleges we would have-two separate establishments; we would not be getting together at all. I offer this only as a suggestion-and I hope my suggestions have been constructive.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: I had not intended to take part in this debate, and in saying that I believe I am following the example of many hon. members in the chamber who then have launched into forty-minute speeches. I must frankly say, however, that I am baffled by army procedure. My own service has acted in a sensible and logical manner and, as an air force man, I am glad to follow it. Further, I should be quite content to leave these army estimates to the many military authorities in the house, whose numbers apparently have been greatly increased since the last election.
Last night I was sitting here quietly, minding my own business and keeping my mouth shut-


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is strange.


James Sinclair: However, the comments of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and the hon. member
for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) have placed me in the debate ; they have urged that I declare my stand on repatriation of these N.R.M.A. personnel.
As the committee knows, during the conscription debate I expressed positive views in respect of this so-called two-army army. I stated last fall, and I still say, that I do' not believe in a system of that kind, and especially at this time I think that any system which permits the return of N.R.M.A. soldiers who have been sent overseas-whether they have gone active or remained N.R.M.A. soldiers-ahead of volunteers, is wrong. This afternoon I have read this pamphlet on army points score, and, as I said earlier, I am even more baffled than ever by this apparently very ' complicated score system.
In my speeches on military matters in the house in the last five years I have at all times urged, in the interests of all men in the services, that there be a certain consistency in the conditions of service. Last year I recited at length the advantages gained by the men who served in the air force, as compared with those gained by men serving in the army and navy. I argued, of course, that the army and navy should lift their standards.
This matter of repatriation for air force personnel has been handled in a very simple
manner, and one which is consistent with the accepted policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs. There they pay $7.50 a month gratuity for volunteer service in Canada and $15 per month for service overseas-a one-to-two point score: And so it is in the air force. We give one point for home service and two points for overseas. I assume it would be preferable if we could make a provision for, first of all, combat service. But, even in the air force, where it is generally accepted that service in aircrew is combat service and service in ground crew is non-combatant, that system does not apply, because there are ground crew who have seen more combatant service than have some members of air crew. And so that broad principle which has been so well accepted by the troops as a ground for gratuities I think might well have been adopted not only by the air force-as it has been-but by the army, too, as a general policy, subject of course to the conditions of need of long-service men in key positions from time to time, and of course subject to the fact that returning army units as regiments, such as the Seaforths of Vancouver, is a most desirable thing.
I do not believe any N.R.M.A. soldier should receive any points at all for the time he spent in Canada as a conscript. I am quite sure that if the army would adopt this system, most of the present complaints against the return of these N.R.M.A. men overseas, who have piled up a large point score because of long service as conscripts in Canada, could be avoided.
I have one other suggestion-one which has already been made. On some occasions I have claimed that N.R.M.A. personnel were of no use to Canada in a time of war. Now I think they could be used even to a greater degree, perhaps, than the fighting troops. They could be used as occupational troops, because they have occupied Canada with great ease for the last four years. I say they are far better fitted to serve as occupational troops in Europe to-day. They certainly are lacking in points, if we wipe out the points for service in Canada, but they have had long military training-we cannot say they are untrained. I should like to see the minister announce a set policy of sending the remaining 35,000 overseas, so that he might not release them to industry, and so that he might return our low-point volunteers home as quickly as possible.
Before taking my seat I should like to make one further remark about the remarks of my
Demobilization-Army

young and gallant friend from Kamloops. Speaking last night the hon. member referred to me in this way:
, Mr. Fulton: How does the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) feel about it? We used to get his letters-and I am not criticizing him personally-saying how much the government was going to do for the men who were carrying the country's burdens in the field of battle.
I believe certain hon. members might have gained the impression that I had been publicly canvassing the troops with political dodgers on behalf of the government. Let me assure the house that that is far from the truth. During my own service in Libya I found that members in my squadron knew absolutely nothing about what the government was planning for us, and I pledged myself that upon my return I would see to it that, every member in my squadron should receive government literature on the subject. With that in mind I sent that literature to every soldier from my constituency, and to many in the Seaforths. I sent particularly that little booklet "Back to Civil Life", and various publications of the soldier settlement board, showing what the government was doing. Hon. members opposite will remember that my remarks were more critical than laudatory wdien I spoke last year.
I should like to correct the impression gained by the hon. member for Kamloops that these letters were of a political nature. I was pleased however to find that he had remembered them. Apparently he prized [DOT] them so highly that he still treasures and remembers them. For that I am grateful.
Then, I have one further reference which the young member made-and perhaps I should not be so patronizing, because I am only a little senior to him, but to become patronizing is an easy habit. to develop. I refer to his comment at page 1613 of Hansard, where he is reported to have said:
I wish to associate myself most wholeheartedly with what has just been said by the hon. member for Vancouver South, and to say how much more I feel as I felt sometimes when we were overseas, that it is nice to know there are one or two individuals in this House of Commons who have the interests of the men overseas at heart

As a member of the house who is only slightly senior to the hon. member for Kamloops I should like to assure him that it has been my experience during my five years in the house that it has not been only one or two members who had at heart the interests of the fighting men, but almost every member, without exception, on the government side, among the Tories, the C.C.F. and the Social Credit. All of them had the interests of the

fighting men at heart. And, more than that, they felt that way, whether or not they had served in the armed forces. I hope the hon. member will take that assurance from me. ' I do not say this in any spirit of reproof, but I say it as something which comes from one British Columbian to another.
I know that on occasions in the house he has been chided by the Prime Minister and by other senior members. I have great sympathy with him in that connection, because in my first session I had the same experience. The hon. member and myself have a great deal in common, perhaps more than the committee realizes. We are both British Columbians, we have the same educational background, we are both veterans, we both have a certain confidence in that we defeated sitting members of this house, and we both in a sense have been in the opposition. At that time I sat in almost the same seat as the hon. member, and when you face the government you are a little more critical than when you sit with them. I can assure him that I have great sympathy with him. However, he may not fully appreciate that sympathy so I would like to go just a little further. If five years from now, when the next parliament of 1950 is sitting, another bright Rhodes scholar comes down from the west and sits in this house and-with all the arrogan-ce Of youth and the assurance that comes from membership in the Oxford Union he proceeds to pontificate in lordly fashion on all public issues, then I hope the hon. member for Kamloops will reflect then as I have reflected now, "Was I really like that my first session?"


Mr. FULTON:: I can assure the hon. member for Vancouver North that I take in very good part the remarks he has made this afternoon. However, there are one or two mis-impressions, if I may so refer to them, that I should like to correct. Any little facility that I may have in this house is certainly not derived from the Oxford Union. I want that to be cleared up at the outset. As a matter of fact it was the members of my college who went into the Oxford Union and removed a certain page from the book.
With regard to the question of the letters sent out by the hon. member for Vancouver North, may I say that I recall them with a great deal of pleasure. Apparently he does not realize the efficiency with which his organization worked, because I received a letter addressed to me personally. I thought I had been careful in my remarks to point out that the hon. member himself was not promising anything. He was, as he pointed out, simply saying what the government had

Demobilization-Army
in mind in bringing to our attention the statement which had been made as to what was being done for those .overseas. If the misapprehension existed in his mind or in the mind of any hon. member of this house that I intended to say he was making promises, and I do not even say that the promises are not going to be kept-


James Sinclair: They have been kept.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -I am glad to have that misapprehension removed.
I should like to say a few words with regard to my statement last night. Attention has been focussed, partly by the hon. member for Vancouver North, on the first part of my remarks. I said, as reported on page 1613 of Hansard:
-there are one or two individuals in this House of Commons who had the interests of the men overseas at heart-[DOT]
As I set out immediately after I had made that first remark, I was referring to the hon. member for Vancouver South. I then went on to say:
-and who would not be howled down, as an attempt was made to do to-night when they rose to speak about them.
As I pointed out later to the hon. member for Fraser Valley, I had made no distinction. Perhaps I was less than generous in saying '"one or two individuals". As I explained to him, I made that remark with a certain thing in mind and I wish now to make up for any lack of generosity on my part on that occasion by saying there were certainly more than one or two members, and I know full well there were members on all sides of the house, who had the interest of the men overseas at heart.


Mr. WINTERS:: Mr. Chairman, I have heard a great deal of discussion on these estimates, and I find it hard to agree that in most cases the discussion has been relevant to the estimates under consideration. Often it has been on specific points of the estimates, but in many instances it has had nothing to do with the estimates or with army matters. Hon. members have engaged in personalities and the discussion of other points. I will -state at the outset that I shall try to confine myself to the army estimates on the basis of the broad presentation brought down by the minister.
Much of what I have heard so far has been criticism, so I should like to start off with the unique statement that I think the minister has done a good job and I think the Department of National Defence has done a good job. I have no doubt the minister has done the best job possible with -the information
available to him. As you all know, when you approach any problem you have to take the facts at your disposal. The minister has said that he cannot complete arrangements for the post-war army until our commitments abroad are known. That is what I refer to when I say that he has done the best he could with the information available to him at this time.
We have heard a great deal of discussion about the repatriation system. I think there could have been improvements here; I think that we should have given more weighting to the man who had been in combat, but we must recognize the fact that well over 100,000 -I think the correct figure is around 110,000- troops have been returned since V-E day. The men of the services are being released at a rate in excess of 2,000 a day, which is pretty fair.
I was particularly pleased that the minister in his statement cleared up certain points about the interim army. I made the statement previously that the programme as it stood was not good enough because it would not encourage the right type of man to enter the service.
I am glad the minister has stated that he will outline a firm policy on the army by March 31, and if at that time those in the interim army are not satisfied with conditions, they will be released from their terms of service. I think that will be helpful in bringing a better type of man into the service.
The minister went on to say that pay and allowance would be considered carefully, that the pay to be given to the man in the service would be good pay. I think we should go one step farther and place equal emphasis on the fact that in addition to being well paid, the service must be an efficient service. The two go hand in hand. We must be prepared to pay if we want the right type of people. We have to sell to the public the idea that service in the armed forces is service to the people, and we have to be prepared to pay on a scale comparable to what a man with corresponding ability would get in industry or some other civilian occupation. The minister in introducing his estimates set forth one condition of service which to my mind is indefinite. He said, as reported on page 1135 of Hansard:
Anyone who has been accepted for the interim force will be accepted into the permanent force, subject of course to continued good conduct, satisfactory medical category and military efficiency of the individual.
Knowing something of the attitude of the soldier to the interim army, I cannot say that that statement as it reads in Hansard is selective enough. I do not believe it will screen the more desirable types from the less desirable. I think that the minister will take care
Demobilization-Army

of that situation and that we can rely on him to get the right type of man into the service, notwithstanding the apparent openness of that condition.
As to the size of the permanent force, the minister has stated that it will be between
20,000	and 25,000, all ranks. I am not of course in a position to say whether that is large enough or whether it is too large. I am one of those who believe that we should have a reasonably large permanent force. I do not believe that the development of new weapons, even including the atomic bomb, will greatly reduce the demand for holding forces such as will be required in the event that there is another war.
' The minister announced these figures to indicate what we may expect in our establishments. But I should like to make this point, that I do not think the statement of over-all establishments means much to the individual. What the individual wants to know is what job he will have to do and how much he will be paid for doing that job. I would recommend, therefore, that the minister at the earliest possible date break down these overall figures into basic unit establishments and attempt to bring the strengths of all units up to establishments as soon as possible.
There is another clause which is set forth on page 1133 of Hansard, where it is stated: Resumption of university or equivalent higher education has also been made a basis for immediate discharge and while this may be extended to a limited degree with respect to secondary schools, it does not include resumption of technical or business training.
I think the extension of the concession to secondary school training is well worth while. Several such instances have been referred to me and I in turn have mentioned them to the minister. It is probably more important to a man who left high school to be returned to continue his high school training, than is the remainder of his course to a man who has probably only one year to go at college. That is a very important concession on the part of the minister, and one with which I am pleased.
Again, the minister set forth on page 1134 of Hansard several reasons for which extended leave with pay and. allowances could be granted. Among those he lists compassionate leave, farm leave, hog, dairy and beef production and so on, and at the end of it he says "et cetera". I notice, having due regard to my constituency, that fishing is not listed there; I hope it is included in the "et cetera", and I have reason to believe that the minister will regard it in that spirit.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is, yes.
CMr. Winters.]


Robert Henry Winters: A few nights ago the hon. member for St. John-Albert, in speaking of the navy, said it was his desire that we should benefit from what we went through at the outset of this war. In other words, he recalled the difficulties we ran into in getting production under way; our lack of tools and facilities of various kinds, and asked the minister what steps were being taken to avail ourselves of the experience gained. I can say a word in that respect with regard to the army. I know the position in which we found ourselves in the early stages; and we did have difficulties. The chief of the general staff, somewhat less than a year ago as I recall, circularized all staff officers of N'.D.H.Q. of the rank of grade II and higher, and asked them to place on record any suggestions they might have with a view to avoiding the recurrence of similar conditions. In the corps with which I am associated, being a technical corps, we were fully aware of the technical problems involved. We placed on record suggestions which were based on our experience in the early part of this war. The general staff has acknowledged them, has them on record, and has studied them, and I am sure I can say that so far as the army is concerned something has been done to benefit from that experience.
The field of research is one on which I should like to say a few words. My colleague the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmou&~ Clare stated that we should have a broad programme of research. I endorse that now as I have on other occasions. In the light of the war it is difficult to overemphasize the part which resea'rch has played, particularly, for example, in atomic energy and the field of electronics. I believe thaf the government will have to take a more vigorous part in coordinating the programme of this country, than it has done heretofore. I can well picture that we shall come to the point where the government will find it expedient to coordinate the research programmes of the national research council, for example, private enterprise, army research, and so on. But when we attempt to commit the army to a programme of research we must be somewhat careful in our definition of what research is. We must break down research into twro broad classes, one fundamental or basic research and the other practical research. We can illustrate that well by the atomic bomb. It has been known for ten or fifteen years that it was a reasonable proposition to split the atom. It was known, too, that there was enormous potential energy in an atom. But,
I submit, until the time it was known that an atom could be split and that the potential energy could be realized, it was a matter of

Demobilization-Army
fundamental or basic atomic research, and it is difficult to conceive that the army should have been in on it at that stage. However, once we knew that the atom could be split by practical means and that the energy could be made available for purposes of war, it was conceivable that the army should play an important part in the research programme.
Another interesting item in that connection which I should like to place before the committee is the proximity fuse, or, as it is sometimes known, the variable time fuse. A great deal of publicity, particularly in the United States, has been given to this fuse. In the last copy of Lije I saw an article explaining the operation of the proximity fuse. My point in bringing this up is that I think it serves to illustrate Canada's important contribution to that field of research as well as to delineate the two phases of research which I have attempted to outline, namely basic research on the one hand and practical research on the other. The proximity fuse is just a development of the electro-magnetic principle. The idea as I understand it was conceived in England, when research men came to the conclusion that if they could fit a radio set into the fuse of a shell and have that radio set emit signals and receive them back, if they were reflected by an obstructing medium of some kind, that at . a predetermined intensity of the received signal the fuse would trigger off and the shell would explode. That idea as I say was conceived in England, and was brought to this continent by a technical mission, because it was realized that out here, in the United States and Canada, there were more resources which could be applied to its development. Accordingly the , United States and Canada went to work on it and they found it to be a practical proposition. They developed small tubes, the right type of battery, condensers, and so on, and eventually the fuse took shape. The Canadian army kept a very watchful eye on that development. Although they did not play an active part as army personnel, they saw the potentialities in it; they gave every encouragement to the project, and I understand that they financed it to a large extent in Canada. To illustrate the important part which Canada has played, and for which I do not believe it has received full credit, I understand that the first proximity fuse -was assembled and fired in Canada.
Another field of research in which I think the Canadian army has from the outset taken a leading role is operational research. To that end the Canadian army has carried out cold weather tests for a number of years at places like Camp Shilo, Valcartier, Churchill and so on, and in the past two years it has
run operational programmes which have put to the test in operational roles the data accumulated in previous years. It is common knowledge that, last year they ran three separate exercises, one of which was known as exercise Eskimo, a dry cold operational exercise involving approximately battalion strength, and run in northern Saskatchewan, north of Prince Albert. The second was known as exercise Polar Bear, which was a wet cold exercise-an operational exercise again-run in northern British Columbia. The third was exercise Lemming, which was a quick dash inland from Churchill last winter. All three of these exercises were eminently successful. They were watched very closely by observers from most allied nations but Canada played the part of carrying them out. The Department of National Defence deserves a great deal of credit for these exercises, which have undoubtedly contributed in great measure to the knowledge of operations in cold weather. That, I think, we can consider in the same light as remarks made in connection with the port of Churchill, wherein it was suggested that Canada should . know more about cold weather operations.
The army has played an outstanding role in the development of Canada in that respect, and it is continuing to play that outstanding role. Hon. members will have seen in the press recently that during the coming winter there will be ' another operational exercise known as operation Musk-Ox, which will start at Churchill and terminate at Edmonton. It will go through the Arctic regions, covering a distance of some three thousand miles.
These are valuable contributions and, as I say, I feel justified in supporting the Department of National Defence and in opposing all the criticism I have heard in the last two or three days. I am one of those who have spent some time at national defence headquarters in this war; and in regard to the statements made earlier in the afternoon about Frenchspeaking officers I can say that at no time, in my opinion, has any discrimination been shown at [DOT] national defence headquarters against French-speaking officers. There are, of course, certain positions into which you cannot put an English-speaking officer in this country; conversely there are certain vacancies that, cannot be filled by French-speaking officers. These conditions we must and do recognize. But I believe I am safe in saying that there has been no discrimination at national defence headquarters. Certainly there has not been in any department with which I have been associated.
In conclusion, I would say that in my opinion the Minister of National Defence and
Demobilization-Army

the department have both done a good job, and I for one have appreciated the open and frank way in which the minister has placed his estimates before the house.
Mr. PEARIvES: I did not intend to say anything at this moment because I shall have a good deal to say before these estimates are passed.


William Ross Macdonald: It is suggested that we should go on to the items.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. PEARKES:: I have had a great deal to do with the selection of officers, both those from the ranks who were seeking commissions, and the promotion of officers to senior rank and appointment, and I thought my silence might be misinterpreted if I did not just say a word in connection with the discussion which took place earlier this afternoon. I believe that the principle was so thoroughly understood by all commanders of officers training corps and of all units, that selection for commissions and selection for promotion was to be based on merit and merit only, that it was impossible for any officer or young man seeking a commission to be discriminated against because of any political leanings he might have. Furthermore, I know of a great many cases in which those who were charged with the responsibility of making the selections may have made mistakes because, as the Minister of Agriculture said, young men in the earlier stages of training did not always show the promise that developed later. But I go farther and say that after thirty years experience with the permanent force, in which I have served in appointments under two hon. members in this house who were holding the portfolio of Minister of National Defence, to my personal knowledge I have never seen any case in which the political leanings or supposed political leanings of any officer have been either beneficial or detrimental to him. I might say that at one time I was accused of having political leanings myself, but it did not affect my promotion or otherwise.
Regarding the suggestion that perhaps permanent force officers were retarding the free discussion of general topics within the army during this war, I should like to dispel any thought along those lines, because we had in the army overseas and in the army in Canada regular discussions and padres' hours under what was known as the army bureau of current affairs; I know that the two men who were most instrumental in promoting these discussions were General McNaughton and General
(Mr. Winters.]
Simmonds, and great latitude was given to all ranks when discussing problems affecting current affairs.
I am pleased to say that when I was overseas my senior educational officer, the gentleman who was responsible for promoting these study groups, was one who now holds a cabinet position in Saskatchewan. I pay the highest tribute to Mr. Sturdy. I knew what his political leanings were at that time but it never made the slightest bit of difference, and I know that Mr. Sturdy did not attempt to introduce any party politics into the discussions which he carried out. Those discussions were carried out on broad lines and I can speak highly of the work he has done.


Mr. MERRITT:: In the event that the
political side of this discussion has been concluded, we might turn to another subject. I wish to make some reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg who was so very happy with the policy of the government, had so much praise for it, and suggested that there had been too much criticism of it. In his place in this house probably the hon. member has a duty not to be critical. In our place over here on this side of the house we possibly have a duty to be critical.


Robert Henry Winters: I might say that I put
myself under no obligation at all. I think that should be on record.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That is quite understood. I would certainly prefer to be able to fill the air with my praises of the work of the minister, particularly since the subjects which we are discussing are very close to my heart. However, I find I cannot do that because of the prevailing attitude which the government appear to. adopt of refraining from informing the house and this committee exactly what their policy is. Since that is the position they take, I am afraid it will be necessary for us on this side to be continuously critical. With these remarks I take up the heavy burden.
When I say that the government has not announced its policy I am going to speak of the army of occupation. It is quite unaccountable to me that in making his statement on the estimates the minister gave us no information whatever on the policy of the government in respect of that very important force. Nothing was said about its future. Nothing was said about the policy to be followed with regard to the force itself or with regard to the maintenance of it and its reinforcements.
Since the minister has not seen fit to explain anything to the committee with regard to this occupation force, I should like to place before the committee some facts with regard to it.

Demobilize tion-Army
First of all, I should like to refer to this booklet entitled, "After Victory in Europe." On page 4, under the heading, "Our job is not yet finished," we find the purpose of the army of occupation laid down. We find there the following:
This time there will be no clear-cut, immediate ending to our contact with Germany and the Germans. While the nazis are being hunted to their lairs, Germany must be disciplined in the ways of peace. Canada, as one of the united nations, is pledged to play her part in educating Germany to fit that country to take its place in the society of decent nations. This will be an important task of the. Canadian occupation force.	[DOT]
That seems to me to be a very good description of its purpose, and a very fine and worthy purpose it is too. I suggest that it is important to Canada that that force be maintained until the job is done. The maintenance of that force in Europe until that job is done is just as important to this country and to this committee as was the approval the other day of the united nations charter. That is one of the reasons why I find it so strange that no mention was made by the minister of the army of occupation.
Let me now turn from the purpose of the army of occupation and refer to its composition. The strength of the army of occupation was placed on Hansard at page 603, and again the other night by the hon. member for Vancouver South at page 1613. I do not propose to go through all those figures again, but I wish to point out these significant facts. Of the twenty thousand men in that army nine per cent are N.R.M.A. troops, thirty-one per cent are general service troops who showed a preference for the army of occupation, and sixty per cent are general service troops who specifically elected not to serve in the army of occupation unless they must.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is changing all the
time, as my hon. friend knows.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister says that it is changing all the time. Perhaps he can give us the actual figures this afternoon. Of the sixty per cent that I mentioned-this was on September 1-twenty per cent of the total, namely 4500, were soldiers who had had six months battle service. That is the composition of the force. At about the same date, August 29, we had in the N.R.M.A. force in Canada some 35,276 all ranks. At that time there were, in addition, undoubtedly a considerable number of young soldier volunteers with very low point scores. I have lumped together those N.R.M.A. personnel in Canada and the young soldier volunteers because of the principle enunciated the other day by the hon. member for Nanaimo, that if there is to be no two-army system in Europe there
should be no two-army system here. I suggest that the principle he enunciated is a wholesome one. I use the word "wholesome" advisedly, because I think the best description of the government's continuing man-power policy is that it is an unwholesome policy.
Some hon. members may wonder why I have mentioned the strength of the army of occupation alongside the strength of the N.R.M.A. personnel in Canada. I do so, of course, because there is a decided connection. One of the things that we will want to find out in the discussion on these estimates is whether this government believes that there is any connection between the twenty thousand men in the army of occupation and the
35,000	N.R.M.A. men in Canada. We feel that there is a great connection; that they are interchangeable, and we want to know whether the government thinks they are interchangeable; but I intend to come back to that.
I wish to speak for a moment about the army of occupation and the troops over there. That army is doing a very good job and a very necessary one, in carrying out the principle that I have referred to in this little booklet. It would not concert at all with Canada's position as a nation were we not to maintain that army of occupation in Germany, just as some of us feel that it does not concert with Canada's position as a nation in the world that we are not now represented in the occupation forces in the Pacific. Although the job must be done, we must think 'also of the men who are there to do Canada's job for her. No one will suggest that it is an easy job. It is not a job very many of them sought; it is not an exciting job. It is a job done under difficult circumstances, in the presence of a' hostile or at least unfriendly people, certainly in the presence of a surly people, as I know full well; and at best it is a routine job. None of these things makes a man very happy to stay there. It is also a job in which a man is cut off from home, and above all it is a job for which the men did not bargain when they enlisted for service. These men will do their duty, but sixty per cent of them by their own election want to come home, and the government must accede to that request and bring them home if at all possible.
Of course that is not possible now; the shipping situation does not permit it and will not permit it until after next March or April, when the other divisions are home. That is perfectly understood; but after March that obstacle will be overcome. Another reason I found it unaccountable that we had heard nothing of the policy up to the present was
Demobilization-Army

that this matter cannot wait until the next session of parliament before being decided. If it is impossible to do anything for these men before next March, certainly it will be possible to do something for them immediately after that; and if we are to replace them, or replace those who do not wish to continue to serve, the policy must be decided now. The replacements must be found and trained now, if they are not already trained, and they must be ready to go over. They could be in England while the fourth division is still coming back, so that there would be no delay at all and any ships available after the return of the fourth division could be used to continue the stream of those 12,000 all ranks who do not want to serve in the army of occupation. That is why we must determine the policy at this time, and I say to the committee that it must be determined in this parliament. It is not only the minister and the government who have a duty toward those men. We in this committee have just as great a duty, and it is in an attempt to carry out that duty I am speaking at the present time.
I am going to suggest to the minister that before the conclusion of the debate on these estimates he declare that this government considers N:R.M.A. personnel and young soldiers in Canada as a single force; that there is no distinction between them as, according to his own statement, there is no distinction between them in Europe; that the force in Europe and the force in Canada are qually interchangeable the one with the other, according to their respective point scores; that if there is a man overseas with a point score of 100 and a man in Canada with a point score of 60, let us say, the man with 60 points -should go overseas to take the place of the man with 100 points who wishes to come home. Further, I am going to suggest to him that the time has come when this skeleton in the cupboard, as it was referred to by one hon. member, must be brought out of the cupboard by the government and faced fairly and squarely. They attempted to carry out a policy of no conscription during the war. I do not like to rehash this old issue, but the trouble is we are not rid of it and will never be rid of it until we are finished with the N.R.M.A. The government attempted to refrain from having conscription during the war. Finally they were forced into the position where they had to bring in a limited form of conscription. Then, in an attempt to uphold what they considered to be a voluntary system they gave the troops in Europe this opportunity of reelection. When the troops behaved as everyone except the government knew they would
CMr, Merritt.1
behave and elected not to serve longer, the government went ahead and conscripted the volunteers.
Surely it is time they gave up trying to balance the two policies they have been trying to follow. Surely it is time we had1 one army. Surely it is the only way this army of occupation will ever be properly reinforced and properly relieved of its present duties. There would be one other way in which those men might be brought home, but that is a way which would not commend itself to me at all. However, I wish to mention it to make sure it is brought up once at least. The other way to bring home those men who do not wish to serve in the army of occupation would be to bring home the army of. occupation itself before its job was done. Above everything else, Mr. Chairman, that way must not be taken. Therefore hon. members on this side of the house are very much interested to learn the policy with regard to the army of occupation and the low-point personnel still on strength in Canada.
With that in mind I have some six specific questions I wish to ask the minister. The first one deals with a clipping from the Ottawa Citizen dated October 17, headed "Occupation forces may train peacetime army." I will read just a short part of it:
Canada's occupation division in Germany prob-. ably will be used as training ground for the dominion's peace-time army of 25,000 men.
Then, after omitting a little:
Major General Yokes, commanding the occupation force, has long held the view that the occupation division should be the focal point of any permanent force' to be built up after the war. His view is shared by other senior permanent officers who feel that conditions in northern Germany provide admirable training ground for a regular army.
My first question is, does that press dispatch represent government policy?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. As a rule we do not announce government policy through press dispatches.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Then, just so that there may be no' doubt about this, I should like to ask the minister a further question. Has the government considered using the occupation force in Germany as a training ground for the peace-time army?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Do you want these questions answered one by one?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: As you like.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought probably a number of hon. members of the committee might wish to offer some comments on the army of occupation. It might make for more orderly

Demobilization-Army
debate if they did so, and then I could make my statement at the end, but I will do whatever the committee wishes.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: As long as the minister will make a note of the questions, I do not want them answered one by one.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, yes; I will make a note of them.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: My second question is, how long or until what event is it intended to maintain the army of occupation in Europe? My third question is, from what source is it proposed to find immediate reinforcements for the force to replace casualties which may occur from time to time?
My fourth question is, from what source is it proposed to replace, when shipping space is available, those not desirous of continuing to serve in the army of occupation?
Before putting my fifth question I would quote again from the pamphlet "After Victory in Europe" where, at page six, paragraph 14, we find this:
No soldier who has been selected for the Canadian occupation force will lose his chance for thirty clear days' leave at home in Canada, although it may be delayed. Such leave will be given first to those with the longest service and at the earliest possible date. It must be remembered that any arrangements will depend largely upon operational needs for shipping.
My question is, when does the government consider that that occupational leave which seems bo be offered in thfe pamphlet may be commenced?
My sixth and final question requires a word of explanation. Many men in the occupational force have been kept there on the ground1 that they are key men. I agree entirely that one must keep a large number of key men in order to maintain the efficiency of the force. But there is only one ground upon which such a policy can be followed, and at the same time be fair to the men one is keeping, and that is that once one decides that he must keep key men he must set about to train reinforcements to replace those key men.	_
My final question is, what steps have been taken to replace key men; how many key men have been replaced, and when will the minister be in a position to announce to the committee that all key men who have been kept against their wishes have been replaced?


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, before the minister answers those highly technical questions I should like to say for the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) that I thought of him and of his desk-mate, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) this
afternoon. I was driving to Ottawa with one of my colleagues, on a beautiful day. While driving along I was puzzled, and I had decided upon arrival in the House of Commons to find out if it was the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard who successfully canvassed the hon. member for Nanaimo, or if it was the reverse. I was not sure.
Every hon. member in the committee knows that the hon. member for Nanaimo is for conscription. The other day I heard the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard tell the committee that he was in favour of voluntary enlistment for the navy-and I do not think I am misquoting him.	*


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: May I interrupt the hon. member? I said, voluntary enlistment for the navy, in peace time; and I made that specific reservation. In war time I am in favour of conscription and universal service.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, the hon. member for Nanaimo is more successful than the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. Taking for granted what the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has said, we must know now if we are at peace or at war. If we are still at war, then the hon. member is in favour of conscription, but if we are at peace, he is in favour of voluntary enlistments - only for the navy. Why only for the navy? I do not know. He establishes a most subtle distinction when he speaks about conscription.
Since the beginning of the war there were difficulties in connection with conscription because the expression was not clearly defined, and because those who advocated total war thought only of a one-sided conscription, and not of a conscription which would be well balanced, and which would form part of a well balanced war effort.
When the hon. member mentioned conscription the other day, he meant, of course, only military conscription as applied to the navy, and left aside the arm-but only in time of peace.
We knew well all the fire-mongers, the jingoes and the junkers we heard in the house during the war, while the hon. member was fighting so gallantly on the shores of France and elsewhere. They were advocating conscription, but in their minds the only man who was doing his duty wTas the man who found himself in any branch of the army. To their minds farmers, railway employees, fishermen, miners, manufacturers of arms and munitions and the men working in the forests were all slackers; they were not doing their bit for the war effort. I am sure my hon. friend will be surprised to hear that.
Demobilization-Army

That was very much so at a time when farmers were brought into the army under false pretences and were kept there by men who did not realize what a total war effort meant. Some of those men were granted leave by the commanding officers of their units on the Pacific coast; but as soon as the hon. member for Nanaimo assumed Pacific command, they were turned down. I am familiar with some cases affecting boys from my constituency. Their duty as good citizens was to work on their farms. However, they were not allowed to return to those farms, with the result that the farms had to be sold and the stock disposed of because the fathers were too old to do the work and needed the help of their robust sons.
These are serious matters. We have to come down to fundamentals. If the hon. member takes it for granted that military conscription is the right thing in time of war, and that those who do their duty are only those who enlist voluntarily, what does he think of those men-perfectly* fit-who enlisted voluntarily in the army on the understanding that they would stay here at headquarters, those men who parade on the sidewalks of Ottawa to such an extent that the sidewalks are not broad enough to hold them? And of course, after the war they would carry the insignia of voluntary enlistment! It will be hard to differentiate these men from men such as my hon. friend who has had a fine war record and from those other soldiers who have not been decorated but who have been in the thick of battle overseas, or even from manufacturers of munitions and arms who have exposed their lives to danger while doing their part of the war effort. Of course they will be the heroes. The girls will run after them and they will have their pictures taken as heroes.
We must come down to realities. Before making subtle distinctions about the policies of the government, we must realize that there is a policy which should be imposed on the government. There should be a clean-up of national defence headquarters with an axe, and one that is well ground. That is the first thing to do. The other day I challenged the members of the committee to come to the defence of the brass hats, but nobody said a word; nobody came to their defence. I complained the other day because an hon. member was referring to certain evils in the abstract form. I said that we must come down to concrete facts; we must come down to personalities; we must come down to names. To start with, we must take the telephone directory in order to see the number of services that have been established during the war. These are

useless services. Why do we hear again the old story of conscription? It is because most of these fellows are brass hats who could not earn their living before the war, and they want this military business to continue as long as possible after the war in order that they may keep their jobs at the expense of the country.
If we are to do something to improve social conditions in the country we must cut off all dead branches; we must uproot the dried fig tree and make a bonfire of it. There is not only an orchard of fig trees, sterile fig trees, in the Department of National Defence; there is a forest primeval of dead wood. They are the people who run the country; their word is the law of the land and it is impossible to get any reform.
I am ready to support those who make constructive suggestions, and here is one constructive suggestion which may look strange. The axe is the tool of the carpenter. Sometimes in order to build something that will resist time, something that is of solid construction, it is necessary to demolish something that has been put on a wrong foundation or is not solid enough. I make that suggestion to my hon. friend. I will have other opportunities to talk about conscription and I will be able to tell my hon. friend how the boys from my county have been insulted after having done such fine duty.
I met Colonel Triquet in Montreal. He comes from my county. As I said the other day to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard,-Colonel Dollard Menard, who was with him at Dieppe, also comes from my county. He is a good French Canadian and there are many like him. My hon. friend knows that is true because he spoke highly of them. During the war the province of Quebec was insulted by certain hon. members who are sitting not far from where the hon. member now sits. It seemed the natural thing to say abominable things about French Canadians.
The farmers were not respected and all those engaged in essential industries were not respected. I have had to fight for them. I have had to fight for the little soldier, the under-dog, so that he would be treated with the consideration he deserves by bullying majors at Petawawa and Camp Borden who were treating men like him as though they were slaves. This still goes on; these men are still being treated in this way. These bullies should be expelled at once from the army. If my hon. friend knew of those cases I know his blood would boil and he would go to the defence of these boys. My intention in rising now was to give him an appetizer of what I will say during this debate about the abominable treatment that has been given to

Demobilization-Army
my fellow citizens from the province of Quebec. The insult was not only to French Canadians; it was to Quebec.
I would remind my hon. friend of what an hon. member said one day from his place in the house. He said that a ship could not leave the port of Quebec because the whole crew was suffering from V.D. or some contagious disease like that. Immediately the medical authorities of the port of Quebec wired to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services and stated that that was untrue. That is what was said right here in this house by the hon. member for Parkdale.
Why attack the province of Quebec like that? Why not give the people of Quebec a chance? We are not just French Canadians; there are some people in Quebec of British origin; there are Jews in Quebec, and there are people of various other races. It was a malicious and wicked attempt to deprecate the province of Quebec in the minds of the people of our sister provinces. I know the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard is more broad-minded than that. I would remind him of certain things that are known to all hon. members who were here during the last parliament. They felt indignant. They resented deeply what that hon. member had said. It was felt that he was unworthy of himself when he said things that were so difficult to understand.
It is a burning question. I resented that and it was resented, not only by the people of Quebec but by all fair-minded people and by many members of his own party. This year the tone has changed, I am glad to say, but I must tell my hon. friend that in order to defend our principles, in order to defend the rights of the working man, the man in overalls, we had to suffer insult and calumny. We only wanted to bring back the House of Commons to common sense and to a common understanding.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. COCKERAM:: Before I go on, I
wonder whether the minister desires to answer any of the questions which were put to him this afternoon.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I intimated a little earlier
that I would be glad to make a statement on the occupation forces, following questions by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, but I thought some other members of the committee might like to express their views first.


Mr. GREEN:: Perhaps it would help us to hasten the discussion if the minister would make his statement now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I can do that. The question of the occupation force is, of course, open. One point in the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard with which I am in complete agreement is that provision must be made for the replacement in due course of the men who are serving in the occupation force. As he himself has pointed out, that will not become a practical qurstion until around April or May of next year, because, on present indications as to shipping, we shall not be able to return the remainder of our forces overseas, after making provision for the occupation force, until about that time. But, as he has also quite properly pointed out, provision must be made in advance of that day for the replacements, and I agree with him that plans must be made in advance, and that provision must be started, at the latest, early in the new year to provide for replacement at about the time I have indicated. We do not yet know definitely how long our commitment for occupation troops will last. Of necessity we cannot know_ that. Formally the commitment continues 'until March 31 of next year, but obviously it will not terminate on that day. I think we must proceed on the assumption that it will continue beyond that time.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister mean 1946 or 1947?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am talking about 1946.
How much longer it will continue I do not know at the moment, and no member of the government knows. That is one of the matters which the Prime Minister will have discussed with the British government and will possibly be discussing with Mr. Truman at the conferences which were referred to this afternoon. It will enable us to make plans on a surer basis when we know a. little more definitely, if we can find out a little more definitely at an early day, how long our occupation commitment is likely to last and how many men we shall need over a period of time.
As to the method of reinforcing the men in the occupation force, that is being given consideration by myself and the officers of the department, and when a decision is reached the policy which the government proposes to adopt will be announced. If the house is in session it will be announced in the session, and if the house is not in session it will be announced in the usual way.
I do not know whether the members of the committee have had time to examine a second pamphlet which I made available to-day. It is entitled "Review of Plan for Repatriation,"
Demobilization-Army

and was issued by headquarters Canadian forces in the Netherlands on September 6, 1945. If they have, they will see that there is a good deal of information in it with respect to the manner in which the occupation force is being made up, and the manner in which the higher point men in the force are being released and replaced by lower point men. Perhaps for the record I might read paragraph 7 of that pamphlet, which will be found on the first page.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I do not think the members of the committee have it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I had a hundred or more
placed on the table to-day, and most of them were distributed. I have one here. That is the first one, and there is a second. I think two hundred of these were placed on the table to-day.


Mr. HARRIS (Dan-forth):: The minister did not have any right to lay them on the table.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was arranged yesterday that a supply of this pamphlet and the first one, which was issued in May, would be made available to members of the committee, but maybe-


Joseph Henry Harris: Making them available and laying them on the table are two different matters. Documents which are laid on the table are a matter of record of this house; in that case the officials of the house remove them from the table. Where they went, no one knows.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will withdraw the expression "laid on the table" and substitute, as I said yesterday, "made available to members of the committee." I do not know that we need to be too technical on the matter. The undertaking I gave yesterday was that I would have as many of these pamphlets as were here, made available for the use of the members of the committee to-day, and that is what I tried to do.


Joseph Henry Harris: If the minister will permit me. it is quite true that none of us is desirous of being too technical; but what actually happened is, they were laid on the table, and staff removed them from the table because they had no right to be on the table. If the minister would see that they were distributed1 by the proper officers of this house, each and all of us would have a copy; but laying them on the table is the prerogative of this parliament and this house and it is not the prerogative of the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid there may not be quite enough copies for all the members of the house. I have a note handed to me from 
the assistant clerk of the house that all which were made available were distributed. This particular pamphlet which I hold in my hand was printed overseas. I sent over and had three hundred sent to Canada, and I imagine that most of them were brought here this afternoon. In any event, if we need more we will get them. I believe there are quite a number about and that any hon. member who is really interested can get hold of one. But I was going to read to the committee paragraph 7:
7.	When the 3rd Canadian infantry division C.A.O.F. was formed it was composed of (a) volunteers, (b) non-volunteers with point scores of less than fifty, (c) non-volunteers with scores of fifty and higher. It is the intention that ultimately the C.A.O.F. shall comprise only categories (a) and (b), above.
That is, volunteers, and non-volunteers with point scores of less than fifty.
In forming the occupational force it was necessary to take some non-volunteers to fill establishments in officers, N.C.O.'s. tradesmen and specialists. As far as possible these were selected from personnel with the lowest point scores in the categories required. C.A.O.F. is setting up its own trades schools to train low-score men or volunteers to replace non-volunteer tradesmen and specialists. When all men with scores of less than fifty and C.A.O.F. volunteers at present, in the best general interest, required to serve elsewhere (see paragraphs 12 (b) and 26 below)-
Those deal with certain special categories.
-become available they will be sufficient in numbers to replace non-volunteers in the force.
The release of a small proportion of nonvolunteer officers and N.C.O.'s may have to wait upon the provision of suitable replacements from volunteers or low-point personnel in Canada (C.A.P.F.) or the United Kingdom.
8.	Therefore non-volunteers now serving with C.A.O.F. and who are non-essential are being
'repatriated as follows:
(a)	All with 110 points and over who can be spared are being returned in Canada drafts during phase three.
That is, following the move of second Canadian infantry division group.
(b)	All with scores between 109 points and 90 points who can be spared are being returned in Canada drafts in phase four.
That is, following the move of third Canadian infantry division group.
(e)^All with scores between 89 points and 50 points who can be spared will be posted to fourth Canadian armoured division before the move of that division and will be repatriated with it.
The succeeding paragraphs deal in rather more detail with some other matters in connection with replacing men now in the occupation force, and one of the main purposes in issuing this second pamphlet was to explain

Demobilization-Army
to the troops in England, in northwest Holland and in the occupation force how that method of replacement would be carried out.


Howard Charles Green: What is to happen to the men who have less than 50 points but did not volunteer to serve in the army of occupation? Are these men to be compelled to stay with the occupation force throughout, even though they have been wounded or have been in action?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought I indicated that these low-point men are being posted to the occupation force and that provision must be made for replacement of men who are serving in the occupation force. I am'not prepared to say to-day just how long these low-point men may have to serve in that force. They cannot be returned in any event before April or May of next year at the earliest. Before that time arrives, should the occupation commitment continue for some considerable time after that, a plan will be provided for their early replacement, but I am not in a position to state to the committee or to announce what method will be followed or just when these men will be relieved of that duty. That will be announced as soon as possible, but in the meantime the process is going on of replacing relatively high-point men who are now with the occupation force with low-point men, some of whom are in northwest Europe and some of whom are still in the United Kingdom. and who can be released as a result of reducing the holding units of other establishments in the United Kingdom.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister go so far as to say that it is the intention of the government to replace as quickly as possible all those men who have been in action?
Mr. 'ABBOTT: I will put it in this way. It is the intention of the government to see that the men who are called upon to serve in the occupation force are not required to serve there indefinitely because they happen to be low-point men, whether they have seen action or not. The exact method of replacing them has not yet been determined, or at least I am not in a position to announce how it will be done. I believe, speaking from memory, that an undertaking was given within the last four or five months, or a statement was made, that no man would be required to serve in the occupation force for more than two years. I believe that statement was made.


Howard Charles Green: It is a long time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I agree that it is a long time, and any plan for replacement, for the working out of which I am responsible, will
contemplate a much shorter term of service than that in the occupation force. I mention that, because my recollection is that the statement was made in the early stages when the occupation force was first being formed.


Howard Charles Green: Will there be .priority for the men who have been in action?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would prefer not to answer that question now without consulting the staff, although I will say this. I see no reason why in the case of the occupation force a distinction should not be made administratively between the man who has seen combat service or action, or something of that kind, and others, in the same way that it was found to be workable in connection with rotation leave, because the numbers involved will be relatively small. The urgency of the shipping problem will not be as great. One of the problems we have now is to be absolutely sure that no space is wasted on any of the transports that are bringing troops back from overseas. We do not wish to take the chance of administrative arrangements falling down and finding ourselves, on the eve of a sailing, with 400 or 500 extra spaces which we cannot fill with men who are entitled to come back at that time. But once the problem is reduced to the size of an occupation force of from twenty to twenty-five thousand, which is the present size, it becomes much more manageable than when we are trying to arrange for the orderly repatriation of a couple of hundred thousand men scattered throughout Europe. I do not wish to be held to this, but it should be quite feasible to provide special priority for the repatriation of men in the occupation force whose points may be low but who have seen some form of combat service. I should think that would be quite feasible.


Howard Charles Green: We are keen that it should be done.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should think that would
be feasible.


George Randolph Pearkes: How many potential
replacements has the minister available in England and Canada and northwest Europe?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I asked for that information but I have not the memorandum before me. Certainly, however, I shall have it before the committee rises, and, if not this evening, to-morrow. I have asked for a statement of the up-to-date position of the occupation force. That was sent by airmail from C.M.H.Q., London, on the 26th instant and I would hope to have it to-morrow. There are some variations in the speed of airmail, but I hope to have it to-morrow so that I can give it to the committee.
Demobilization^-Army


Howard Charles Green: Are any men being sent from Canada now as replacements for the occupation force? I refer to men who have not seen action at all.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think any have been sent as yet but I shall have to verify that with the staff. I believe that consideration is being given to the sending shortly of certain officer personnel, junior officers who have volunteered for the interim force, but there has been no appreciable movement. We have still so many men overseas that we have not felt it was desirable as yet to send additional mouths over to the other side to be fed when we still have from 150,000 to 160,000 men there. I can answer definitely by saying that we have not. There may have been some special men who were sent over but I shall have to verify that. There has been, however, no general movement, and in my judgment there should not be for some months yet because of the large number who of necessity are still there.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Will the men still in Canada be used in that way?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I hope to be able to make an announcement, perhaps before the present session is finished, as to how we plan to provide replacements for the army of occupation, but I am not prepared to make that statement at the moment. Obviously we shall have to provide them from men in Canada.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I do not know if the minister will still answer some of the other questions I asked. I might bring particular ones to his attention now. The first question I asked was, does the minister look upon the N.R.M.A. personnel in Canada as a potential source of recruits for the army of occupation? The second question was, does the press clipping that I spoke of refer to a matter which the minister has under discussion, or is he giving consideration to using the army of occupation as a training ground for the permanent force?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I had better answer these questions one by one. I shall answer the first question now. Obviously the N.R.M.A. personnel are a potential source of replacement for the army of occupation. Whether they will be used or not is another matter.
As to the press clipping, the press clipping itself has not been used as a basis for discussion; but I will answer my hon. friend by saying that I, as minister, have not considered the occupation force as a potential training ground for our permanent force. I suppose it could be used for that purpose. I have not considered it.

I think I did answer, either in my general statement or specifically, the various points which the hon. member for Vancouver-Bur-rard raised.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister give us the N.R.M.A. figures?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. I promised the hon. member for Vancouver South that I would give the N.R.M.A. figures to-day, if I could get them. I had them this afternoon, but there was no opportunity to give them earlier. I have a report from Canadian military headquarters in London as regards the overseas situation, which says that up to September 30, *1945, 12,927 N.R.M.A. soldiers embarked for overseas. Of those, 950 converted to general service, 67 were killed in action or died of other causes, and 1,217 had returned to Canada up to the end of September, leaving a strength overseas up to that date of 10,693.
The returns from C.M.H.Q. also show that 4,199 of those sent overseas as N.R.M.A. soldiers had proceeded to the continent up to V-E day, and 11,007 had proceeded to the continent up to the end of September. So much for the N.R.M.A. troops overseas. As regards the N.R.M.A. troops in Canada, the strength at October 15 was 23,632, plus 9,575 on extended leave, making a total of 33,207. The break-down of that figure of 23,632 is as follows: in operational units, 1,285; units released to the adjutant general for reallocation, 1,140-


Howard Charles Green: What does that mean?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That means that those units which w'ere operational units are no longer required as such. The men in them have been assigned to the adjutant general for reallocation to other units, for reallocation to depots or wherever it might be. That is the second group. Then, sortation and holding units, 5,651; non-operational units, 10,536.


Howard Charles Green: What would that include?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That includes everything. I believe that has been explained time and again. Some years ago Colonel Ralston said to the staff, "For heaven's sake, try to find another name for them." They have not been able to do that. It includes everything, cooks, staffs in the various depots, those working as ordnance troops on various housekeeping services, and so on, army service corps people, all kinds of people. The operational units, as my hon. friend knows, are coast defence units, and that sort of thing; but these non-operational units cover the field, as it were. The numbers there, as I have said, are 10,536; in the training stream.

Demobilization-Army
225; depot appraisal placement and rehabilitation service, 2,943; employed on administra- ' t-ive and training staffs of reserve army, 52, and in transit 1,800, making up -the total 'of 23,632. As the committee will understand, under present circumstances there is a comparatively large number of troops moving about the country; for as units are disbanded personnel are generally moved to their home districts and employed there, if possible. That accounts for the figure of 1,800- in transit personnel, who on the date of the strength return from which these figures were made up were in transit between port of disembarkation depots in Canada or between various units in Canada. That, I think, gives the statistical picture of the N.R.M.A. personnel in Canada to date; 23,632 on strength, 9,575 on extended leave, making a total of 33,207.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Has the minister the figure of the N.R.M.A. personnel discharged during 1945?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not that figure here but I can obtain it readily. If I do not have it later this evening I will give it to the committee at an early opportunity.


Howard Charles Green: How many of those are of category to be sent overseas?


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not that figure.


William Henry Golding: Order. I should like to ask hon. members to address the Chair. I am trying to give hon. members who have tried to rise to speak an opportunity to speak. If hon-. members will address the Chair when they rise, as they should, the Chair will try to be fair to everybody.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that it is approximately 15,000, which would include a proportion of those who are on extended leave.


Mr. LENNARD:: The minister stated a few moments ago that, as far as his information went, no troops had been dispatched overseas to be used in the occupational force since V-E day. I have just this observation to make. There must be a force being built up in Canada to be used- in tlje occupational forces, because I know of several who have volunteered during the past several months to go overseas to act with the occupation troops, and they are now in training.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not anticipate that we shall have any real difficulty in obtaining suitable replacements in Canada to go over
and serve as occupational troops; whether from young troops who joined near the end of the war and who would like to join the army and see the world, or from others who want to sign on with the interim force. But I do not want to make a statement on that now. I want to give the whole question careful consideration with the staff and have a sound plan worked out and ready to put into operation early in the year, which is when it should be started.


Alan Cockeram: When the debate took place yesterday in the committee questions were asked about the method of discharge from the armed forces, and the minister gave some figures as to the number of men returned from overseas. This is what the minister said, as reported on page 1602 of Hansard:	.
In September the reduction in strength from overseas was 35,301, and this is the way in which it worked out. Those with a point score of over 150 were 21,305; those with a point score of 130 to 149-and, mark you, these are all high-point men-were 3,673; those with a point score of 100 to 129 were 3,550; and from 50 to 100 there were only 7,000 out of that total. In other words, well over three-quarters were high-point score men.
I wonder if it would interest the minister and the committee to get the figures with respect to the first divisional group numbering 1,801 men, who arrived back in Toronto a few' weeks ago. The returning group was made up as follows:
Number
Points	of men
Under 50	 7
Under 60	 61
Under 70	 119
Under 80	  188
Under 90	 2S4
Under 100	 165
Under 110	 141
Under 120	 128
120 and over	 708
The figures given by the minister show that twenty per cent of the men who have been returned to Canada had low-point scores. The figures I have given in regard to the first divisional group which returned to M.D. 2 show that, of 1,801 men, some 824 were low-point men, or a percentage of 45-77, which is entirely different from the figures given to the committee by the minister last night. I mention this, because it appears to me that the department is taking too lightly the fact that a great many men are being retained overseas who should be returned to Canada because of their high-point score. In the case of the 1st Divisional group returning to M.D. 2 we have 45-77 per cent of the men with less less than 100 points.
A great deal was said this afternoon about politics in the army. The other day we had
Demobilization-Army

an example of what I consider army politics. I refer to the retirement of Major Macfarlane as editor of the Maple Leaf. It is well known in the army that unfortunately many of the senior permanent force officers have always been subject to politics, whether at the hands of the Liberal party or the Conservative party. They are guided by the wishes of whichever party is in power. The minister will realize that when General Simmonds retired Major Macfarlane he did so because Major Macfarlane criticized the manner in which return to Canada was being carried out, and General Simmonds was carrying out the wishes of the minister. To-night the minister stated something about the army of occupation. I am surprised that the minister cannot give the committee the componenl parts of that army as it exists to-day.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I told my hon. friend
that the information was sent from London on the 26th and I will have it to-morrow.


Alan Cockeram: But that army of
occupation has been in existence for a long time, and I am surprised that the minister's department has not the composition of the army at this time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is changing every day.
In my statement I gave the gross strength of the army.


Alan Cockeram: But I think we are
entitled to the number of units and how the force is made up.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is the re-formed third
Canadian division: I gave all that in my initial statement. I was asked in regard to the point score of the men, more or less, and I am getting that information from overseas. The committee can find out quite easily how the force is made up; it has been stated publicly half a dozen times.


Alan Cockeram: The minister said that army was made up of 20,000 men, which is' more than the number of men composing a fighting division. I think he should be able to tell us what units comprise the extra troops. Evidently he is not able to do so. Another thing I believe the minister should tell the committee, what is the purpose of the N.R.M.A. troops to-day? He has told us how they are spread around but he has not told us where these 9,000 deserters are. Are they included in this figure of 38,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not mention 9.000
deserters.


Alan Cockeram: But I believe that is
the approximate number. There are a great number of deserters.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would be inclined to
think the number is rather greater than that, but I cannot say from memory.


Alan Cockeram: But are they included
in this figure of 33,000?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Alan Cockeram: They are still absent?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Alan Cockeram: They are still on the
strength of the army, so that the N.R.M.A. figures should be increased to that extent, should they not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We do not carry deserters
on the strength in the army, you know.


Alan Cockeram: But you are supposed
to be looking for them, are you not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, we are looking for
them.


Alan Cockeram: Well, the people and
especially the men overseas want an answer to the question which was asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. That is, will you use these N.R.M.A. troops as reinforcements? The minister is pretty good at hedging, but I believe the people of this country are entitled to an answer. Obviously the minister does not intend to give one.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course.


Alan Cockeram: We are here to hear
what the government policy is, and we are asking the minister to tell us. The minister is responsible for his department. He must have some ideas. He must have discussed this matter with his staff, and I think we are entitled to know whether or not he is going to let the men who are overseas to-day get back to this country. I think we should know also what he proposes to do with the N.R.M.A. army if he is not going to use them as reinforcements. They are costing the country a great deal of money, and in my opinion they should be used for that purpose; they should not be demobilized to get the jobs.
Another matter I desire to bring to the attention of the minister is that of the second army university course. The minister must know something about this. Early in 1943, in order to get good officer material, a number of promising young Canadians were taken from various schools and were persuaded to go to university in what was then called the university army course. These young boys completed their year at the university and then were sent to Petawawa and other military camps for advanced training. After they

Demobilization-Army
arrived at these camps, the reinforcement crisis arose and the officers in charge of the various training centres had these young boys paraded. They were made to sign waivers, waiving their right to commissions in the army, with the result that being trained they were immediately sent overseas and they did not spend the time in Canadian camps that was spent by other men in taking basic training. That, of course, was right, because they had done their basic training at the universities. Those young boys were sent to England and through force of circumstances were sent right into the front line in Italy and later in Germany. In the main those boys, when they went into the universities to take this course, were below army age, but they were prepared to accept the duties of citizenship. Now this government, for which the minister must accept some responsibility, has let these men down. I have a letter here from one of these boys from which I think I should read the committee an excerpt:
In June '43 I completed my senior matriculation and immediately enlisted. At the time I was but seventeen. In September '43 I attended successfully No. 2 Canadian army university course for which I received credit in first year engineering at the university of Toronto. I have now been in the army over two years and have served in Italy, Holland and Germany with the first division. In June, because of my comparatively low point score, I was involuntarily put in the occupation force.
With 48 points I am forced to remain in Germany while others with 50 points have already returned home. Many of these men were never in action and many just arrived on the continent in June. Why should a difference of two points mean a waste of one, two or perhaps three years of a man's life?
That is a serious situation. Consideration should be given to those boys; because of their training at universities they receive no credit for points in Canada. As this boy says, he has 48 points, and is in the army of occupation against his wishes. Had he got points for the year at university in Canada he would have had 72 points in all and might be on his way home now. I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to those boys who left school and went to an army university course, and who cannot get home at this time.
A great deal has been said to-day about brass hats. I do not attack the brass hats as brass hats. If we are to have an army worth while in Canada we should not ridicule them all the time, because if we do we will make it impossible for the right calibre of men to join the services. The minister has given his sincere assurance that where there is inefficiency he will wipe it out. I am satis-47696-105
fied that if we want to - make the services attractive to the young men of to-day we must stop sniping at them.	.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a word to say about brass hats. I shall describe the reception received by General Crerar, Canada's greatest soldier, in my home town of Riviere du Loup. Let me say at the outset that when a reception is organized by the local authorities, including the municipal council and local citizens, everything is fine. In that small town of 9,000 people there was a complete organization to give to Their Majesties the King and Queen the finest reception they received in the province of Quebec. It was the last reception in that province and, as a result of the sincerity of the reception, the queen was moved to tears before she left. The organization was well arranged so that all had an opportunity to see Their Majesties. They talked with everyone and the people were satisfied. The children sang, and Their Majesties were delighted with the reception.
Then, when General Crerar returned from his glorious campaign in Europe a large crowd of people gathered to see him at the station of Riviere du Loup. The place for the reception should have been behind the station, where there is' a large area of ground, and thousands of people could have seen him and applauded. Instead of that, however, the whole thing was under the military authorities of Quebec city, headed by Brigadier Edmond Blais of M.D. No. 5. Instead of putting the stand behind the station where it would have accommodated the crowd of thousands of people, not expecting so many people to come he put the stand between the train and the baggage shed. In addition to that, a fence was erected to keep the people from seeing' the general-just the same as if they had been cattle. We know how cattle are fenced in, in station yards.
That fence was an insult to the people. The place set aside for the reception was surrounded by all the brass hats from Ottawa. It was only large enough for them and, with the exception of a few select citizens, no others could see him. An invitation was extended to the mayor, the municipal councillors and a few other people, among whom I was fortunate to be included. Upon arriving there I found the reception had been strangely organized.
The general spoke first; then the brigadier invited his worship the mayor to extend a welcome, after the general had spoken- something I found quite extraordinary. In addition to that, the loud speaker for the radio was not properly installed and did not

Demobiliza lion-Army

work well, with the result that no one could hear anything and, in addition, as I have already pointed out, with the exception of a few, the people had not been invited. The veteran's guard were not there. Who were there? It was the band of the 22nd battalion-without instruments. With two or three exceptions, those veterans who were passed in review were not people of that place-; they were the musicians who were there and who at great expense had been brought from Quebec. It was an insult to the veterans of Riviere du Loup, and also an insult to the parents of the soldiers and returned men. The citizens, on instructions of the brigadier, were kept by the police outside the sight of the general.
That is the way in which th^ reception was organized. As I have said, the band of the 22nd battalion was there, but without instruments. When the general left it was not the band that played God Save The King. They just put a broken record on a gramophone, and that was all that was played when the general left.
But it was worse than that. The brigadier was gracious enough to take upon himself the duty of introducing everyone to General Crerar, and he had to talk to everyone before making an introduction. "You are Mr.-?" "Mr. So-and-so". "Mr. So-and-so; General Crerar." "You are Mr.-?" "Mr. This and That". "Mr. This and That; General Crerar". The introductions were made like that. It was an insult to the people of Riviere du Loup. That is the kind of brass hats we have.
I will mention to the hon. member for York South another stupidity of the brass hats in Ottawa. I took upon myself the responsibility of recommending Colonel Triquet for promotion. What was the answer I got from those swivel-chair heroes who won the war from Ottawa? It was that Colonel Triquet was not ready at that time for promotion to officer rank. They are there, and when I speak they beat their brows and are very indignant.
There must be some reform. No reform was made by the two previous ministers of national defence. From the death of the late Norman Rogers to the time the present minister was appointed there was a gap at the head of the Department of National Defence. Both ministers were alike, and consequently they made no reforms. I was even called to order because I called the brass hats pompous. It was the greatest humiliation of my life when I could not proceed any farther without withdrawing the word "pompous". The record is there.
I will ask the Minister of National Defence if his job is not a full-time one. We had as one of his predecessors in the Department of

National Defence a man who was an amateur minister of national defence and whose main business was that of acting minister of finance. He was concocting schemes with Allan Magee and with Harry Borden and other big-wigs of the same category. They were always concocting things, schemes for the post-war period. I turn my thumbs down on them once more. It was a scandal from beginning to end. I remember what was said in this house during the fall session when conscription was decided upon.
We were being told everywhere that one should be discreet; that one should be careful; that one should watch his words, because any indiscretion might cause the death of thousands of men.. Mum was the word. Be silent. Be careful. Watch your step. Do not say anything that could be used by the enemy. These warnings were posted in all cars. We saw the head of a man who was drowning because of an indiscretion that had been committed by some one with too long a tongue.
But there was something worse than all that, and this happened in the house. There was that stupid, criminal discussion about the need of reinforcements on the front. Who was it said that? One of the former ministers of national defence and some hon. members on the other side were telling the whole world that the allied forces were too weak to resist the enemy. That is what was said in this very chamber. I was scandalized, because I could not believe that men with heads on their shoulders would speak like that and give such information to the enemy, whether it was true or not. We should have been sitting in camera; that was not a matter to be aired, in the House of Commons of Canada. It was taken up by the press and by the radio, and the whole world was informed that a former minister of national defence, a man who was considered to be more important by those who did not know him than he really was, a man with some, importance because of his high functions, was saying that there was a weak spot in the allied forces on the European continent.
What happened? A short time after the special session when that nonsensical talk had taken place we had an offensive by von Runstedit when 60,000 allied men were made prisoners of war. Everyone who thinks about it must be sure that that was brought about by the silly talk of the former minister of national defence and some members of the opposition during that special session. It was an inducement to the Germans to play their last.card and try to break the allied lines on the continent of Europe. That is what happened. I consider that those men used criminal

Demobilization-Army
language, language that cost the lives of thousands of people. I denounce that with all the strength that I can use.
Not only that; I ask the hon. member from York South to consider what the former minister of national defence did when he was asked by the allied command to send some of our best grade men to Italy when they were not required. They were sent there to suffer misery and death. I can speak of this because many boys from my county met death and torture in Sicily and Italy. That was decided by the brass hats. Why? Because they wanted to have conscription as a political issue. They were playing politics here in Ottawa. What was the trouble? It was these people who could think only of politics. They were thinking, not of winning the war but of winning political battles, and they were ready to use conscription as a political issue. They have used a sword which is covered with blood, not their own blood but the blood of others. They attempted to rouse the Canadian people and make a political issue out of it.
If the hon. member for York South is sincere in saying that he wants to cut expenses, I refer him to the Woods building and all these other buildings where the brass hats of the army, navy and air are to be found.


Mr. BENTLEY:: This afternoon one or two speeches were made dealing with what the speakers felt was discrimination in connection with promotions in the armed services. If any hon. member wishes to check back, I refer him to page 595 of Hansard where answers are given to some questions that were asked. It would appear that at that time not only was there some discrimination in connection with the matter brought up this afternoon by hon. members across the floor or the suggestion that there was discrimination because of political affiliations or belief, but there was also some discrimination based upon geography or the location of the particular depots.
I checked over these figures, and I found that the ratio of promotions of commissioned ranks to other ranks varied considerably. I found that Pacific command, which is Victoria, showed a ratio of 1 to 11 -7. I thought, with that area being near salt water and the men probably eating a lot of fish, they might have more brains than the men on the prairies. However, when I got down to M.D. No. 3, where there is no salt water, I found the ratio to be 1 to 9-2. Then, when we come to Montreal, M.D. No. 4, we find the ratio is 1 to 9-7. We can work west to Winnipeg where we find that the ratio is 1 to 14-5. We go farther west to Regina and find that the ratio is 1 to 17-4.
It looks to me that the minister has something to explain there, and obviously he will have some kind of explanation to give. But with these figures it will be difficult to explain to the people on the prairies just why they do not have the same ratio of promotions as the other provinces. For the sake of making this available to those members who may be interested and to people outside, I should like to read into the record some figures showing the way in which this works out.
Starting with 'London, which is M.D. No. 1, we find that the total of general service enlisted personnel-this has nothing to do with the N.R.M.A.-all ranks, was 48,250. Of that number, 3,099 were officers and 45,151 other ranks. The ratio there is 1 to 14-5.
In the case of Toronto, M.D. No. 2, the total of general service personnel, all ranks, was 145,583. The total officers were 10,379, and the total of other ranks, 135,204. The ratio in this case wa4 1 to 13.
In the case of Kingston, M.D. No. 3, which comprises the area of Ottawa, where the hon. member for Temiscouata has just told us there are so many brass hats, the total for all ranks was given as 55,495. There were 5,392 officers and 50,103 other ranks, giving a ratio of 1 to 9'2.
In Montreal, M.D. No. 4, the total for all ranks was 72.597. The total for officers was 6,739 and for other ranks, 65,858, giving a ratio of 1 to 9-7.
Quebec, M.D. No. 5: total all ranks, 22,183; total officers, 1,844; total other ranks, 20,339, or a ratio of 1 to 11.
Halifax, M.D. No. 6 and this belies the idea that fish make brains, because all these figures approximate to those of Regina, which is irf the prairie provinces-total, all ranks, 49,487; officers, 2,278; total other ranks, 46,709, or a ratio of 1 to 16-8.
Saint John, M.D. No. 7: total all ranks, 32,268; total officers, 1,912; total other ranks, 30,356, or a ratio of 1 to 15-8. Fish do not do them much good.
Winnipeg, M.D. No. 10: total all ranks, 54,061; total officers, 3,478; total other ranks, 50,583, or a ratio of 1 to 14-5.
Victoria, M.D. No. 11 (Pacific command): total all ranks, 54,746; total officers, 4,291; total other ranks, 50,455, or a ratio of 1 to 11-7.
Regina, M.D. No. 12: total all ranks, 44,684; total officers, 2,426; total other ranks, 42,258, or a ratio of 1 to 17-4.
Calgary, M.D. No. 13: total all ranks, 46,919; total officers, 2,737; total other ranks, 44,182, or a ratio of 1 to 16-1., As they get nearer British Columbia the intelligence quotient apparently goes up.
47696-105J
Demobilization-Army

We also have some from outside Canada. Where they come from is not indicated, presumably from other parts of the world: a total of all ranks, 1,415; officers, 261; total other ranks, 1,154, or a ratio of 1 to 4-4. It is not very flattering to the intelligence quotient of. the whole- Canadian nation, when this latter group have a higher ratio of officers to the total than even the best of our Canadian military districts.
As I say, there was talk this afternoon of discrimination in respect of the language question. Whether it is well founded or not I do not know. There, was talk of discrimination because of political beliefs; that was denied by the Minister of Agriculture. No doubt some reason will be shown for this condition I have mentioned, but it will be difficult, unless the reason is good, to explain to the people of the prairie provinces why they do not have the same ratio of promotions as in M.D. No. 3 around Ottawa, and in Quebec and Victoria.


Mr. BRUCE:: To begin with. I should like to associate myself with what has been said so well by the hon. members for Vancouver South, Nanaimo, Vancouver-Burrard and Kamloops during this debate, particularly in regard to the point system of demobilization and repatriation of our men overseas and the revision of that system as suggested by some of these speakers.
May I refer for a moment to a case which .happened in my own riding, the particularly distressing case of a family who gave five sons-all they had-to serve in this war. All these sons have been overseas for periods of over two years, and one of them was killed on active service. The father became seriously ill a, few weeks ago, and the request was made to have at least two of these sons returned home on compassionate grounds. I may say here that the minister * has done everything he could to see that this was complied with, and I do not blame him in any way for the fact that these sons did not arrive home before the father passed away ten days ago. I do not know what the routine is; but under the circumstances put before the minister two or three weeks ago, and on which he took immediate action, some officer overseas failed to see the urgency, and although the funeral was held up for several days, none of these boys arrived home, nor have arrangements yet been made to permit them to return to Canada. I am mentioning this case to show, in the first place, the great contribution which this family has made to the winning of the war and, second, the tardiness shown by some officers in carrying out their

duties. I doubt whether any other family in Canada has had a better record than the one which I have just mentioned.
I desire for a moment to refer to the subject of scientific research, which has such an important place in the defence services, particularly as related to national defence policy.
There are three broad fields in which Canadians are at present interested and in which I believe Canada can make an effective contribution in research and perhaps in development : first, the electronic field-radar, radio communication, and so forth; second, the atomic energy project now in operation under the national research council; third, jet propulsion in all its aspects. I should like to ask the government through the Minister of National Defence if they have made any plans with regard to these highly important developments, and, if so, what those plans are.
A study of the National Research Act will disclose the fact that the work which the national research council was expected to do under this act has never been carried out. The council is first of all an administrative body, and its secondary function is to operate its own laboratories.
What is the government going to do to coordinate national defence technical requirements with the three services? It should be obvious to anyone that in so far as research is concerned these services should be brought together in peace time and put under the control and direction of the national research council.
With its vast war-time production, Research Enterprises developed all the technical skill which is necessary to make almost anything, and it would be nothing short of a national calamity if this technical knowledge and skill were lost to the country. There are so many things to which it could be turned. For example, it would enable us to make surgical and precision instruments and optical equipment now imported from Germany, England or the United States. If this plant is scrapped, what will the government do for optical glass? What will it do for optics? What are the government's plans in connection with TurboResearch? May I emphasize the necessity of placing all this research under a central organization. We are fortunate in having such an organization which has been functioning efficiently for years, namely, the national research council, ready to assume this responsibility. I wish to pay the highest tribute to the initiative, vision and organizing ability of those men in charge of Research Enterprises, who starting from scratch, selected and trained young men and women in entirely new fields,

Demobilization-Army
and in an incredibly short time turned out by mass production over $200 million worth of precision instruments and radar equipment-which played such an important part in winning this war.
I understand that in all their work they have been closely associated with the national research council. I call attention to the fact that in doing this work the company has developed a large body of individuals with specialized skill and with practical knowledge of the methods employed in the manufacture of the above-mentioned articles, which should not be lost to the country.
May I urge the government to initiate, under their direction, a continuing field of opportunity for these individuals, so that it may be possible to retain their technical skill. It is possible that enough optical instruments will not be required to make it profitable for private enterprise, but from the point of view of its national importance this scientific skill should- be retained.
The German government, realizing the national importance of the optical industry, supported the well known firm of Zeiss for a period of years in creating and maintaining the largest optical munitions source in the world. Without government assistance this firm could never have developed to the extent that it did. Incidentally I might mention that, apparently, Russia has taken over this entire plant and will probably transfer it to its own country. Can we afford to be dependent on a foreign country for our optical instruments, which play such a big part in war? It should not be necessary to urge the government to maintain a small part of Research Enterprises where this industry may be continued under government direction and control, perhaps through the national research council, and where the employment of a small group of trained personnel may be retained.
Research Enterprises could make a contribution to the plan of post-war arsenals, whatever that plan may be, by the facilities which it can offer as well as by providing the skilled personnel to whom I have just referred, and I suggest that this could be done through a government-owned company. I understand that Turbo-Research Limited has been and presumably will be operated within the framework of Research Enterprises and should be developed, not because of any commercial possibilities, but as a necessary policy of defence. If this Turbo-Research were to continue in the way suggested it would be able to make use of a variety of services and production facilities of Research Enterprises. The residual facilities of Research Enterprises, including personnel, could be utilized under this plan.
Of course, it \yill be obvious that the continuing plan will be greatly reduced, but even so it will give an opportunity of keeping alive highly trained technical personnel and equipment in a degree of readiness to meet any emergency. Through Turbo-Research or in some other way, residual groups of trained personnel could be maintained in the instrument and radio divisions and be immediately available. In other words, I suggest that some of the buildings now occupied by Research Enterprises eould be retained and have productive facilities in a state of readiness, with a nucleus of trained personnel whose potential skills could be utilized on projects arising in connection with defence services technical requirements.
The research work now carried on in the army signals establishment in Ottawa and in the naval signal school at St. Hyacinthe could be transferred to this unit at Research Enterprises under the direction of the national research council. There is a large field of fire control which eould also be included in the same unit, but perhaps the most important work would be in the field of radar and telecommunications.
Surely one does not have to labour the argument in making out the strongest possible case for the retention and development of such scientific work by the federal government in the building under its own control, upon which a very large amount of the taxpayers' money has already been spent, with skilled technicians who, if allowed to disperse, would inevitably be lost to the country.
May I refer to opportunities in the radar field. The national research council at Ottawa had responsibility for research and design in radar. In view of the fact that two fields at Unionville and Scarboro were used in connection with facilities at Leaside, might it not be well to consider the physical removal to the latter place of design functions formerly carried on in the city of Ottawa.
In connection with radar development I should like to refer to cathode ray tubes. I understand that a variety of types of these articles were produced in quantities at Research Enterprises. It would seem to be highly desirable to maintain this establishment, since the retention under government control of this cathode ray tube facility may be of national importance.
I think everyone will realize that the production of weapons and equipment for modern war will depend upon the permanent development of technical facilities and skills in every nation. If we are to play our part in future defence, then we must develop in Canada sufficient technical skill in this field, with neces-
Demobilization-Army

sary scientific personnel and facilities. With such a central plan provision would be made for a common meeting place for each of the three services with scientific design and development personnel, and an industry sufficient for the purposes to make us independent of any foreign country. I suggest, therefore, that the national research council is the body in Canada which should provide such a national organization. We have available in Canada to-day scientific personnel, trained workers and laboratory and production facilities needed for such a plan by any national defence policy which is put into effect.
I know that the tendency has been for each of the services to create and maintain its own technical establishment in the field of design and development, but I submit that it would effect a great economy, as well as increase of efficiency, if these were combined. May I therefore suggest that the government create a committee or body with the president of the national research council as its chairman and that membership be provided for representatives of the government, as well as of the three national defence services, which would correlate and direct the scientific development and technical requirements of each of the defence services, which, of course, includes the medical branches. There will, no doubt, be great progress made in the years to come, in developments that will follow technical investigations, and it is, therefore, vitally important that we should have ' a central coordinating organization such as this, so that the scientific and technical requirements of the three defence services may be dealt with by one central body.
May I again repeat that the national research council is the logical central body through which the requirements of all our defence services should be coordinated and directed.
In order to give force and meaning to the suggestions which I have made, I should like to refer briefly to one outstanding example of a valuable contribution made by Research Enterprises to our allies during the war. When the United States entered the war, that country was not producing radar, and Research Enterprises supplied within two months four complete radar equipments for the protection of the Panama canal, so vital to shipping. I understand that, later on, large quantities of a type of light mobile radar equipment w;as supplied exclusively by Research Enterprises and played a very important part in the landing operations in the early stages of the Pacific war.
May I call the minister's attention for a moment to the medical sendees and make a

suggestion in connection therewith? During the war I have not criticized the fact that we have had three separate anti distinct medical services, one for the navy, one for the army and one for the air force. I have felt that this duplication or triplication was perhaps justified by the distinctive character of the problems which each had to face. Now that the war is over, however, in my opinion there is no longer justification for the large additional expenditures which will be involved in -triplicating medical services, especially since this will not improve the medical care of our men but may have the opposite effect, as I will show in a moment.
After all, the treatment remains the same whether the sickness occurred or the wounds were received in service in the army, navy or air force. It will avoid much confusion and expense and promote a higher degree of efficiency if all highly trained specialists are available for the three services under one supreme head. Therefore I suggest that there should be one director general of medical services with three deputies, one each for the navy, army and air force. I suggest further that under these arrangements medical officers and nurses who have served in the navy, army or air force should be given the right to wear their distinctive uniforms.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are four questions which I should like to put to the minister. I imagine I had better do so now, because under the special items I do not see places where I may ask them.
Before I address my questions to the minister may I say that I listened with interest to the last speaker in connection with the two matters which he discussed before the committee. I believe that consideration should be given to his latter contention, namely, combining the medical services of the various armed forces. I also wish to congratulate him on making the appeal that he did for increasing the part that the government should play in research. I suggest that it might be put on an even broader basis than just an interest in defence, important as that may be. I certainly hope that when the proper item comes before the house, namely the estimates of the national research council, we may be able to get the admission of the government that definite increases have to be made in our expenditures for research. I shall have something more to say about that when the item comes up; it is hardly under discussion at the present time.
The first question I should like to ask is whether further consideration has been given, and whether anything has come out of that

Demobilization-Army
consideration, to the request that stepmothers be awarded the Silver Cross which is awarded to mothers of men who have given their lives. The minister knows that this matter has been raised before. It does not affect a great many people, but seems a little strange that the line should be drawn so hard in this particular case. I need only mention the fact that there are cases of stepmothers who have fdled that place from the infancy of the soldier who has now given his life. The government should find a way to relent on its previous stand and make that award without further delay.
The second question I should like to put to the minister has to do with the awarding of the 1939-45 medal and also the Pacific star to the men who went to Hong Kong. In my own city of Winnipeg there is at the present time a great deal of rejoicing as these men are coming home. And when one thinks of the fact that these awards were to be given for service in the Pacific surely they should be given to these men. I would go further, as has_ already been suggested in this house by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and suggest that all of the special allowances that were to have been made for fighting in the Pacific should be accorded those men who went to Hong Kong in 1941, retroactive to the time they left Canada.
I move on to the third question that I should like to put to the minister. It relates to the men of the brigade which went to Kiska, This question, like the previous one, has been up in the house before. These men went on an expedition that might have cost heavily in terms of casualties. Even so, there were some casualties owing to mines and so on which were left behind by the enemy, which, without the knowledge of our forces, had fled. I remind the minister that these men were overseas. They endured pretty difficult conditions for a period of about six months. They were in an area which was recognized in connection with the United States troops with whom they were serving as a combat zone, and it does seem to me that the request of the men and their officers should be considered and they should be awarded at least the 1939-45 star. I do not want to raise any of the invidious comparisons that are sometimes made in this committee, but I do hope this award is not being withheld because a large number of the troops in that brigade were N.R.M.A. men. The fact is that they were sent on the expedition. After repeated representation it was recognized as overseas by the income tax department ; it was on the other side of the 180th
meridian, and it does seem to me this award should be made to these men. I know they feel very keenly about it and are not satisfied with the way in which their request for consideration of this matter has been put off from time to time.
There is a fourth matter about which I should like to question the minister, and I shall do so by referring to a specific case which I mention because I am interested in the soldier I have in mind and also because I believe that a principle is at stake, since indeed there must be a great many others in a similar situation. I do not wish to mention the name of this soldier, for reasons which will be obvious in a moment, but to make it clear that I am talking about a specific case I will give his number, which is H-9501. This young man enlisted in the army while still very young; he was sent to England in due course and was most anxious to play his part to the full. He is the son of a veteran of the last war, and it was in his very blood to make the best contribution he could in this war for the defence of his country. He did everything he could to get to Italy as soon as possible after reaching England, and managed to get included in a volunteer draft after being in England- for only three months.
In Italy in September, 1941, this young man, who was a private, was in the very thick of the fighting. He was in the battle of the Gothic line, and up front at least three times. I have talked to him myself, and the simplest way for me to put it is to say that he went through hell itself in his experiences at the Gothic line. He took part in bayonet charges; as hon. members who have been through this sort of thing will appreciate, much of the time he was crawling on his stomach, facing all the horrors and hazards of front-line warfare at its worst. I mention with emphasis the fact that he was only twenty years of age, and I suggest to the minister that many men of his age and younger went through a terrible experience. The plain fact of the matter is that the time came when the strain became too great; he cracked up and left the front line. Within three hours he gave himself up and was anxious to make up for what he had done, to go back to the front line. The fellow soldiers to whom he gave himself up saw the condition he was in and felt it was useless for him to go back to the front line. Rightly or wrongly, they assisted him to get farther back, and suggested that he give himself up farther behind the lines. By the time he did so, of course he was absent without leave and in due course was court martialed and given a sentence of two years detention.
Demobilization-Army

I took up this case on a number of occasions with the minister's predecessor. I was assured that it would be investigated, but that was about all that ever happened until shortly after the present minister came into office. Very soon after that, I am glad to say, the case of this soldier was reviewed at least to the extent that his release from detention was ordered. In the meantime he had been brought home from Italy to Canada, and endured the experience of being handcuffed while in public in a place like Toronto. Later he was taken to Kingston, from where he was released a short while ago. Now, of course, he stands discharged from the army, and his discharge certificate reads "for misconduct", so that he loses his gratuities and all that sort of thing. Beyond that, however, this young man will have to go through life under a stigma, whereas the fact of the matter is that he did his best to make the fullest possible contribution and, if I might go back to the expression I used a moment ago, he went through hell itself for the sake of his country.
I fully realize the need for discipline, especially when the battle is on, or I might even go farther and say, while the war is still on. It does seem to me in this case, however-and I quote it because according to my information there are many like it-that the sentence has been far too severe, and I would earnestly hope that this case might be reviewed with the thought that a change might be made in the basis of this young man's discharge. He knows the seriousness of what he did; he knew within three hours how serious it was, even under the strain he was experiencing. But he paid the price for all that in the severity of the punishment which was imposed upon him; in the sentence he was given and in the way he served that sentence, and it does seem to me that should be enough. I suppose some of the military people would say I am calling for a complete overhaul of policy in these matters. Well, all .right; I call for it. It seems to me that in this citizen army about which we have had so much to say to-day we should be human in matters like these. I was pleased that the young man in question was released shortly after the present minister came into office. I can tell him that the family of this young man give him the credit. Whether or not the minister should get it, at least he is being given credit for the release of this soldier.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I had nothing to do with it. I should like to take credit for it, but I cannot.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I will give the minister an opportunity now to get credit for

something else if he will have this case reviewed still further. I have presented the matter to him by correspondence, and two or three weeks ago by letter he did assure me that he would have the matter looked into, get a full report on it and get in touch with me again when he had that report. But I urge that, even if it involves some drastic change in policy, the minister see if we cannot do something so that young men like this, who have made such a real contribution to the defence of this country, will not go through life under the sort of stigma this young man is experiencing at the present time. I know the family; I know the young man himself. They happen to live in my constituency. That is why I speak of the case as one I know something about. I come to the minister now with an appeal for his most sympathetic consideration.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This, of course, is one of many similar cases. These questions concerning the sentences of courts martial are coming up for review all the time. The circumstances as my hon. friend has outlined them certainly would arouse one's sympathy. When he began to talk of this case I thought it was another, very similar case which occurred in Italy, where a man left the front line under fire and was found in the wagon lines next morning. It was one of those cases where the man took this action under heavy stress, and he was sentenced by court martial. All these cases are being reviewed in the ordinary way, and, I think, are being reviewed sympathetically. When any case of that kind is brought, not necessarily to the attention of myself but to the attention of the secretary of the department, a sympathetic investigation will be held. I know the veterans affairs committee is now discussing the question of a review of the grounds of discharge of various members of the armed forces, perhaps more from the point of view of how a man's gratuity is affected. All I can say is that there is a procedure laid down under the Army Act for appeals from sentences to the minister and to the governor in council, and a good many of those come forward. From my brief, but fairly active experience, I know that all of them receive careful consideration. I am sure they received careful consideration from my predecessors, and the ones which come before me are looked into carefully. I do not recall the particular case my hon. friend has in mind, but I have taken a note of the number, and I recall'mention of a review of this case. I think it is now under way.
The other three questions have been brought up before. First, there is the question of granting the Memorial Cross to stepmothers. That was the subject of an answer given a

Demobilization-Army
week or two ago. So far as I know there has been no further consideration of the matter since that time. I shall bring my hon. friend's remarks to the attention of the committee, which has considered this matter time and again to see if there is anything which might lead them to change their opinions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What are the objections?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Broadly speaking, it was that this should be restricted to blood relations, such as mothers and wives. It has never been extended to stepmothers. It was felt that if it were extended to stepmothers it should perhaps logically be extended to other relatives, such as sisters and the like. Whether those grounds are sufficient or not, I cannot say. In any event it has received much careful consideration over a considerable period of time, and that was the decision taken. It has been brought up before. All I can say is that I shall look into it again to see if I think there is any real ground for extending it to others than those already eligible.
Then, as to the Pacific Star, I believe I answered a question in the house when the matter was first raised some weeks ago. I pointed out that the eligibility for this star, with others, was fixed by regulations which were common to all the commonwealth nations, but I felt sure that the Pacific Star would be awarded, and that those who served in Hong Kong would be eligible for that star. I cannot make a positive statement to-night, but my former statement will stand. They will get the star.
I do not know about the 1939-45 medal. I shall have to look into that. I am inclined to think they are eligible, but I shall have to make my answer later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the 1939-45 star for the Kiska men?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have to look into that, too.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Don't waste your time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I think too much of the hon. member for Fraser Valley to give him the answer he should get.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What is that?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I think too much of the hon. member for Fraser Valley to give him the answer he should get for making that interjection when I rose to speak.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Pardon me; I was not referring to the hon. member. I was referring to the ridiculous remark about Kiska.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is your opinion.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I was sure he did not mean any offence; I just wished to give him a bit of a bouquet, because he deserves one now and again.
If the question I am about to ask has been answered before, I shall not expect the minister to answer it. If not, then I am sure he will forgive me for asking it. What is to be done for the fire-fighters who went overseas under the command of Fire Chief Gordon Huff of Brantford? What is being done, and by what department?


Douglas Charles Abbott: They were under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of National War Services. He has-or had-them under his wing.


Mr. McMASTER:: I rise with some diffidence at this late hour, because so many distinguished soldiers and officers of this war and the last one have already spoken. Because of the small part I played in the first war, perhaps the committee would excuse me if I were to make some suggestions to the minister.
First of all, I was interested in the officer mentioned by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I was interested in the fact that apparently there was a forum in the army. I knew that something like that was going on in England at the beginning of the war, because I remember quite well that during the lull which occurred immediately after the outbreak of war the question was often asked as to who commanded a battalion, a private or the colonel. Apparently it was resolved in favour of the colonel at that time-I suppose by process of alternative voting.
I was not so sure when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was speaking that a man who might be a good speaker in one of those forums might make a good officer. Some people would think that if he were a good talker he might make a worse officer than someone else who did less talking. After all, there is great opportunity for men in the ranks.
While in the last war the subalterns took credit for being the brains and back-bone of the army, I am told that in this one it is the sergeants who claim that they won the war. I had noticed before the speech of the hon, member for Melfort that there was a considerable number of officers in proportion to the number of enlistments. There were 45,000 commissioned ranks out of a total enlistment of 730,000 which, I believe, included some in the women's organizations. At the beginning of this war we were told that there were only

Demobilization-Army

to be three officers per company in the infantry, and when I remember that I can not see where this large number of officers could be used. I realize, of course, that the dental, medical and chaplain corps would have a considerable number of officers. But even including them I could not see where in this war we required so many officers.
The minister also spoke about the great work done in connection with enlistments in this war, and compared those enlistments with those of the last war. It seemed to me that he put the enlistments of the last war in a somewhat unfavourable light. I find that, according to his own statement, there were enlistments in the army in this war numbering
730.000.	of whom only 370,000 went overseas. He pointed out that the casualties amounted to 80,000. I may be wrong, but I believe that figure included casualties in all the forces.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just the army.


William Alexander McMaster: All hon. members know that the air force suffered a considerable number of casualties. My memory is that in the last war enlistments in the armed forces of Canada totalled about 650,000, of whom
465.000	went overseas. That is, 465,000 out of
650.000	in the first war, as compared with
370.000	out of 730,000 in this war.
In the last war we know that the fatal casualties numbered nearly 60,000, and the minister has said that all casualties numbered
200.000.	My recollection was that the fatalities were much higher, and, if the minister's figures are correct, then one-third of all the casualties were fatal. My recollection was that the total wounded ran to something over
300.000.	So that I do not think the government has any reason to congratulate itself when it compares what it has done in this war with what was done in the last one.
I have heard a great deal said at different times-and much was said during the last parliament-to the effect that universal service in the last war did not produce men in the front lines, that the results were negligible so far as reinforcements were concerned.
I recall about a year ago, or in the spring, I have forgotten which, I was in my own home when the present Prime'Minister spoke over the radio and made that statement. The actual figures show that after universal service was brought into effect, 157,000 joined up, voluntarily or otherwise, of whom a considerable number went overseas. While the speech was being made over the radio, I became rather worked up, and I immediately stopped listening to the Prime Minister and got out my old A company book of the third- battalion. I found that in my company sixty
	.
men had numbers of 2,000,000 or over, which, as I understood it, showed they had joined after the introduction of compulsory service. That was on the day hostilities ceased, November 11, 1918. They comprised practically half of my old company. A considerable number of these men had acquitted- themselves very honourably and favourably in the preceding battle. Many had been either killed or wounded. If another battle had taken place it would have been fought largely by men who had joined up, either compulsorily or otherwise, after universal service had been brought into force.
The conscripted men who went overseas in th^ last war were not tagged, but unfortunately they were given a number which gave away the fact that they had been conscripted. But they never were treated any differently from the other men. I know that many of these men- were rather glad that someone else had made up their minds for them. Many of them had held back for family or other reasons. They did not feel they ought to take the plunge and join the army and they were glad when that was decided for them.
We all know the trouble that occurred during this war in connection with the reinforcement situation in the front line. I do not 'know whether I should blame the minister because I do not think he was in charge, but perhaps I shall have to blame the government because they must take the responsibility for what is done by the officers who look after military matters. As I passed up and down the country, by train or otherwise, I met many of the boys in the armed forces. I asked them what branch of the service they belonged to, and I found out they would be in the ordnance, in mechanical transport, in the R.C.E.M.E. and other -branches; seldom did I meet an infantry man. I take no credit for saying at that time, "You may -be in the ordnance to-day but you will be somewhere else to-morrow because heavy casualties are always suffered by the infantry."
I cannot see why those in charge of the government did not foresee that casualties due to the present terrible engines of war would- soon -wipe out the number of men they had allocated to the infantry. We have heard the hon. member for Calgary East tell us what happened to his battery, how it was converted into infantry. I have -heard of other instances where that -was done-.
If a man has done nothing but remain overseas for several years, in my opinion he should receive a considerable number of points more than the man who has been in Canada. Even though a man has -been located in British Columbia he will have had opportunity to

Demobilization-Army
visit his folks quite frequently. Certainly the man actively engaged in fighting in the front line should receive a considerable number of points in addition to those received by other men overseas.
It does seem too bad if men who have been in the front line and who have suffered the terrible strain of front-line warfare should, be kept in the occupation forces when there are others available. The minister has given figures to-night showing that there are about 11,000 N.R.M.A. men in England or in Europe. Certainly I would expect that those men would be used in their entirety. I cannot see how the government can justify holding 35,000 N.R.M.A. men in Canada without sending them overseas if they are required. The government should release some of these men who have been through these battles; they should release some of the other long service men. The reinforcements would be facing no danger; they would be taking what we used to call in the last war a Cook's tour. Sufficient of these' men should be sent over to take the place of those who are entitled to come home.
This evening the minister spoke of training key men for the occupation force. Six months have elapsed since V-E day in May and I wonder why men have not been trained to take the place of those who are supposed to be key men. I know that officers in charge like to retain men who are efficient, but after all that cannot always be done even in business. I submit that there are a great many men who are supposed to be key men who could be sent home, even though this might cause some little inconvenience to the officers in charge. The minister referred to a pamphlet which is dated September 6, 1945, less than two months ago and I notice that this statement is made:
C.A.O.F. is setting up its own trades schools to train low-score men or volunteers to replace non-volunteer tradesmen and specialists.
It seems to me that the minister might quite properly be dissatisfied with an overseas headquarters which has failed in four months to do the obvious thing and give instructions to low-point men in order that they might take the place of those who are now considered essential.


Mr. GRAYDON:: I have only two matters which I desire to raise with the minister. One has to do with the rations which are now supplied to Canadians in the army of occupation in Europe. My question is based upon a complaint which I received in a letter from overseas just this afternoon. I should like to ask whether the rations given to the army of occupation have been reduced in any way, either as to quality or quantity, as compared 47696-1061
with what was supplied to the troops under similar circumstances while hostilities were on. The minister might indicate to the committee just what reduction has taken place and the reasons therefor.	,


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know the exact date, but either last week or ten days ago the ration scale in the army of occupation was varied or reduced. For reasons which I think the committee will appreciate, our ration scale has always been the same as the British ration scale. We supplement it with some fruit juices, but by and large our basic ration overseas is the same as the British ration. We draw our rations from the British; the pipeline is the same; the source of supply is the same. Our ration has always conformed to the British ration.
While the troops were engaged in active operations and training on the continent, the ration was somewhat larger than the ration in Great Britain-both British and Canadian troops enjoyed that higher ration scale-there was some more meat and so on. I have not before me the details of the ration, but that is the position. About a week or ten days ago, or it may be as much as two weeks ago, the British ration scale was reduced by eliminating that extra ration for the troops on the continent. In other words, it was felt that by and large conditions of service on the continent were not greatly different from those in England, that the troops were not then engaged in fighting operations, or marching, or the more strenuous operations, and that the scale on the continent should be made to conform to that in Great Britain; and it was felt that so far as our own troops were concerned we must follow the same practice we had done in the past, and that our ration scale would conform to theirs. I can get some further detail as to the way in which it was reduced, but I imagine that is the information which the committee would wish to have.
There has also been a change in the ration scale in Great Britain, as to which I have not yet full particulars, but which I have asked for and will give the committee as soon as I can.


Gordon Graydon: Is it still higher in the arm)' than it is so far as the civilian population in Britain is concerned?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, I think so-substantially higher; and, of course, very much higher than that of the people in the countries which our troops are occupying.


Gordon Graydon: There is one other matter about which I should like to ask the minister. Is there any form of censorship or scrutiny of the mails by anyone in the army,
Demobilization-Army

in so far as mail coming from the ordinary
private or non-commissioned officer in the army of occupation to people in Canada is concerned?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It used to be done in "operations". I do not think it is continued now, but I would want to verify that before I give an answer.


An hon. MEMBER:: Letters from overseas do not have a stamp.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But my hon. friend's question related to censorship, whether the usual practice of letters being censored by the officer of the unit in which the man was serving was carried on. I do not think it is. I shall have to check. Perhaps some other member of the committee knows.


Gordon Graydon: The reason I ask is that, in a letter I received to-day-naturally I will not divulge the source of it-it appeared that a soldier writing to his people at home indicated that it was impossible for him to write to his member of parliament, because, of course, the letter would be censored and, perhaps, would be destroyed. That was an experience which, he said, had happened to him before. I merely want to bring that to the attention of the minister because, if such things are going on, I think he ought to know about it and apply the necessary remedy, since certainly that sort of thing should not occur, particularly at this stage or, indeed, at any stage, with relation to letters of men in the ranks.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I quite agree. I think the nan to whom my hon. friend refers was probably under the impression that "operations" rules still applied and that letters were still aeing censored. Even under "operations" conditions, when letters were censored, there would be no justification or excuse for a letter being destroyed, or for the censoring officer refusing to send it forward unless it contained matter which was definitely contrary to public safety and so on.


Thomas John Bentley: I have a brief question to ask. I suppose I did not ask my question of the minister direct enough when I was getting some figures into the record to-night, but he has been in the habit of rising and replying to those who have put questions to him, and I should like the minister to reply to that question.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The reason I did not do so is that my hon. friend has such a flair for figures that he rather inundated me at that time, and I thought perhaps I had better

carefully review to-morrow morning in Hansard what, he said and try to give him the reply a little later.


Thomas John Bentley: Thank you.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Is the British government setting a standard of food for our forces overseas? I know thoroughly well the difficulties of supplying the troops with food and equipment; they go through certain channels; but from what the minister said a few minutes ago the implication would be that, if the British government should decide to reduce the rations of our men, we would abide by their decision. Has the Canadian army a standard of food for our soldiers? If so, why are we not living up to it, and why are we being guided by what the Labour government of Great Britain at the present time may specify as adequate rations for our men? We should have a standard of food the same as the United States have, and live up to it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can answer that question only by saying, as I did before, that we have served with the British troops; our ration standard has conformed to theirs; we use the same sources of supply; we draw our rations from their supply organization; and I for one feel that unless the British see fit to reduce their ration scale very much below what it now stands at, we should conform pretty much to that scale, whatever the Americans may see fit to do.


Mr. KIDD:: I should like to direct one or two questions to the minister. First, with regard to the Royal Military College at Kingston, would the minister inform the committee what the plans are, when it is proposed to open it, what the size will be, whether there will be one class or two classes, and will the numbers be 50, or 150, or 250?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I realize the interest my hon. friend has in this topic. I wish I could give him definite information to-night, but I cannot. My answer must be very much the same as I gave with regard to the future of the naval college at Royal Roads, that this whole matter of service colleges is now under review. Military training will be continued at the Royal Military College, but what the nature of' the instruction will be, and so on, is now being reviewed and considered, and an announcement will be made as soon as a decision is taken.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I have another question. I
hope the minister realizes the importance of this. Before the war there were perhaps fifty or sixty recruits coming in annually, and these were chosen more or less geographically across Canada. It is important that some

Demobilization-Army
announcement be made before the estimates come down. The question was asked on the order paper at the first of this month, do you intend to open the college with a class of 250 pupils; will it be one company or two companies? Whatever basis you decide upon, it will effect the boys in the collegiate institutes, the secondary schools and the private schools, and of course the parents of the boys themselves should be informed. No doubt the qualifications will be much the same as in the past, a certain academic standing, and selections made geographically. I would urge the minister as strongly as I can to make an announcement before the session closes, for this is a matter of importance. Could the minister tell us why the military college was closed?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: Royal Roads was not closed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know. I wa3
not minister at the time.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I am informed that there is
a difference of opinion. But the college should never have been closed: that is my opinion, and I say so to the committee. It was not closed in the last war.
The minister will recall that I directed a question on Monday September 10, just after the session opened, regarding boys who wanted to enter universities. The question I asked was, would the Minister of National Defence kindly inform the house , whether steps can be taken to speed up the discharge or release from the service of members of the armed forces whose applications for discharge have been made in order that they can attend or reenter universities or other educational institutions? The matter is urgent owing to shortness of time within which they can write to or correspond with a university.
I thank the minister for the cooperation he has given so far. If I am correctly informed, the house met here on a Thursday and I directed that question to the minister the following Monday. I believe it deals with something which is of interest to nearly every lion, member. Letters were received after Y-J day from the boys themselves and from their parents inquiring why they could not obtain their release from the army in order to attend university. Probably my question should have been directed to the Prime Minister, but as I said, I addressed it to the Minister of National Defence, and a good deal of publicity has been given to the matter. I have here a clipping which came to me from overseas, and I wish to correct the statement that "releases are going satisfactorily". I want to make it clear that
I appreciate the cooperative attitude of the Minister of National Defence, who is also the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, and I thank him and the officials of these departments who have made it possible for these boys to enter universities.
I think we should have a statement from the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Gibson) who is in the house at the moment, because in my opinion it is a shame and a disgrace to think that so many young men who entered the service at the age of eighteen and who are now twenty-three or twenty-four years of age are still in the service. I can cite dozens of instances. I must nave had communications with respect to at least fifty who are still in the service. I do not know whether there exists any feeling of prejudice between the different services, but, as anyone in the army knows when he is overseas, no one is indispensable. It is true that some of these young men may be _ doing clerical work, but when one considers the situation of a young man of twenty-three or twenty-four years of age; when one considers his anxiety to enter university, and then realizes that he has to wait another year, one will appreciate how these men must feel.


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: I can assure the hon. member that hundreds of members of the air force have got out for the very purpose of going to university, and I do not know why there should be any allegation that the air force is not cooperating in letting men out in order to go to university. Many hundreds of them are doing so.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: Notwithstanding what the minister has said, I think he will bear me out that many of these boys have been kept in the service when they should have been let out. After all, no one is indispensable. I know that instructions were sent out, covering two mimeographed pages, informing those in the army and navy exactly what procedure had to be followed, but I do not believe it was done in the air force.


Colin William George Gibson: Yes; that was done by the air department,


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: If that is so, I am inclined to think that the men in charge of the stations resent instructions from headquarters. They no doubt say to themselves, "We are not going to be interfered with by headquarters", and the result is that these boys have been penalized. I know it is difficult to determine where the blame attaches. I do not know on whom the onus rests.
There is another matter in regard to which I should like to get some information, and that is, how these various units got their
Demobilization-Army

names. Take eastern Ontario units. In eastern Ontario we have the S.D. and G.'s, and men from these various units will be coming back to Canada. I should like to know how they got their names on going overseas.


Alan Cockeram: How will they be unscrambled?


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I am referring at the moment to the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry regiment. How is it composed?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot answer the question as to how these various regiments got their names. A good many of the regiments have a long tradition and a long association with the communities in which they were formed, and I must confess that I am unable to give their history. I do not know how they started and perhaps some officers who have had long experience can give that information.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend the member for York South knows all about this, but I may say that when the militia was reorganized in 1936 several changes were made in the names of regiments, in some cases causing a feeling of soreness, because old traditions had to be shattered in an effort to effect a composite militia force. We had in cooperation with us the defence association, the artillery association and the splendid body of militia men throughout Canada, and the resulting organization, which was completed about December 1936, commanded, I believe, the general commendation of all those who had served faithfully in the militia. In that transformation there were changes of names and thdre were new aggregations and formations.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I thank the acting leader of the house for the information, but it seems to me that every time anyone says anything in connection with this war some reference is bound to be made to the last war. In the last war we had the first, second and third battalions, in the first brigade and so on, and there was a second division. In my case we had the old second battalion from Ottawa and eastern Ontario. It was in the first brigade, the first division, and then came the twenty-first battalion, and the same all along the line. Some different idea, however, seems to have crept into this war. The idea seems to have been that everything should be different from what we had in the last war-no bands or anything of that sort, not even the bagpipes. I do not think the acting leader .of the house is quite right in what he has said. I am not putting any blame on the present minister, but in eastern Ontario, in
[Mr. Kidd.l
the last war, we had what was known as the second battalion, composed of every unit from Ottawa, Cornwall, Kingston, Brocbville, Belleville, Cobourg, Peterborough and so on. That battalion in this war was composed of the Hastings and Prince Edward infantry. Later on came the S.D.G.'s, comprising men from Cornwall, Brockville, Kingston and Peterborough. I do not know how this last unit obtained its name. I hope the minister will do everything he can to see that there is not a recurrence of this confusion. I hesitate to bring this matter up, because I do not wish to have it inferred at all that we are trying to bring any influence to bear upon officers and men, since no finer unit ever served overseas. When these boys come back they will go back to the various districts from which they were enlisted: Peterborough, Kingston, and so on.


Howard Charles Green: There are one or two questions I wish the minister to answer in connection with the N.R.M.A. troops. On October 1 he brought down a return which showed, among other things, how many N.R.M.A. troops were in the army of occupation on the 1st of September, 1945. That return will be found at page 603 of Hansard. The number given there is 1,778 N.R.M.A. troops actually with the army of occupation. I have had word from overseas to the effect that some troops have been told that all N.R.M.A. men are to be taken out of the army of occupation. That may or may not be correct. Can the minister say whether it is?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is not correct.


Howard Charles Green: It is not correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Howard Charles Green: There is another question with regard to the N.R.M.A. overseas. The minister said to-night that on September 30 there were 10,693 N.R.M.A. troops overseas.


Douglas Charles Abbott: On strength overseas.


Howard Charles Green: There have already come back 1,217. As the minister knows, there has been serious complaint about N.R.M.A. troops being sent back in the first division units, although these troops have not been fighting. The second division units are coming back and the third division and then the fifth and then the fourth. If the government policy remains as it was in the case of the first division there will be quite a large percentage of these N.R.M.A. troops coming back with these other divisions, despite the fact that they have not been in action, and I take it

Demobilization-Army
that the government has no intention of changing the policy. It is laid down in paragraph 23 on page 8 of this booklet, "After Victory," which says:
Points will be scored by those called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act, who have gone overseas for all of their service, whether G.S. or N.R.M.A.
Apparently no distinction is made between men who have been in action and men who have not. If I am wrong in stating what the government policy is, as announced by the minister, I wish he would correct me. I repeat, my understanding is that these N.R.M.A. men will come back with the other divisions, just as they have done in the first division, depending on what their point score is under the present system.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct. So far as overseas is concerned no distinction will be made between so-called N.R.M.A. men and others. They will come home on their point score the same as any othqr soldier overseas.


Howard Charles Green: Of course we disagree with that policy, and we point out to the minister that we think it is very unfair and that it will cause great dissatisfaction. However, if the government is setting that policy the responsibility rests on the doorstep of the ministry.
Then, with regard to the N.R.M.A. troops in Canada, a return was brought down on October 1, 1945, and is to be found at page 586 of Hansard. This return showed that on August 15, 1945, there were 35,950 N.R.M.A. troops in Canada or in adjacent territories. In the two months that have expired since, that figure has been cut to 33,207.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is Canada only, not adjacent territories. That does not include N.R.M.A. men in Jamaica.


Howard Charles Green: What is the comparable figure as of October 15?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have to get that.


Howard Charles Green: The minister does not have that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not have it here.


Howard Charles Green: To-night the minister gave a figure of 33,207.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I say that does not include the ones in adjacent territories; it may. I shall have to verify that. The memorandum which was handed to me restricts that number to Canada.


Howard Charles Green: I would point out to the committee that if that figure does include those in adjacent territories, then it means that 2,743 men have been discharged from N.R.M.A,
personnel. That number of NJTM.A. troops have been discharged in the two months. It may be government policy gradually to let all these N.R.M.A. troops out in Canada. We should like to know whether or not that is the policy?


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are not being discharged ahead of others, but there will be sopie, of course, who are bound' to go out on medical grounds and that sort of thing.


Howard Charles Green: They are going out in Canada on the point system too, are they?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, I suppose they are going out on the point system. But, of course, the points in Canada are not yet down low enough to-


Alan Cockeram: A lot of them have fifty points.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; that is for repatriation. Perhaps this should be made clear at once. Because these men come back in units with a point score of fifty or fifty-five, it does not mean that they are eligible for discharge in Canada. The present point score-I am speaking from memory on this and am therefore subject to correction-on which a man can go out is certainly not below 110. It is being brought down gradually. I am inclined to think it is 120. The next move will be down to 110, in any event.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister can bring us figures to-morrow showing the number of N.R.M.A. men who have been discharged in the two months.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I undertook earlier in the evening to do that.


Howard Charles Green: And the reasons for discharge.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Whether that can be broken down to reasons, I do not know. I can give the gross figures as to discharges.


Howard Charles Green: If it is awkward I will not press the question. The minister also said that on October 15 there were 9,575 N.R.M.A. troops in Canada out on extended leave, which in effect means they are back in civil life doing civil jobs.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Farm leave. My hon.
friend is familiar with the type of leave which can be given.


Howard Charles Green: That is 1,340 more than were out on the same sort of leave on August 15, as shown by the return to which I have just referred. The figure then was 8,235, so that it looks as though the N.R.M.A. men are being allowed to slip away.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Still a lot to slip.
Demobilization-Army


Howard Charles Green: On April 6, the minister told me that there were 20,000 N.R.M.A, troops in Canada who were available for infantry reinforcements overseas. To-night he said that there are 15,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said, about 15,000. Subsequently to April 1 others were sent overseas.


Howard Charles Green: There are still about 15,000?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right,


Howard Charles Green: Who can go over to serve in the army of occupation. That means that, including the 15,000 and the 10,693 overseas, there are more than enough N.R.M.A. troops available to fill up the whole army of occupation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If they were of the right categories and types and trades and officers and so on. That is a tall order.


Howard Charles Green: Well, apart from the officers and the N.C.O.'s.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Tradesmen's groups. That
15,000	figure represents the figure given me as suitable for infantry duty.


Howard Charles Green: I do not suppose the minister would seriously contend that there are not enough N.R.M.A. troops available either overseas or in Canada to fill up the army of occupation and allow all the men who have been in action to come home.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would doubt it, yes._ In numbers, yes. But I would not think for one moment that you would be able to get the right categories.


Howard Charles Green: It must be close to the number, considering that there are only 13,000 in the army of occupation who were not volunteers for that army. We should like to know what the government plans to do with those N.R.M.A. troops in Canada; whether they are not more ot less useless and costing the country a great deal of money. We should like to know from the government what the intention is with regard to those troops. Are they still to be allowed to sit here? Are they to be sent overseas, or what is the policy? I think the country is entitled to have that information.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I gave that answer earlier this evening.


Howard Charles Green: No; the minister did not say what he intended to do with the N.R.M.A. troops in Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said that was a matter of government policy which would be announced in due course.


Mr. ROWE:: That has been the $64 question for five years.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister can tell us what the troops are doing now?


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are' performing a great many useful and necessary duties in the divisions in connection with demobilization. They are working in the demobilization depots. There are a great many services which have to be performed in this country, which if the N.R.M.A. men are not there to do it, we would have to have G.S. troops perform. Until we get the other 150,000 or 100,000 troops back from overseas and demobilized, there is still quite a little to be done in Canada. So far as possible those men are being utilized for that purpose. The alternative, of course, would be to discharge them and let them compete for jobs with men who are waiting overseas.


Howard Charles Green: No; the alternative would be to send them over to the army of occupation, but that is not government policy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I answered that once before. My hon. friend and none of his supporters were making that suggestion before the election.


Howard Charles Green: I suggested that in my speech months ago.


William Earl Rowe: The minister is afraid to suggest it after the election.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not before the election.


Howard Charles Green: The minister cannot make any statements like that about me because they are not true. I took that stand right through. I took that stand when I spoke in the house on April 6 of this year, that those N.R.M.A. troops should be used for the army of occupation. That has been my stand throughout. The trouble is that the government is afraid to do that.


William Earl Rowe: That is the answer.


Robert William Gladstone: I should like to press the request of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the Silver Cross be granted to foster mothers. Let me give the minister an example. A child two years of age was legally adopted, with all the papers completed by the county judge. The child was reared, and at seventeen and half years of age desired to join the army. Before acceptance into the army, it was necessary that consent be given by the foster parents. This was granted. The boy was killed on active service. He had left a will under which all his possessions were to go to his foster mother. The foster mother, who had no other offspring, states

Demobilization-Army
that her will was in favour of this boy. She has been denied the Silver Cross, which I think is distinctly unfair. I could not be satisfied with an unfavourable decision by any departmental committee. I ask the minister to take this matter in hand personally, and if he does not feel justified in rendering a favourable decision, to take it to cabinet council for consideration.


Mr. FAIR:: Has any consideration heen , given by the government to making reciprocal agreements with the governments of the other dominions, so that if any of their men wished to settle in Canada we would give them some help, and similarly if any of our men settled in other dominions those governments could extend rehabilitation benefits to them?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think consideration has been given any such proposal. Perhaps this more properly comes under the department of my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs, but I think we have restricted our consideration of rehabilitation benefits to those who have served in our own forces.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To supplement what my colleague has said, the question raised by my hon. friend is now receiving active consideration.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I dislike to pursue this matter, because I realize what a tender subject it must be for the minister and what a magnificent job he is doing in withholding from the committee, for purposes which must be very important to the government, the information we are trying to get in regard to the disposition of the N.R.M.A. troops. I wish to congratulate him on the magnificent job he has done so far. However, this afternoon we got these facts about the N.R.M.A. troops in Canada. In answer to a question of mine the minister said that he did consider them a potential source of recruits for the army of occupation; but he added very quickly, "But I am not saying they will be used as such." That was so much. Then I think in answer to the hon. member for Vancouver South a moment ago the minister said that some of them were being let out on their point scores.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I did not say that. I doubt if any of them have point scores high enough to be let out.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I wondered about that. Perhaps the minister will say whether they will be let out on their point scores in Canada, in the same way that volunteer soldiers are let out. The minister also said that the disposition of N.R.M.A. troops was a matter
of government policy which would be announced in due course. We have had a fairly clear definition of government policy in Europe. The policy there is that no distinction is made between N.R.M.A. personnel and volunteers; and I think that is a very fine policy. But as another part of that policy, as I said this afternoon this government is prepared to conscript volunteers over there without hesitation. I suggest that the same thing could be done here. Five months have elapsed since V-E day, when it was realized that the N.R.M.A. troops in Canada would not be needed for actual fighting operations.
I do not think the minister can satisfy the committee any longer by simply saying that the disposition of these troops is a matter of government policy for the future. I would hazard the guess that the government policy for the future is decided now, but that it is inexpedient to announce it.
I would ask the government to tell us first of all, is it proposed to discharge N.R.M.A. troops in Canada on their point score? Second, when he said he considered them a potential source of recruits for. the army of occupation, was he giving his personal opinion or the opinion of the government? What did he mean by saying that they might not be used? Finally, how does he reconcile the existence of a conscripted force which we will not send for duty with the army of occupation, with the existence of a volunteer force which' he will conscript for such duty?


Douglas Charles Abbott: So many questions are
wrapped up in what my hon. friend has said that I shall have to look at Hansard to-morrow to see if I can sift them out and answer them one by one. I made a pretty full statement on the position of the N.R.M.A. men, both at the session last April and here to-night. I would remind my hon. friend that the government has the responsibility for determining policy and will announce that policy in due course. When the government is decided on that policy, he will learn it. I do not want to give him any offence, but he cannot compel me or any member of the government to announce it to him before that time.


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister said that certain N.R.M.A. troops were employed as operational troops. Would he tell us what those operational troops are? I am afraid I missed the actual number, because I could not hear it.	[DOT]


Douglas Charles Abbott: The number is 1,285. I am afraid I cannot answer the rest of my hon. friend's question, as to just what those troops are. I know some operational troops with
Demobilization-Army

N.R.M.A. men are in Jamaica, 'but I am rather under the impression that they are not included in those figures, for the reason I gave the hon. member for Vancouver South. However, I am going to check with my officials to clear that up to-morrow, and I will give my hon. friend the information as to what operational units in Canada now include N.R.M.A. personnel.


Alan Cockeram: Can the minister tell us what courses are being carried on at the Royal Military College at the present time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is closed at the moment.


Alan Cockeram: There is a course going on, is there not?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: As I understand it, I believe at present there are two wings of the staff course, the intermediate and junior wings, being carried on. I believe those are the two courses being given at the present time.


Alan Cockeram: How many officers are attending?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have to get that information, unless my parliamentary assistant can give it.


Hugues Lapointe: I believe there are forty-eight in the intermediate wing, but I could not say about the other.


Alan Cockeram: Could the minister say something about this Canadian army university course, as to whether these, boys have any hope of getting back?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am going to ask my parliamentary assistant to answer that question, since he is familiar with the details.


Hugues Lapointe: The hon. member for York South passed over to me some time agft a letter which I believe he had received from the father of one of these lads. I told him I would give him a report on the matter, but I am afraid I may have delayed in doing so.
I did ask for the report but did not follow it up, so that I cannot give him one in writing. However, the information I have is not quite in accord with what the hon. member said to-night. As I understand it, these courses were started in the fall of 1942 for the purpose of getting what could be termed good potential officer material in the army. The men were recruited from different high schools and colleges and offered the chance to enlist in the army and be given one year's tuition in the university, during which time they would follow what I suppose would be the equivalent of C.O.T.C. or basic training. Afterward they were sent to advanced training in the arm 
for which they had been found suitable. The first course did graduate in the fall of 1943. Everybody did go to the advanced training, eventually to the officers training centres and graduated as officers and were sent overseas as such.
The first course yvas considered such a success that the second one was started on a much more extensive scale. I understand that about 1,000 men were enlisted in the second * course, and were sent to numerous universities throughout the country. When the time came for them to be assessed1 as to the arm of the service in which they should be given a chance to qualify as officers, the spring of 1944 had arrived. Conditions overseas had changed considerably and, as hon. members know, casualties in the infantry were particularly high, compared with those in other arms of the service.
These young men, before going to advanced training, were told that they would not be needed as officers in the other arms of the service, and that if they did want to have an opportunity of going up and being assessed as potential officers they would have to go into the infantry, because that was where the need for officer reinforcements then existed. They were given the option at that time either of continuing their training as officers in the infantry, or to continue their training as other ranks, and1 to proceed in their own arms as other ranks overseas. In that connection they were asked to sign a waiver.


Alan Cockeram: Would the parliamentary assistant read that?


Hugues Lapointe: It reads:
To accelerate my training the undersigned soldier, graduate of No. 2 Canadian army university course hereby waives the privilege of appearing as officer candidate before the officer selection appraisal board in Canada.
When speaking earlier this evening, my hon. friend said that these men were made to sign a waiver. I do not believe he intended to say that any force had been used to 1 induce them to sign. I have made enquiries and I am informed that the men were definitely given a choice. They were told that they could keep on in their training as officers, but that they would not go to R.C.A. or engineers, as the case might be. It was pointed out that if they were going to be officers they would have to go to the infantry, because that is where the officers were needed. A considerable number of them agreed. They were further assessed to be officer material, were trained as infantry officers and went overseas as such. The others

Demobilization-Army
desired, rather than to do that, to go across as other ranks in their particular arms. They have done that.
There was a further step taken concerning which my hon. friend might like to have some information. In respect of these men who signed waivers on their privilege of appearing as officer candidates before the board -in Canada, in each instance C.M.H.Q. overseas was informed of the training received by these men. It was pointed out that such men had been considered as officer material in Canada, and it was suggested that particular attention be given to them in connection with the selection of officers overseas, if such took place.


Alan Cockeram: I think that to a great extent the information given by the parliamentary assistant is correct. But many of these boys, when they went to university, were well under army age; and it was because they had accepted this training in the universities and because they had attended officers training corps, that they went on under the military corps to the various training centres to complete their training. The letter I read tonight. makes it appear that very few of them spent much time in England. The particular boy in question was in Italy within a few weeks of his arrival in England. I do not think there is much weight in the point made by the parliamentary assistant when he says that C.M.H.Q. were advised of the capabilities and training of these men, because I do not think they had enough time in England to go on with their training. They were trained men and, as such, they were shipped right into action.


Hugues Lapointe: I have no information as to the number of them who proceeded immediately to a theatre of war, or who were kept in the United Kingdom and are still there. If my hon. friend wishes to have that information, I shall endeavour to get it.


Alan Cockeram: Would there not be ' some way in which those thousand boys who attended that course would get points for the time they were at university? It will be remembered that the reason those courses were started was that at the time they were started the R.C.A.F. had combed the country and was getting the best type of young men for that force. The then minister of national defence felt-and rightly so-that he must have a source of supply for good officer material in the future. With that in mind he went around to these public and private schools, got in touch with the most likely looking boys and practically pleaded with them to go to university for their training. There has been a great injustice done to those young
fellows. To a very great extent they began their military training when they were well under military age, and to-day they are being penalized.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If I might interject, it seems to me that the suggestion made is a very good one. They were enlisted at the time they went to university, so that I should think that would count for service in Canada.


Alan Cockeram: Well, it is not being counted, and I think that would be a way to remedy it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We certainly will look into the matter and see what the answer is.


John Bracken: Mr. Chairman, I have not taken any part in the discussion on this particular matter, nor do I propose to do so to-night. However, I should like to leave on the record half a dozen questions the minister might answer to-morrow. I do not propose to debate them at this time. It is just a matter of ascertaining certain facts which no doubt he can provide.
Before proceeding to those questions, however, there are two matters to which I should like to refer. One has been discussed within the last few minutes. I do not know whether I understood the minister correctly-he will tell me, of course, if I did not-but I thought he said that certain N.R.M.A. personnel had been returned from overseas and were not being discharged, the reason being that their point score was not high enough; is that correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is my information, yes.


Alan Cockeram: I would like the minister to check up on that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


John Bracken: Then, low-point N.R.M.A. men have been returned from overseas and are being kept in uniform in Canada to-day. Is that correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; and so are other low-point men, who are not N.R.M.A. personnel.


John Bracken: I just wanted to know whether I had the correct understanding of it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The point I wish to make is that the point' system for repatriation, under the unit system, is not the same as the point system for discharge. A man with 50 points and up, provided that he is in the unit, would be entitled to be repatriated. However, speaking from memory, I believe the present point score which would entitle him to discharge is 120.
Demobilization-Army


John Bracken: I was surprised that N.R.M.A. men who were not qualified under the regulations for discharge should have been brought back, and not only that, but are si til being kept in Canada in uniform.
I have another question to ask which perhaps the minister cannot answer. I asked this perhaps three weeks ago when he made his first statement on some phase of these estimates. This whole appropriation of $3,365 million is made up of $2,000 million of interim supply from the session of this spring and $1,365 million which is now described as being for war expenditures and demobilization. I asked the minister if it would be possible to divide that large appropriation into three parts. The first would be a figure which might roughly include our commitments for war expenditures; that is, past commitments. Another would be the cost of demobilization as distinct from what one would ordinarily call war expenditures. The third would be for defence services of the future. It is possible the minister cannot give such a break-down. If he cannot, I do not press him to go to any bother to obtain it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: When my hon. friend asked these questions a week or two ago I discussed them with the officials of the department to see whether it would be possible to make the break-down. Of course everything is possible, but I felt at the time that it might be extremely difficult and that feeling was confirmed. Perhaps this is not the time to do it, but when we are discussing the figures I would be glad to give the reasons which have been given to me and which commend themselves to my judgment as being good reasons why it is not possible to break it down in the way my hon. friend has suggested.
The broad reason is that the whole thing is running along side by side. Take the item of pay and allowances, for' instance. It is almost impossible to allocate'what portion is for demobilization purposes just because we have to keep our troops on the other side on account of lack of shipping to bring them back. The same thing applies to equipment expenditures. In this case there is a carryover from the previous year and that sort of thing. When we come to consider the detailed estimates with regard to commitments for equipment and the like we have to consider commitments in the previous years which are a carryover into this year. I am told, and I believe it to be the case, that it would1 be extremely difficult to break it up into the heads my hon. friend has suggested.


John Bracken: I do not press the matter, because I realize it would be very difficult to do it. However, I think it would be valuable information to have had if it could be broken down in that way.
I have a dozen questions here to ask, three or four of which have arisen out of the discussion of the last half hour while others deals with other matters. I will ask them so that they will be on Hansard and can be answered b\r statements of fact which perhaps the minister will give when he continues these estimates to-morrow or later on.
First, what was the total number of men called up for service under the National Resources Mobilization Act, such statistics to be broken down by years?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I gave the total in my statement, and I will break it down by years.


John Bracken: Some of these questions may have been partly answered before.
Next, what was the total cost of the N.R.M.A. army during each of the following fiscal years, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945 and 1946 to date, these statistics to be broken down into the major items comprising the totals?
Next, do the cost figures include the cost of erecting training centres, barracks and other buildings for these men? If not, how much of the total cost of all such erections for all ' army purposes should properly be charged to N.R.MA. personnel? It may not be possible for the minister to make a clear cleavage.
If it is not, perhaps some fair estimate could be made.
Next, is it the intention of the government that the National Resources Mobilization Act shall remain on the statute books? These questions deal with some other casual matters. How many Canadian troops, if any, are serving at bases in the western hemisphere outside of Canada, for instance, in Labrador, Newfoundland and the British West Indies? Are any United States troops now serving in Canada?
If so, how many and where are they stationed?
Is it contemplated that a plan of cadet training for public and high school students will be carried out?
Have all Canadian prisoners of war been returned to Canada? If not, what is the reason for any delay? How many enemy prisoners of war are in Canada at present? How many have been returned to Germany or Italy? Are any arrangements likely to be

Judges Act-Ruling
made for securing payment from enemy countries for the cost of maintenance of these prisoners? I imagine I know what the answer to that last one will be.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think most of that information can be. readily obtained, although piobably not for to-morrow. I will get it as soon as I can and place it on the record, as my hon. friend has suggested.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, October 31, 1945.