1945-04-10

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. H. BENCE (Saskatoon City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that in all probability the Minister of Finance
will not have an opportunity to be before the house for questions in connection with his department, I would draw his attention to question 3, which has been on the order paper since April 3, and which relates to the matter of making loans under the housing act available to individuals in Saskatchewan. I understand that many applications for loans have been made but are being held up pending the arranging of an agreement between the lending institutions and the dominion and Saskatchewan governments with respect to the matter of security. My constituency of Saskatoon is in a desperate position with respect to housing and I wish the minister would give us this information as soon as he possibly can.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to see that the question on the order paper is answered before the house adjourns.



ACCOMMODATION IN TORONTO AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Has the Minister of Finance, or the Minister of Munitions and Supply, any further information with regard to the request made to the dominion government in the matter of further housing accommodation in the area of Toronto?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Some progress has been made in that direction. Mr. Pigott is here to-day, and it is thought that an announcement will be possible in the course of a few days.



WORLD FOOD SHORTAGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question, if I may, to the Minister of Agriculture. In to-day's paper reference is made to Anglo-American-Canadian discussions with respect to world food shortages. Can the minister advise the house who Canada's representatives at that conference will be?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Perhaps I might answer
the question. The officials of the Department of Agriculture are there at the present time, and later it is anticipated that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) himself will be present.
Army-Farm Leave



RATIONING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the leader of our party mentioned a moment ago, I would ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is yet in a position to announce the government's policy in regard to the re-introduction of rationing in Canada.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: The position is as stated the other day, that discussions are going on among the technical men at Washington at present, and discussions on the higher level are to take place at a later date; until these take place there will be no further announcement.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) : Mr. Speaker, as the house is likely to adjourn in the near future, will the Minister of Labour, in view of reports which have come from national selective service in my community, which apply I think to the whole country, make a statement in respect to the special arrangements for farm leave which I have been told are being worked out in order to alleviate the serious labour shortage on farms throughout the country?
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: That is up to my hon. friend. If we do not make much more rapid progress than we have been making up to the moment, this parliament may die on its feet.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Get some hockey
players.


Mr. LOCKHART:: I expected an intelligent answer from the minister. I want to know if arrangements are being worked out that will assure the farmers of sufficient help to harvest the coming crops.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Ask Conny Smythe.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not want the hon. member for Lincoln to break a blood vessel.


Mr. HOMUTH:: The minister should not
try to be facetious. It ill becomes him.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend would show up in the house a little oftener he might learn something.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I have been out trying to do my duty to the country by defeating the Liberal government.


Humphrey Mitchell: A few days ago-I do not
know whether my hon. friend was here or not -I made an announcement on the policy of the Department of Labour with respect to the man-power situation in agriculture this year. It arose out of a question directed to me by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) and one of the hon. members associated with the C.C.E. If my hon. friend was not here I cannot help it.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: No, Mr. Speaker; the minister made an announcement of policy, but it was very vague. We still do not know what the policy is so far as the men in the armed forces are concerned, and I think there should be a clearer statement than has yet been made. I am drawing the matter to the attention of the minister.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You talk one story one day and another story the next.



SEED CORN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) yesterday asked a question with regard to- seed corn. Seed corn comes under the administration of the seeds division of the Department of Agriculture, and therefore I should have attempted to answer it yesterday. Last February the combined civil affairs committee on military relief asked for three thousand tons of seed corn, which was subsequently shipped from Canada. Mr. Nelson Young, seeds administrator, advises me that he attended a meeting of the seeds-committee of the combined food board on March 28 and that he endeavoured to- find out if any further demands for seed corn would be coming along. Although representatives of the liberated countries attended the meeting,, no one could indicate that there would be a further demand. Mr. Young's position is-that the seed corn growers cannot be encouraged to plant seed corn in the absence of any actual export demand, notwithstanding the fact that- such demands develop over night and are-only likely to arise in any event during the coming winter months.


Mr. SENN:: Would the minister tell us where this seed corn was shipped?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the information as to where it went. I could get that.

_____________War Appropriation-The Army



EMBARGO ON HAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MARTIAL RHEAUME (St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 31, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance which concerns the farming community of this country.
On October 20, 1944, an order in council laid an embargo on hay. At the beginning of March, 1945, a second order in council prohibited the export of straw and laid an embargo on that commodity. There are in this country 150,000 tons of hay for sale. In my constituency of St. Johns-Iberville-Napier-ville, at least 600 farmers are interested in the lifting of that embargo, because they still have on hand at least 15,000 tons of hay, and from 5,000 to 6,000 tons of straw. It is imperative that this embargo be lifted.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville is asking a question which I think should be put on the order paper.



MOTOR VEHICLES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): May I bring to the attention of the government the fact that there is nobody who speaks French in the branch here which issues permits for the purchase of motor vehicles, and also that there are no translators. I am not complaining of these officials, who are fine fellows, but none of them understands one of the official languages in this country, and that is the reason why some people who fill up applications in English have the first choice, and there is nothing left when the applications which are made in French have been translated. I therefore ask the government to see to it that there is appointed some Frenchspeaking, or at least some French-understanding officials in that branch, or to see to it that they have a translator. If an application is made at Riviere-du-Loup it is sent to Quebec, from Quebec to Montreal, from Montreal to Ottawa, and then, if it is in French it is sent to a translator, and applicants have to wait for a month or two before the English translation reaches the officials concerned. I hope that the government will do something in this matter for the benefit of the French-speaking population.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April 9, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN:: We are on the estimates for the army.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: I think the parliamentary assistant is to reply to a number of questions which I asked him on Friday afternoon.


Mr. ABBOTT:: Yes; I have a certain amount of unfinished business from Friday and yesterday. The hon. member for Yorkton, I think, asked me a question about remustering, what steps were taken to protect the position of other ranks who were remustering from one branch of the service to another. The regulation in that respect reads as follows:
The adjutant general may continue the pay and allowances of non-commissioned officers who have been withdrawn for re-training or who are reduced in rank, or who are re-posted or transferred, at the same rates which such noncommissioned officers were receiving immediately prior to being so withdrawn for re-trainings reduced in rank, re-posted or transferred. Such pay and allowances as aforesaid may be continued during re-training and for the period of six months after posting or transfer to an operational unit or to any other unit in which the services of such non-commissioned officers are required, notwithstanding the rank held by such non-commissioned officers in such units or formations.
In other words, there is a substantial protection there; the same pay and allowances are continued during training and for six months after the expiration of that period. At the end of that time I suppose they have to take their chance along with the others.
Similar regulations to those for non-commissioned officers are also in effect as regards tradesmen employed in a trade, specialty, or as regards a general duty soldier, where the normal rate of pay would be less than that rvhich the tradesman previously earned.
I think that covers what the hon. gentleman had in mind. As to the numbers at the time of the special session, it was mentioned that certain non-commissioned officers, tradesmen, were being made available under this arrangement and it was estimated that 750 of each would be made available for service overseas at an early day. The numbers withdrawn from units in Canada for this purpose were slightly less than 1,000 in each instance,.
War Appropriation-The Army

and all except those who failed to complete reconditioning training will now have proceeded overseas.
My hon. friend asked me a question about the casualties in the forces among officers on loan to the British army. The figures are: killed or died of wounds, 103; wounded., 274; missing and prisoners of war, 37. That makes a total of 414.


George Hugh Castleden: How does that compare with the casualties within our own ranks in action?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no direct comparison, but I may say that the proportion would be higher, for the reason that the majority of these officers went as regimental infantry officers. Some were captains, but most are lieutenants, and the casualty rate among the lieutenants, particularly in the infantry, is higher than the casualty rate for officers generally. I do not recall any other question my hon. friend asked me.


George Hugh Castleden: I asked about the number of men on the Italian front who had been there for more than two and a half years.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are none, because we have not been there for two and a half years, but from July, 1943.


George Hugh Castleden: One and a half years, then.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not that information, but I could get it fairly accurately. I will either give it to my hon. friend or put it on the record later in the debate.
Some hon. members asked how many men had been discharged from the N.R.M.A. to civilian life since November. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) asked that question. These are the figures:
November	 696
December	 643
January	 544
February	 461
March	 467
Total	 2,811
About sixty per cent of these discharges are medically unfit and over thirty-five per cent under the headings of services no longer required, compassionate grounds, and the like. Discharges under these headings include a large proportion of low category men since the service of high category men can always be utilized.

The member for Vancouver South asked for some indication as to how many out of the 7,500 men requisitioned for March were obtained. The figure is 6,179. It has been found from experience that of six men called, approximately four ultimately go overseas. One fails to complete training, for medical reasons or otherwise, one goes out of the training stream with a lower category, and four are trained and fit to proceed overseas. That has been found from experience to be a fair average.


Mr. GREEN:: Of that 7,500, how many are N.R.M.A. troops and how many general service?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot give the exact number, but we have very few N.R.M.A. troops coming in now. When they receive the call they volunteer as soon as they are called for medical examination and we have very few new men acquiring, if I may put it that way, N.R.M.A. status.
The hon. member asked one other question as to the number of conversions of N.R.M.A. to general service during these four months.
The figures are these:
November	 2,244
December	 2,841
January	      1,445
February	 1,892
March	 2,115
Total	 10,537


Howard Charles Green: Can the parliamentary assistant break down those figures to show how many converted within the first month?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I made inquiries as to that, and the officers tell me it is virtually impossible to do it. The records are not kept on that basis. It would involve in fact examining the individual record of each individual soldier, and they assure me that it would 'be practically impossible. I cannot therefore give the information.


Mr. BROOKS:: Is it correct for the parliamentary assistant to say that four out of six proceed overseas, or is it that four out of six remain in the army?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Four out of six are eligible material to proceed overseas, and in the ordinary course, presumably, would go. What I really meant to convey was that of six men taken into the army as being fit at the time they are taken in, four are found medically suitable and sufficiently adaptable to become soldiers and fit to go overseas.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You said, "proceed overseas".

IPar Appropriation-The Army


Mr. POULIOT:: If I understand correctly, those who have served in the army in Canada, not having gone overseas, are temporaries in the civil service, just as are certain civilians who find jobs in the service. I would ask the parliamentary assistant if it is not true that their jobs are actually held temporarily and may be taken by men or women returning from overseas.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Is my hon. friend referring to positions in the general civil service of Canada?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not military positions?


Jean-François Pouliot: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot answer that. I understand that under the Civil Service Act, or by virtue of some order in council, I do not know which, veterans both of this war and of the last war are given preference in the filling of permanent civil service positions. Apart from that I cannot speak from .personal knowledge.


Jean-François Pouliot: In my opinion the preference is unfair, and I will tell the hon. gentleman why. So long as one acts in conformity with the law of the land one should not be superseded or replaced by somebody else. For instance, if a man or a woman goes to report to the registrar, is called for training and is found unfit, then that person is in a position of inferiority compared to the person who goes to report before receiving the registrar's call. The first one is not a volunteer, but the second is called a volunteer even if he knew he was medically unfit. I want to make myself clear, because I do not wish to be misunderstood. There is a man with a rupture. He waits for the call of the registrar, then obeys the call and reports to the medical examiner and is found unfit. That man will have no preference. Another fellow who is in exactly the same medical class also suffers from a rupture. He may report to the medical centre before receiving a call. He will receive a button showing that he acted differently from the first one, although he will not be any more in the army, but neither of them has a preference. The preference will go to the one who has gone overseas.
There is another class of men who are medically fit, who volunteer and are taken into the army. They are in the active army; they 32283-45
were from the time of their enlistment. They want to go overseas, but they are kept here for one reason or another. After the war is over, those who have volunteered and who have been accepted in the army will have no preference, precisely because no attention has been paid to their requests to go overseas. This seems to me to be unfair to men and women who have fulfilled the requirements to secure such preference. Positions now held by persons who are competent and who have had several years' experience are applied for at times by men who have no such qualifications but have been overseas, even on a Cook's tour-it is not necessary to go to a theatre of war to have the privilege of being a returned man from overseas. Those who have been to Newfoundland have that privilege; those who have been to England-even before there was any blitz-are classified as having been overseas, and what is most ridiculous is that people who are not Canadians but who have come from overseas can enjoy that preference over Canadians who have done their duty, who have been acting according to the law and who are handicapped by not having been overseas-they, the non-Canadians, will get those positions. That is one of the most serious problems with which the post-war period will have to deal. My hon. friend will have to see that the Civil Service Act-that abomination whereby people from all nations of the world who have signed the treaty of Versailles as our allies have preference over red-blooded Canadians wherever they came from; even Japanese and Italians had preference over red-blooded Canadians until the beginning of this war-my hon. friend will have to see that that is changed.
The Civil Service Act may have been changed by an order in council passed by virtue of the War Measures Act, but no such legislation has come before us as members of parliament. We are interested in defending the rights of the men and women who are in the army and to whom the doors of the civil service will be closed when they are discharged from the army. I wonder what is the legislation to-day. I was talking with a boy and a girl who are in the army. Both of ithem volunteered from the start. They wanted to go overseas but they were not afforded that opportunity. When the war is over they may have some employment in private business, but the public service will be closed to them. Is that the way to deal with



War Appropriation-The Army
these men and women, these boys and girls, who have done their duty according to the law enforcement of this land?
There is something else that I wish to point out. Since the beginning of the war all men have been induced to go overseas. It was afterwards made to apply to women. All men have been told that their duty is to enlist, and not only to enlist but to volunteer, meaning thereby that a man who was in the army as a draftee, who had followed all the provisions of the law, was not a good citizen; he was considered an inferior citizen because he had not enlisted for overseas. How many are there in Ottawa who have enlisted for overseas with the understanding that they were to stay here and who boss the whole show not only in the militia but also in the air force and the navy.
I will ask these questions of the government: How many air vice marshals in the R.C.A.F. had no active fighting? How many air commodores in the R.C.A.F. had no active fighting? How many group captains in the R.C.A.F. had no active fighting? How many wing commanders in the R.C.A.F. had no active fighting? How many squadron leaders in the R.C.A.F. had no active fighting. How many flight lieutenants in the R.C.A.F. had no active fighting? I asked the questions in regard to the army and I was told that it was very hard to get and would take a long time. I still expect it. My hon. friend told me last week he might not be able to give it. I have not got it yet although I still honour a man who keeps his word.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Or tries to.


Jean-François Pouliot: I may be mistaken, but I give him the benefit of the doubt. It is the same in the navy; it is the same in the three branches of the army. Well, now, what will happen? After the war those men who will have been seconded to the three departments will take their jobs. Those jobs will not be taken by the men coming from overseas. The Ottawa bureaucracy is in a class by itself. I do not say that of all civil servants, some of whom I honour; but I see in the chamber my good friend from Vancouver South, who was with me on the civil service committee. He and the other members of the committee did their duty. We did not agree on every point, but they saw what was weak in the whole organization. We want everybody to have a square deal. We want those who have been honest not to have any trouble through being associated with those who knew how to get the juicy plums. I shall ask my hon. friend the parliamentary assistant to see that some corrections are made in order that those who have been acting according to the provisions of the [Mr. Pouliot.l
law, when the law was in force, should not be penalized because they respected the law and abided by it.
In the second place I ask my hon. friend to see to it that the most competent employees in the civilian departments remain in their jobs; but if the preference is to be applied it must be applied to all. If we are to have an overseas preference, let them appoint people from overseas in such a way that these people will not be deceived, and in such a way as to not deceive those holding temporary positions at the present time. I do not want any class of individuals to be discriminated against, and I hope my hon. friend will speak to his minister about it so that something may be done. It can be done, provided that the head of the department is not afraid to deal with the parasites who are in the department. There are people in it who do positively nothing, who are nonentities, who are kept on because their work is related to that of Mr. So-and-So, or because they are the nephews of the illustrious Mr. So-and-So, or because they have given tips to somebody, or because they tell little secrets, or pass notes, or do things like that. That must cease; it is unworthy of men who have a true and high sense of duty to reward political stool-pigeons, even if they are gold-braided from head to foot.
I wonder if my hon. friend and the committee would allow me to ask a question in regard to Air Marshal Leckie. I know we are not discussing the air estimates-


Douglas Charles Abbott: The army estimates.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know; but these two war departments are so entangled that I hope the committee will let me ask this question:
Did Air Marshal Leckie have a plane made over for his personal use? If so, what was the cost? Is the said plane used only for official business? If not, why? Did the said air marshal, his wife and some friends go on at least one pleasure trip in the said plane? Was the plane damaged on one of the said pleasure trips, and if so, what was the cost? How much gasoline has been used on these pleasure trips? And what was the cost of each such trip to the taxpayers of the country? And how much gasoline was diverted from urgent war purposes?
That is one question I should like answered. I have another to ask in connection with Colonel Joan Kennedy, a member of the Canadian Army located in Ottawa. I should like to know how many army cars call at her place in a day and how much gasoline is used by those cars on these social visits. I should like to know how much time of drivers is wasted on such non-essential work, and

War Appropriation-The Army
whether there is a gasoline shortage. We see some men in the army driving gentlemen who are supposed to be propagandists. These are young, able-bodied men who are good chauffeurs and who drive Mr. So-and-So who writes fine pieces to boost the staff. That is all waste.
Will my hon. friend be kind enough to inquire into these matters and have these questions answered? I find them very interesting.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall certainly make
inquiries as to the matters relating to the army, which my hon. friend has raised. No doubt the Minister of National Defence for Air will look into the other question.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask just one more question? I thank the hon. member for Vancouver South, for whom I have a high regard. I do not share his views, but even when I do not agree with him I admire his persistence and courage. I am informed that when a man commits an offence against army regulations he is sent to a civilian gaol, where his fingerprints are taken and he is treated as though he had committed an offence against the common law. I am informed also that this is done in order that these men may be kept in gaol after the war is over. Previously a man who did not act in accordance with king's regulations and orders was sent to the clink, but now he is sent to a common gaol. I would ask my hon. friend if such is the case, and why the army should send these men to civilian gaols.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If a man is tried for a purely military offence he is kept in military detention. If he is charged with an offence under the criminal code he is turned over to the civil authorities for trial. If convicted and sentenced I understand that he serves his sentence in an ordinary civilian gaol, which is natural. I know of no provision wdiich entitles the army even to ask that the civilian authorities detain military personnel permanently for military offences. I shall make inquiries, however, and see if there is anything in the information the hon. member has been given.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall make my case clear. Here is a man who commits the offence of housebreaking, contrary to one of the provisions of the criminal code. He may be sentenced to gaol or to the penitentiary. On the other hand I do not see why a man absent without leave should be sent to gaol with the understanding that he would remain there for his full sentence after the war is over. I tell my hon. friend it will be pretty difficult for 32283-45J
him to deny it. My information is that special instructions have been issued to that effect by the Department of National Defence.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall make inquiries. Personally I am convinced that no military personnel are incarcerated in civilian gaols for military offences. They may be tried in civilian courts for civilian offences, and in those cases they might have sentences imposed upon them and go to gaol. However, I shall verify the situation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will my hon. friend check the records with respect to the instructions given?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Temis-couata has referred to the civil service preference as it affects men and women of the forces. It just happened that while he was speaking I received a letter from a young man in Victoria who had been an observer in the air force for four and a half years. He completed his training on December 9, 1941, which was just a day or two after Japan struck at Pearl Harbor. He had been posted for overseas service; and then, because of the Japanese attack, the posting was cancelled and he was sent out to the Pacific coast. Since then he has been flying as an observer up and down the Pacific coast. He is doing anti-submarine patrol work. All hon. members coming from, the Pacific coast know that that is dangerous-work, and that there have been many casual- ties among air force men engaged in it. Yet,. while that service entitles him to the clasp-to the volunteer service medal, and also entitles him to gratuity on the basis of overseas service, upon applying for a position in the civil service he finds he has no preference whatsoever. I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that that is an unfair situation, and one which should be remedied without further delay.
Mr. ABBOl T:	I would be in agreement
with my hon. friend. I am not particularly familiar with the civil service regulations, but I do agree that the service described is operational service, and it should command the same preference as that enjoyed by the man overseas.


Howard Charles Green: He tells me in his letter that there are a number of air force lads who find themselves in the same position, being unable to get the preference.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall make a point of
seeing to it that that particular question is taken up.
70S
War Appropriation-The Army


Mr. CHURCH:: There are one or two matters I should like to point out to the parliamentary assistant. First of all, I would direct his attention to the civil and criminal law courts in Ontario, and particularly in the Toronto district. I understood from his predecessor that the law society had made an arrangement for the benefit of soldiers who were in trouble, under which they could have counsel representing them in the law courts. However, from press reports I see very little of those counsel in summary .police court trials in the Toronto district. I do know that in cases before some of the magistrates in Ontario army officers without any authority by law come from the militia department and appear before the courts, hearing the evidence given before the magistrate and making comments unsworn or sworn. That condition should not exist. Then those soldiers, unable to pay the fine, may be sentenced to gaol buildings unfit for civilians. A great many of the gaols in the province are not good enough for civilians, and if they are not good enough for civilians they should not be considered good enough for soldiers. I am not asking the minister to reply to-day, because I realize he has not had notice of this complaint. I know he comes of a family who have had, next to the Prime Minister, a long connection with our city. One of his family was our *city solicitor and a respected corporation counsel for a long time, and was a very able man indeed.
Then, is there not some arrangement under which the city could have the return of the *Canadian National Exhibition buildings, as many of them are not being used for active army training? I pointed out the other day to the parliamentary assistant that certain members of the air force have been moved to Trenton. The navy has now nearing completion a large new barracks adjoining the baseball park. The other buildings are used for the district depot, and for demobilization purposes by the Minister of Veterans' Affairs. In view of the fact that many of the soldiers have not houses, or will not have them on May 1, could not some of these buildings now used by the Department of National Defence, and by other government departments as well, be turned over for the housing of soldiers? For example, Norway barracks, situated back of the baseball park, has been taken over by the city and has been fitted up with some first class apartments; it has provided housing for a great many soldiers from Toronto. I would ask the minister to look into this matter and to give the city back the exhibition buildings
{Mr. Abbott.]
as soon as possible. At present they are not being used to any great extent by active service personnel.
May I point out that high rates are still being charged soldiers by the railways of this country for fares and meals. Those men who are stationed at Petawawa and at other distant points must pay almost a week's wages to go to their homes on leave or on week-ends. Could not further representations be made along the lines followed by the former minister, where he asked the railways for cheaper fares on the trains, cheaper meals, and an allowance for additional leave where personnel must travel long distances? In many instances the men get home only to find that they must go back almost immediately.
Surely in this sixth year of the war it is nearly time we had some plan announced with respect to post-war active militia and home guard. Have we any plan for an army in the post-war period? Are there any plans for a reserve army? I ask this, because if our Canadian delegates to San Francisco are to enter into internationalism they will find that we shall need 100,000 men as our share of protection for the bases on the seven seas. Another 50,000 will be required for home defence- along the Pacific coast, the Atlantic coast, the St. Lawrence waterways and the great lakes.
In respect of newspaper articles, I fail to see why any general or other high-ranking officer should have leave to break the rules of the department by writing to newspapers, when that privilege is denied the men in the ranks. Ours is a citizens' army, and the regulations should apply to all.
Respecting the return of the troops, may I point out that I represent a riding composed to a great extent of working men. I believe there should be some improvement in the condition respecting men who have taken part in the Italian campaign and have been overseas for nearly five years. A large number of Toronto units have fought in the Italian theatre. I know of a case in my own constituency where the husband has been overseas since the start of the war, having gone over with the first contingent. This man had been in the last war and was sent to Italy in this one. He contracted pneumonia very badly in Italy and was in hospital there for a considerable time. After great difficulty he was removed to England and was again placed in hospital. Now he finds he cannot get home because we are told there is not sufficient shipping and he is needed there for other duties. The result is that this man is doing guard duty in England and that sort

TPar Appropriation-The Army
of thing when he should get a discharge at once. Surely there should be one rule for all: first in, first out.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall take note of my hon. friend's remarks and see that they are brought to the attention of the proper authorities.


Mr. SLAGPIT:: Mr. Chairman, with reference to the first matter dealt with by the hon. member for Broadview, for his benefit and for that of hon. members generally in the committee, lest a wrong impression might have been left in their minds, let me say that any members of the armed forces in the Toronto district, to which the hon. member referred especially, who are in trouble, may have the benefit of legal advice and defence in any of the courts, from the police courts through to the assize courts. That service is rendered without charge, by reason of an arrangement with the benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada and the York County Law Society, whereby they have brought into being a list of junior members of the bar who are willing to volunteer their services, when called upon by a crown attorney, magistrate or judge, to act without fee in the defence of any member of the armed forces. So far as the Toronto district is concerned there need be no apprehension about that, and I believe-the Minister of Justice would know better than I-that the dominion law society across Canada have made somewhat similar arrangements in all the great cities. My friend from Vancouver will know.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is true of Montreal.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: It is true of Montreal, and the law society have taken the initiative to see that no young man right across Canada goes undefended because he has not the money.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: What the hon.
member for Parry Sound has stated is in accordance with the facts everywhere in this country. No serviceman need go undefended regardless of where he is. Justice is not denied him by reason of failure to provide for his own legal defence. But I did not rise to deal with that matter.
I dislike bringing up a matter more than once, but sometimes it becomes necessary in order to get the information. I am going to refer to two matters only on which I believe the committee and the country are entitled to more information than has yet been furnished. As to the first, if the parliamentary assistant takes the stand that he took last night, then so far as I am concerned that is
final, and, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, it will be for the people to decide who is right and who is wrong.
I refer to the retirement of General Pearkes. All kinds of answers have been given in this house in regard to this matter. The question has been raised that he was going to be a political candidate and that he intended to be a candidate while he was in the permanent force, although according to the regulations, no officer of the permanent force can be a candidate. General Pearkes has the right to know and the people of Canada have the right to find out why he was advised by the adjutant-general, as he says he was-and I quote now the words that he used in the interview he gave to the press yesterday:
There is no suitable employment for which you can be recommended in the Canadian Army.
That is the statement which General Pearkes says was made to him by the minister of defence.


Douglas Charles Abbott: By the adjutant-general.


John George Diefenbaker: By the adjutant-general, representing, of course, I presume the wishes of the minister himself. Now that is a serious statement. Yet when the hon. member for Parkdale asked for the production of the documents and the correspondence the answer that the parliamentary assistant gave last evening was:
I find, however, on examination of the correspondence between General Pearkes and the minister and officers of the department, that all of it, without exception, is marked confidential and secret-apart altogether from the general rule that so far as I know it has never been accepted practice that correspondence between senior officers of the department and other officers of the same department would be producible in the house.
I am not going to argue with the hon. gentleman over that statement at the moment, though in no way do I accept it as final and correct in every particular. The fact remains that an injustice is done to an officer who has no opportunity of placing before the house and the country, what actually took place; and if that be the rule, then; sir, I ask that that rule be dissolved in this case in the interests of justice.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am prepared to make a full statement on the question, and I shall do so as soon as my hon. friend gets through.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly the point I was coming to. The parliamentary assistant says that he will make a full statement. If he is prepared to make a full statement and he makes it on the basis of the correspondence he has before him, then having

War Appropriation-The Army
made that statement we ask him not to- form his own conclusions, or place his own conclusions before the country; we ask him to place the correspondence before us so that each one of us can form his own conclusion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Has General Pearkes asked him to request that this correspondence be produced? I stated last night that aside from the question of privilege every communication is marked "confidential".


John George Diefenbaker: I have no hesitation in answering that. I answer it unequivocally, no. I have never had any correspondence with General Pearkes. But parliament has a duty and a responsibility to right wrongs. That is what parliament is for. I have never seen General Pearkes, nor have I ever spoken to him. But the people of this country want to know why a man of his experience and distinguished record, a record unequalled, certainly not excelled, should find himself advised by the adjutant-general that "There is no suitable employment for which you can be recommended in the Canadian Army." We in this parliament cannot permit justice to be denied by technicalities, and I am sure that the parliamentary assistant, a distinguished member of the bar, would admit that over and over again in the courts in the interests of justice the rules of evidence are sometimes extended in order to cover particular circumstances.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is not a rule of
evidence, as my hon. friend knows very well.


Mr DIEFENBAKER:: No, it is a rule of the house, if what my hon. friend says is
tIq'II [.
,Mr- ABBOTT: It is a rule of the house, p us the fact that every communication is marked confidential," and I assume that that means what it says. I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, and perhaps I should not do it, but perhaps it would enable him to judge a little better whether he should continue to insist on the production of the correspondence when he has heard the statement I am ready to make on my responsibility.


John George Diefenbaker: Hiding behind the privilege that we are not permitted to see the documents.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Nonsense. Hiding behind
nothing.


John George Diefenbaker: Not nonsense-facts. We are not asking for any ex parte explanation on the part of the hon. gentleman. The hon. member for Parkdale is asking for the documents. Then we can form our own opinions without the assistance of the hon. gentleman.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have informed the hon. member for Parkdale that he is not entitled to get the documents.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I am coming to.	*


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall make my statement and he can like it or not, as he pleases.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not mind questions, Mr. Chairman, but I do not like to be interrupted by speeches. The hon. gentleman takes the stand that these documents will not be produced. All I ask is this. Regardless of justice or injustice, regardless of fairness or unfairness to General Pearkes, is that the final attitude the parliamentary assistant takes?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


John George Diefenbaker: All right; then I will not pursue it any further. I will ask this, and I am not going to ask for the revelation of any documents which might contain secret information: is it or is it not the fact that the adjutant-general wrote General Pearkes using these words, "There is no suitable employment for which you can be recommended in the Canadian Army?" I am sure that is a very simple thing to answer. It requires no production of letters.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The answer is, yes. And even-


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Charles Abbott: When my hon. friend allows me to make a statement I will cover that point as well as a number of others.


John George Diefenbaker: We now have the answer which I set out to get. So far as production is concerned, the hon. gentleman says he will not produce, and that is final. Now the people know that this man, with the distinguished record he has, was told by the adjutant-general: There is no place for you in the service of the country that you served so well.


Mr. MacNICOL:: And he won the Y.C.


John George Diefenbaker: I come to the second matter, and it is in regard to the answers the hon. gentleman gave last evening to the hon. member for Souris as to the

War Appropriation-The Army
N.R.M.A. men who converted overseas. You will remember, sir, that I asked a question as to whether a new rule had been made whereby these men who were sent overseas under the National Resources Mobilization Act could convert after they got overseas. Originally General McNaughton said in answer to the ion. member for Prince that the cut-off period would be embarkation; and the hon. member himself- apparently did not know about the new rule, because he told me there was no foundation for the suggestion I made that they could convert overseas.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I corrected that immediately afterwards.
Mr. DIEFENBAKEiR: Yes; I understand. What I want to find out is this. Last evening the hon. member stated that there were 189 who had enrolled while they were on the ship and 94 after they had reached overseas; .and that 238 had been sent up either to the reinforcement pools or-


Douglas Charles Abbott: To active theatres.


John George Diefenbaker: -or to active
theatres of war. Having regard1 to the fact that there were 8,000 fully-trained infantry soldiers in the N.R.M.A. ready for service overseas in November last, and that most of these men were overseas, it seems difficult to understand why the number who have been transferred for reinforcement purposes to active theatres as at the end of last month should be only 238. How many of the N.R.M.A. men who did not convert were in active theatres of war or in reinforcement pools there at the end of March? The hon. gentleman said yesterday that the latest information he had was the end of February.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Six weeks ago.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a serious situation, Mr. Chairman. It takes six weeks for information to come from overseas to Canada as to how many N.R.M.A. men were sent as reinforcements to the units they were sent overseas to reinforce. I am sure the hon. gentleman has more information than he furnished us with.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I have not.


John George Diefenbaker: You have not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I have not, but I am going to try to get it. I have sent a cable to England to see if we can get the figures for the end of March.


John George Diefenbaker: When was that sent?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was sent last night, I "think. I asked to have it sent; I do not know whether it has gone.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a hard thing to understand.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is not information that we keep on file. I have given my hon. friend a great deal of information, and I am willing to give whatever we can get.


John George Diefenbaker: This is information the people particularly want to have.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We will try to provide it.


John George Diefenbaker: We want to know exactly how this thing is being carried out, because it looks as though something is holding it up, when it is considered that 8,000 fully-trained men go overseas and in a matter of two or three months only 238 find their way into a reinforcement pool or an active theatre. That is difficult to understand.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is to the end of
February.


John George Diefenbaker: That is to the end of February.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend will recall that the first flight left in January.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. I appreciate that. What time in January?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Early in January.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. gentleman then say that this information will be forthcoming before the end of the present week?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot guarantee it will be here before the end of this week. I hope it will be. If it is not, I can probably arrange to give the press a statement or otherwise arrange to make it public. I will give that undertaking.
As to how many of the 238 men at the end of February had volunteered before proceeding to an active theatre of war, the answer is that one had, and 237 went over still with N.R.M.A. status. That covers the second question.
Coming to the matter of General Pearkes' resignation-


Jean-François Pouliot: Before my hon. friend
answers-


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend does not mind I should like to dispose of this Pearkes matter now. I was not particularly anxious to discuss, or at least I did not myself propose to volunteer a statement as to the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Major-General Pearkes. I made a statement in the house the other evening, which I believed was correct, that he had retired at his own request. I still believe it is correct, for reasons which I will explain to the committee. I saw in the
War Appropriation-The Army


Howard Charles Green: Was General McNaughton
retired in the same way?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I am not in a position to- answer that question at the moment, but I have given the committee the circumstances surrounding General Pearkes' retirement. I want to make it perfectly clear that I did not raise this subject. I am very glad to give the information, but it was not raised by me, and I think I have given that information concisely and with complete accuracy.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that the hon. gentleman has gone so far, possibly he will now tell us what the matters were respecting which General Pearkes raised objection?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought I had made that clear. I apologize. It was in connection with the instructions received from the Department of National Defence to continue the efforts to

War Appropriation-The Army
induce N.R.M.A. men to convert to general service. It was that point and that point alone.


Howard Charles Green: Have those instructions been read into Hansard?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Those and the previous
instructions that had1 gone out. Broadly speaking, the stand he took was that he did not feel that he could conscientiously continue to carry out the policy of endeavouring to persuade N.R.M.A. men to convert to general service status. I thought I had made that clear.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the hon. member a copy of the instructions that he gave?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The only instructions given to General Pearkes were the general instructions issued to all district officers commanding.
I think I read into the record yesterday or tabled the instructions which went out in the middle of January. I did so in reply to a question from the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Howard Charles Green: Are those the instructions?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Those among others. General Pearkes received no special instructions. Circular instructions went out to all D.O.C.s in Canada and he received no instructions different from those received by other district officers commanding. No distinction was made.


Jean-François Pouliot: Although the news from
October to December was good, that the allied troops were gaining ground in Europe, which was the situation when, we met for the special session in November and Decembei of last year, the discussion that took place in this chamber did not promote the cause of our men. It is my deep conviction that if it had not been broadcast by the ex-minister of National Defence, the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Ralston), the hon. member for Parkdale, (Mr. Bruce) the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and some others that our troops needed reinforcements, that there was a weakness in our lines, it is most probable that the German army would not have used its last shock troops as a trump card to take advantage of the deficiency in the Canadian forces that were described by the former minister of national defence, by the hon. member for Parkdale and by the hon. member for Lake Centre, who is now leaving the chamber-'I am glad to see he came back. I could not understand sir, why the correspondence exchanged between the former minister of national defence and the Prime Minister was read to the house even with the assent of His Excellency. His Excellency had not the right 32283-46
to authorize the Prime Minister to read to the house some information that was in contravention of the defence of Canada regulations.
In every railway car there is a poster warning the passengers to be very careful about what they say. It shows a picture of a sailor who has been drowned because of some indiscretion. Nothing could be more in contravention of the defence of Canada regulations than the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the former minister of national defence, and the leading questions that were put by the former minister of national defence to his successor in office while he was answering questions in this house, and the other statements made by a former lieutenant governor of Ontario and a man of the reputation of the hon. member for Lake Centre, that our troops were worn out, that they needed reinforcements and needed them all the time. It informed German headquarters that there was a weak spot in the Canadian forces, and the weak spot was so great that the matter had to be aired in parliament; that a minister had resigned because the troops were not supported.
There was a campaign in the press; and as we have been told not to say anything even in a low voice that could reach the ear of the enemy I am sure that what was said by the former minister of national defence, whom I now accuse; the hon. member for Parkdale, whom I now accuse, and the hon. member for Lake Centre, whom I now accuse from my seat in this house, gave more comfort to the enemy than anything that could have been said at any time in this country since the beginning of the war. And what was the effect? The effect was that the German army, which was discouraged, the German army which was going backwards, received some comfort and encouragement because of those uncalled for and untimely statements; the counter-attack was organized and 60,000 men of the Canadian and American armies were lost in that counterattack. Not only that; if those hon. gentlemen had kept their mouths shut last December our army would probably be in Berlin to-day far ahead of the Russians.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to make a correction. I do not wish the committee to labour under a misapprehension about what I said in my remarks with regard to the law society. I never criticized them in any respect. I may say to the hon. member for Parry Sound and the hon. member for Lake Centre that I am well aware of what the law societies of the country did in the last war and this war, especially the younger members of the profession. However, they did not do any more

War Appropriation-The Army

in those dark days than did the clergy, especially the surgeons and dentists, voluntarily for soldiers at home and their families. My remarks had relation to the courts in Ontario. I refer to the fact that in some cases under summary trials the offender has not legal representation. When the war started I asked the then minister of national defence, who unfortunately was killed, to appoint a lawyer or lawyers in No. 2 district to go into the police courts and the lower courts and act for soldiers. As the committee knows, many of them are charged with breaches of control regulations. If it were not for the war those acts would not be an offence. Because these young men are charged with those offences the women and children suffer.
I am well aware of what lawyers are doing all over the country. I was head of a police commission, the largest police commission in the overseas dominions, for over seven years. I am well aware of the fact that many of our judges, magistrates and crown officials and lawyers in that district are returned men themselves and that they do all they can for these young soldiers. But you have to consider the soldier has civilian rights. He does not lose his civil rights on becoming a soldier. Civilian inquests have become a dead letter in cases of soldiers killed in Canada. There are not enough returned men on courts martial. The court fines in our district are much larger than they are in other districts. My remarks were based to some extent on the remarks of Chief Justice Robertson of the Court of Appeal of Ontario regarding the treatment of minors, and no Borstal system for them. I made no reflection on the law courts, the magistrates, judges or the bar at all. I thought it would be unfair if hon. gentlemen took the wrong meaning out of what I said.


Mr. WHITE:: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant a question in regard to an article appearing in the Ottawa morning papers which is headed: **Eigh teen-year olds told to join the reserve army." Has the parliamentary assistant a copy of the notice which was sent out? I shall appreciate if he will put it on Hansard or read it to the committee. Under what provision or under what act is authority obtained whereby eighteen-year olds can be instructed or ordered to join a reserve unit? Where did they get the authority to tell them that they would have to attend drill and summer camp and that they must obtain a certificate from the officer commanding and turn it in to the school principal? In view of the remarks of the parliamentary assistant to the effect that as soon as the war in Europe is over the present call-up system will

be terminated, it seems most unusual to have a law or an order or a direction to this effect go out at this time. To how many schools in military district No. 3 was this notice sent?
Mr. ABBOl T: I am very glad my hon. friend asked that question, and I welcome the opportunity of making a statement to the committee on it. The article was brought to my attention this morning, and inquiries have been made to ascertain what were the circumstances surrounding the letter referred to. I have here a copy of the letter, which is signed by Major H. R. Starr, for Brigadier I. L. Armstrong, D.O.C., M.D. 3, which perhaps should be placed upon Hansard or tabled, as the committee prefers.
Replying to my hon. friend as to the grounds on which it might be considered that such a letter could properly be sent out, the position is this. Section 12 of the national selective service mobilization regulations, 1944, authorizes the district officer commanding to require any student who is in the designated age class for military service to enroll in the C.O.T.C. auxiliary training unit of his school, or in such other military unit as the D.O.C. may direct. The student is to undergo military training to the satisfaction of the district officer commanding. By proclamation published in the Canada Gazette of June 20, 1944, every man born in the year 1926 was so designated. However, although designated, no man may be called up for the active army until he reaches the full age of eighteen years and six months. The district officer commanding military district No. 3, Brigadier Armstrong, has prescribed that students of the age of eighteen who are attending high school shall take military training in the reserve army units. There is no new regulation involved in this requirement; the D.O.C. is acting under the authority of the mobilization regulations as quoted above. However, it is realized that youths who have left school to accept employment are not required by the regulations to undergo military training until called up for the army, and the district officer commanding military district No. 3 is amending his instructions following conversations to-day with defence headquarters. The order will now apply only to those students who have reached the call-up age of eighteen years and six months whose service with the active army has been postponed. For the information of the committee I have here a copy of the circular letter which was issued by or on behalf of Ihe D.O.C., M.D. 3, which perhaps I might table. It contains instructions together with the list of reserve army formations which may be

War Appropriation-The Army
utilized, and probably it would be unnecessary to have the whole letter appear in Hansard. Perhaps the committee will be satisfied with the explanation I have been able to give.


George Stanley White: Did this notice go to all the high schools in the district?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not in a position to answer that question definitely at the moment. I am inclined to think perhaps it did, but I shall have to verify that and give my hon. friend an answer later, perhaps in a few minutes.


George Stanley White: Does this same procedure apply to all other military districts, or is it something special in M.D. 3?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The regulations apply to all military districts. As I pointed out in my statement, however, and as my hon. friend will see when he reads it, the officer representing the D.O.C. was perhaps a little more zealous than the strict letter of the regulations would call for. As I indicated, the order now will apply only to students who have reached the call-up age of eighteen years and six months and whose service with the active army has been postponed.


George Stanley White: Then I should like to ask the hon. gentleman for some further information in connection with the approximately 35,000 men of the N.R.M.A. who are now in Canada. I do not think the parliamentary assistant made clear to the committee what will be the status of these men upon the termination of the war in Europe. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that as soon as the war in Europe was over the call-up system would end. He further went on to say that the forces going to the Pacific would be raised on a voluntary basis, and explained how the men required for Canada's share in the army of occupation would be obtained'. I should like him to explain to the committee what is going to be the standing of these N.R.M.A. men in Canada on the termination of the war in Europe, and what is going to be done with them. Are they to be discharged, or are they to be retained in the army? If they are to be retained* in the army, what will be the purpose of retaining them, and what will be their duties?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I can give my hon. friend a completely definite answer on that point. I can answer it to this extent, that they will not be discharged. They will be retained in the army; and the rule
with respect to demobilization, based essentially upon the principle of first in, first out, will be followed. As to what will be done with them obviously I am not in a position to say. It is quite clear, as my hon. friend will realize, that there will be a considerable amount of military duties required to be performed in Canada for some considerable time after the armistice, such as manning depots and doing the regular housekeeping work of the army, if I may use that term. The only assurance I can give him is that these men will not be discharged as soon as the war in Europe is over.


George Stanley White: Would the parliamentary assistant go so far as to say that none of these men will be sent outside Canada?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a matter of government policy, I think, on which I am not prepared to make any statement at the moment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Prime Minister made the statement the other day. He said they would not be sent out.


Mr. CHOQUETTE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say just a few words before the conclusion of the discussion on the resolution recommending that this house should grant to His Majesty sums not exceeding $2,000,000,000, the greater part of which will be used for the continuation of this ruinous war and to make the gift of hundreds-of million dollars to outsiders.
It is no longer millions but billions of dollars which, since the last six years, are spent at a terrific rate. We are told that the war in Europe is drawing to an end. We might have expected that the expenditures would have-been much lower this year, but the appropriation is just as large as it has been for the last few years. The billion dollars of 1942, the billion dollars of 1943, and the $800,000,000' of 1944 increase to that extent our national debt. All this is due to the war, we are told.
From 1930 to 1939, the government refused to vote a few million dollars to relieve unemployment, to help workers and farmers. No money could be found, during the depression, to relieve distress, to raise the morale of those who wanted work. But since the war, it has been possible to find millions and even billions of dollars. Canada is doing in this war more than any other country in the world in proportion to her population, but nevertheless our country is very much less interested in this conflict than the United States and Great Britain.
32283-46i
War Appropriation-The Army

To-day thousands of families are unable to find suitable houses and others must live in [DOT]wretched slums, while the government is getting ready to make to the United Nations another gift the greater part of which will go to England. When snail we have as leaders of this country men willing to behave as true Canadians, anxious to ensure the future of our beloved Canada?
Mr. Chairman, since the prospect of an early victory against Germany is being held out to us, why continue to call farmers for military service? At this time of the year heavy work must be done on the farms, and the government should rather discharge the farmers' sons and farm workers who are now in the army.
Canada is accomplishing a war effort that is out of proportion with her resources. Therefore I oppose with the utmost energy the granting of the sum allotted for military purposes in the present resolution. Before [DOT]spending so recklessly for other nations the [DOT]government has the stem duty to provide for our needs. What have they done along those fines? Enumerating all our needs would be too long; there is a labour shortage on the farms, caused by a mobilization act which does not make enough allowance for the needs of agriculture, lumbering, and industries of every kind, and the wood fuel problem has not been solved. It will perhaps be a national problem next winter, notwithstanding the fact that this country is bountifully supplied with forests. The making of gifts, the expenditure of billions of dollars, all that is considered quite proper by imperialists. As far as I am concerned, I am opposed to Canada remaining, within the empire, as a colony of which anything can be asked and which must give without any protest. Mr. Chairman, I have always been against the participation of Canada in this European war and I am no less strongly opposed to our participation in the imperialistic war against Japan. It is high time that the government of Canada should keep in mind the country's interests.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am not sure that the matter I shall now bring before the committee comes under the parliamentary assistant's department. I understood him to say the other day, however, that all soldiers' affairs, more or less, would be given consideration by the Department of National Defence.
As all hon. members are aware, a great many of our men have married overseas. Many thousands of English brides, and brides from other countries, have been arriving and in future will arrive in Canada. Most of these marriages I believe will probably prove

successful. A good many, however, have not been, and present indications are that there may be more of that kind.
I have had some correspondence with Red Cross organizations in my own province, and only to-day received a letter asking me to bring this matter to the attention of the house. Many brides who have come to this country have been deserted by their hudbands. They are alone in Canada, with no friends. Some of them have made application to be returned to England. All sorts of difficulties are in the way, however, and nothing seems to be done. I believe the cases of which I have heard could be multiplied many times across Canada. Is the Department of National Defence or any other department of government looking into this matter? It is giving great concern to the Red Cross and other organizations in Canada.
Perhaps I might place before the parliamentary assistant the facts in connection with a ease brought to my attention to-day. A Canadian soldier and an English girl were married in England in 1940, after which they lived together for two and a half years. During that time she worked continuously and saved S750. After two and a half years in England her husband was sent to Italy. There he was wounded, and after being returned to England subsequently came to Canada, arriving here in July, 1944. His wife came to this country on October 24 of last year. The couple settled in an apartment in Woodstock. Her husband was discharged from the army. It appears that he was addicted to drink. In a motor car accident his wife received serious injuries to her back. This woman was deserted by her husband and has been left in a helpless condition in Canada. She asks this question: To whom should she turn for immediate financial assistance and advice? What provision has the government made for such cases? The government may say that these are cases iwhich must be dealt with by the civilian authorities, but it should be remembered that except through charitable organizations the civilian authorities in the smaller towns are not in a position to help these people. It seems to me this is a responsibility of the government. As I say, our soldiers married these girls in England or in other countries, and upon bringing them to Canada have deserted them. These wives are away from their homes and their people. There is no one to assist them, and every possible effort should be made to send them back to England or to their own people. Is any provision being made for cases of this kind ? I am satisfied we shall have many more in a short time.

War Appropriation-The Army


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am glad the hon. member has raised this question. As he quite properly states, it is a most important one, the solution of which is becoming increasingly difficult. as time goes on. As it happens I attended a meeting this morning at which this question was discussed at some length. The adjutant general, and his officers, are giving constant attention to the matter. As my hon. friend knows, that officer has been back from overseas only a short time, and is quite familiar with the condition to which reference has been made.


Howard Charles Green: Is the Department of National Defence questioning the good faith, the propriety or the efficiency of the actions of General Pearkes while he was general officer commanding, Pacific command?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, that is a broad question. No; the Department of National Defence is not questioning the propriety of his actions.


Howard Charles Green: Well-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I did not make it clear in my statement. They are not questioning, either, the propriety of the requests which he made as outlined in my statement. I simply stated the facts in reply to the request of the hon. member for Lake Centre.


Howard Charles Green: Will the parliamentary assistant agree with me when I say that General Pearkes deserves, for his work as general officer commanding, Pacific command, not only great credit, but also the thanks of the Canadian people?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Has the general been nominated yet?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that my hon. friend has any particular reason to ask me to deliver a eulogy on the work performed by General Pearkes. I said in my statement that General Pearkes is a soldier with a long and distinguished record in the service of this country. I do not know that it is either necessary or desirable for me, as an individual, to go any further than that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman-[DOT]


Howard Charles Green: I have the floor. We feel rather deeply about this question. In view of the nature of the attack made upon General Pearkes, perhaps I might make some further observations. The committee will recall that on December 7, 1941, the Japanese struck at Pearl Harbor. Next night we had a blackout in Vancouver, and fully expected to be bombed. Subsequently if the United States
fleet, and its air force, had not defeated the Japanese navy at Midway, I think our nation would have been invaded. Those were very dark days on the Pacific coast, and we were very much concerned about the defences along that coast. It was under those conditions that General Pearkes came to us, not only as commander of the army on the Pacific coast, but also as commander of the air force and the navy. He was the general officer commanding. under a unified command of the three services. In that capacity the public believe, and I believe-I am quite sure the parliamentary assistant will not question this- that General Pearkes did a splendid job. He made our defences on the coast efficient and: did a splendid job throughout. Then, in due* course, he organized the Canadian forces that went to Kiska, Hon. members will remember that these were N.R.M.A. soldiers. General Pearkes was largely responsible for the efficient training of that force and for their dispatch, and I believe for the way in which they conducted themselves at Kiska He has from the start been liked and trusted by the people of British Columbia and also by the United States officers. His duties there have meant constant cooperation and liaison with the United States forces and he stands very high with the United States commanders.
After the troops had come back from Kiska there was a campaign put on, a campaign requested by the Department of National Defence, in an attempt to get the N.R.M.A. troops to go active, to convert to general service. That campaign was led by General Pearkes, and it was led in the same dashing; fashion in which he led his troops in the last war and also in this war. I have here a clipping from the Vancouver Sun of that time. The Sun, of course, is a paper supporting the-present government. This clipping is dated! April 21 of last year, and it describes what happened when General Pearkes went up to the city of Vernon in the riding of Yale and made a personal appeal to the N.R.M.A. troops who were there at the time. The article says in part:
General Pearkes spoke of the record made By "their arduous work on Kiska." He spoke in generalities for a few moments, then he said, "I have an important announcement to make."
The soldiers stiffened suddenly and those who had been talking were silent.
They anticipated that the next few words of the General would have conquerable bearing on their future.
"The decision has been reacheu by the government," he said gravely, "that a portion of the men held at present in reserve in Canada will be moved overseas.
"Only three days ago I got official word from. Ottawa that this group would move as units."
War Appropriation-The Army

The men shuffled and looked about to see how the others were taking the news.
Almost without taking a breath, General Pearkes continued:
"In the near future," he said, "you will have left Vernon and be on your way."
I should like hon. members to pay particular attention to the following words because they show the calibre of the man and the way in which General Pearkes carried out his orders to try to get the N.R.M.A. men to convert. He said:
Let me make an appeal, at this moment, to those of you who are wavering, to make up your minds to come in with the gang.
It is not customary for a general to do as I am doing here to-day.
It is not the usual thing for a general to make such an appeal to privates.
But I was a private and rose from the ranks and I love the private soldier.
The work you men did at Kislca, your ' readiness to engage the enemy there, made your names honoured throughout Canada.
I regret that we were not allowed to chase the Jap right into his homeland that time but that was out of my hands.
I am very proud to tell you that the experience you gained at Iviska makes you invaluable as invasion forces.
The need is urgent. Play the man's part- the part of young Canada.
We ought to be well on the road to victory this year but it will require the assistance and the cooperation of every single one of us.
Again, let me plead with you to get the spirit of Canada, to remember your comrades who died over there, to volunteer now and show the men overseas that you are with them heart *and soul.
Go with the gang 100 per cent.
The dispatch goes on:
Grey-haired veterans of the first world war, listening to the appeal of General Pearkes cursed violently and wondered "what is wrong that the general officer commanding has to beg his men to get into the fight."
General Pearkes went from Vernon to Victoria, and we find the same thing happening there. Another report states that General Pearkes was in Victoria appealing to home defence soldiers to volunteer for general service. The report says:
General Pearkes' efforts are seen as a possible last effort to persuade the men to go active before action is taken at Ottawa. The measure of success his appeals have may be the determining factor in dictating future government policy.
General Pearkes continued his campaign for N.R.M.A. men to go active, and I have here a dispatch from Victoria dated April 29. The heading is, "Pearkes wins, whole regiment goes
IMr. Green.]
active." The dispatch soys that the whole battalion, after hearing General Pearkes appeal, . decided to go active. The article says:
This follows an active campaign carried out by General Pearkes, assisted by Major Paul Triquet, V.C., said an army spokesman.
Similarly good results are reported from Vernon where the brigade will parade before General Pearkes, the spokesman said.
The fully-trained and smart-appearing regiment paraded before Lieutenant-Governor W. C. Woodward who took the salute in the march past.
_ "I am thrilled and gratified by this morning's inspiring parade," General Pearkes told the battalion after the inspection.
"Three weeks ago there were less than 100 men in this regiment who had signified their willingness to go active.
"To-day over GOO have paraded before His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia.
"All of you are volunteers. Many have come from this regiment; others, of their own free will, have transferred from other units in order to go overseas with you.
"For some this is the long-awaited opportunity now provided for you. Others have wrestled with old prejudices before they manfully made the decision.
"This is your answer. It is the same answer that was given in 1914 and again in 1939.
"It is the answer Canadians will always give whenever the need is urgent and whenever a supreme objective is in sight.
"Good-bye, good luck and God bless you."
And here is another dispatch headed "2,000 men 'Go Active' from Home Defence." This is from the Vancouver Sun of June 28, 1944. The article says:
"Since June 1" Major R. E. MaeBean said, "we have taken in 1,700 former men of the home defence.
"The response has been most gratifying."
The article goes on to give details and towards the end says:
These are the men to whom Major-General George R. Pearkes, officer commanding Pacific command, said his farewells when he addressed them at Vernon recently.
Most of them were then home defence troops who signed over to go active overseas.
General Pearkes, may I say in all sincerity, carried on an honest wholehearted attempt to enforce the policy of the government. He met with success so much greater than that of any other officer in Canada that there can be no comparison.
When the trouble came last fall, when there was mutiny in different camps in British Columbia, General Pearkes did not stay in Vancouver and send out orders. He took a plane at once and went to Terrace, which was the scene of the worst trouble, and handled the mutiny in such a way that everything was

War Appropriation-The Army
eventually smoothed over. That is the type of leader he is. That is the type of work he has done in the Pacific command.
Some reference has been made to men going absent without leave, and a suggestion has actually been made that General Pearkes was responsible for men going absent without leave. But the figures from his command show that there were fewer absent without leave than from any other, that the percentage was very small. The record there is perfect. So that there is no justification for the attacks which are now being made against General Pearkes.
Last fall also, at the time of the special session here, we had statements showing just what type of work General Pearkes had done. I have here an editorial from the Vancouver Sun which, as I said before, is a supporter of the present government. This editorial says:
The fact is, of course, that these officers-
.Referring to the officers about whom there *was an inquiry made by Lieutenant-General Sansom:
-have done more than any others in Canada to uphold the volunteer system. Major-General Pearkes has probably been more aggressive than any commander anywhere in the dominion.
The editorial ends by saying:
' In actual accomplishment the record will show that no district in Canada has done better than British Columbia for the voluntary movement and no commanding officer has accomplished more to that end than'General Pearkes; and the same applies to his section commanders who were outspoken this week in reporting the attitude of the men with whom they had to deal.
Finally, after he had been attacked, we had a statement from Colonel W. G. Swan, O.B.E., D.S.O.:
Col. Swan recently retired from the Canadian Army, in which he served as chief engineer officer, Pacific command.
I am not sure of Colonel Swan's politics, but I think he also is a supporter of the present government. He said, concerning General Pearkes:
I had the honour to serve on General Pearkes' staff for two and a half years, which included the period of recruiting in question. Never by the smallest action or remark did General Pearkes give any indication that he was not wholeheartedly in sympathy with the government's campaign to enlist N.R.M.A. men for active service, although I feel quite sure _ it must have been a very distasteful task for him, as it was to many of his officers including myself.
How well the work was done can be judged by results. I haven't figures at hand, but I am sure no military district in the country made a better showing than Pacific command.
He goes on to refer to statements which have been made against General Pearkes.
That is the record, Mr. Chairman, quite apart from the record of this gallant officer in the last war, when he won the Victoria Cross, was made a Companion of the Bath, won the Distinguished Service Order and the Military Cross, and was probably the outstanding Canadian soldier of the last war. In this war he -was taken over by General McNaughton as commander of one of the brigades; I think the second brigade of the first division. Then he succeeded General McNaughton as commander of the first Canadian division, and went from there to the Pacific command. There is a man with a record, a man of whom Canada can well be proud, and I suggest that it ill behooves anyone in Canada to try to smear General Pearkes. His record speaks for itself, and it will be a long time before we have a more outstanding soldier in this country.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a little difficult for me to understand why hon. gentlemen opposite talk all around this question. I have been surprised that the Globe and Mail, when they wish to find out why I arrive at a certain conclusion, should not direct their questions to me. I have always attempted1 to answer any questions which concern myself, and have never backed away from giving reasons as to why I arrive at certain conclusions, and therefore I have found it very difficult during the last two or three days to understand why hon. members refer to this matter without any mention of what they are really talking about. The hon. gentleman who has just sat down has very carefully skated all around the matter which he has in his mind, and has avoided putting a straight question-


Howard Charles Green: The minister is quite a little mindreader.


James Garfield Gardiner: -as to really what was in my mind when I made the statement which I did earlier this year. So that I think, in fairness to the committee, and probably to relieve the minds of some people who seem to be considerably worried, I should place some of the facts upon the record and leave it for the people themselves to judge whether what I had in my mind was sufficient to warrant the remarks which I made.
In the first place, probably I should place on the record the statement of the press as to what I said. The Ottawa Journal of Saturday, February 17 expresses, I think, what was in the press as clearly as any of the articles which
War Appropriation-The Army

appeared, and therefore I am quoting to the committee from the Ottawa Journal. It says this:
Agriculture Minister Gardiner said last night that Major-General G. R. Pearkes, V.C., retiring Pacific coast commander, has been "acting for the Tories ever since he came back from overseas and there is no reason why he should not run for them."
Apart from the fact that the statement does not indicate why it was made, it is a clear report of what I said. It goes on to indicate later that this was a telephone conversation with a reporter, with more than one reporter as a matter of fact, and on each occasion the same thing was said. The forerunner of that statement was the announcement to me-the first time I had heard it-that General Pearkes had resigned. I would point out that the reference made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Lake Centre had really no bearing on what was stated. He implied that someone-and I assume he meant the Minister of Agriculture-had suggested that General Pearkes had resigned or- had been asked for his resignation because of some political activities that he had undertaken during the time that he was a general in the army; and I repeat that the reference which was made was made on the morning that his resignation was reported in the press, and after he had ceased to be a member of the armed forces. The reporter called my attention to the fact that he had resigned and asked me if I knew it, and I said, "No, I did not know it but I had expected that he would resign." The reporter then went on to say that it was announced in the press in the same report General Pearkes was going to run in Nanaimo. I asked at that time what General Pearkes had to say about that, and was informed that he had been consulted and had refused to comment on it. Well, I went on to say that if General Pearkes was not prepared to deny that he was going to run against a brother officer who was, and had been from almost the beginning of the war, overseas, that since he had been acting for the Tories ever since he came back from overseas there was no reason why he should not run for them.
In that connection there are a few things I wish to say, but before doing so I will give the remainder of the interview. The other remarks do not require the same explanation. This paper goes on to say:
A Vancouver C .spatch on Friday quoted one newspaper there as saying "one report declared" that General Pearkes would be Progressive Conservative candidate in Nanaimo constituency in the next federal election.

Then it goes on to quote what I said:
_ "I'd say further", Mr. Gardiner commented in a brief telephone interview, "that statements by General Pearkes and some of his officers have done more than anything else I know of to cause the high incidence of absenteeism in the army."
He added without elaboration, "the story has been continually coming out of British Columbia that the troops in the camps had been advised not to volunteer, that active volunteering would only be playing into the hands of the government and they ought to make the government compel them to go overseas.
I would call the attention of the committee to the fact that in this third and last statement which, as the press goes on to say, was the last I made in connection with it, I made no reference whatsoever to General Pearkes. I have not said at any time that General Pearkes made any such statement, nor have I said at any time that he gave any such order. But there are many members of this house who have heard the same rumour with regard to activities on the Pacific command and there are as many proportionately of the people of Canada who have heard the same rumours. There is no question in the mind of anyone that such rumours were coming out of the Pacific command during the period immediately preceding the moving of men out of British Columbia to other parts of Canada last fall. But I wish again to refer to the fact that neither in the short interview over the telephone with the press nor at any other time have I said that General Pearkes gave any such order or had anything to do with anything that was coming out of the Pacific command at that time.
I would call attention to the second matter, which is in these words:
I would say further that the statements by General Pearkes and some of his officers have done more than anything else I know of to cause the high incidence of absenteeism in the army.
Again, there was no reference whatsoever to the matters which were discussed this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver South and the matters which have been discussed most widely by the opposition press throughout Canada. An attempt has been made to bring these words into relationship with the efforts which were made in June of last year to enlist men for service overseas, and the articles read to the committee this afternoon have had to do with the activities of General Pearkes in connection with the securing of enlistments for overseas service during June of last year. But in no place at any time, either in this interview or anywhere else, have my remarks had to do with the activities of General Pearkes during June of last year in connection with enlistments. My remarks have had to do with other matters.

War Appropriation-The Army
A good general is a good man to have operating an army, and there is only one question that would arise in my mind in relation to the remarks which have been made- and probably I should not even refer to that -and it is the fact that General Pearkes was on the Pacific command and that he was there after having been in England. I leave it at that.


Howard Charles Green: Another smear.


James Garfield Gardiner: Another smear, my hon. friend says. There is not half as much smear in that as there is in the statement made which my hon. friend did not have the nerve to connect with anyone.


Howard Charles Green: I have the nerve; don't worry.


James Garfield Gardiner: In the activities that have been going on in this house in the last week and a half, and in the remarks made by the Tory press from one end of the country to the other, as well as in the remarks made by Tory speakers throughout the country, there is no man who has been more completely smeared than General McNaughton, and he will bear comparison at any time with General Pearkes in connection with any of his activities.


An hon. MEMBER:: How would you know?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would have as much reason for knowing as my hon. friend. I have never gone around the country boasting of any services I have given at any time, and those services will bear comparison with those of any member in this house, and particularly those on the Conservative side. The matter of obtaining recruits for the service is not the question which is in mind at all.
We have been conducting a war through three different activities. Our first effort was to produce munitions and machines of war and we undertook that in the early stages of the war during the period our forces were not in operations, apart from our flying force, and it has been very successful. The second operation had to do with the conduct of our farms and the production of food, and the third operation was concerned with the providing of fighting men for our different forces. I think the records will show that all three of these undertakings have been not only carefully planned but carefully carried out, and the results speak for themselves. And nowhere have they spoken more clearly for themselves than in the figures that have been given to the committee in the lasit few days.
I was surprised, after the facts had been given to the committee, to find that there was any criticism at all. The Prime Minister came
before the house last fall and reported that our army was in good condition both as regards training and as regards recruits; the people of the country apparently did not believe it, and the opposition in this house certainly did, not believe it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And neither did the government; they changed their policy overnight.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says, "neither did the government." That was not the statement of the Prime Minister when he came into the house last session, but after listening to the discussions that went on, an opportunity was given the house and the country to learn for themselves whether the army was in proper condition last fall, or whether it was not and when we have the parliamentary assistant coming to the house and pointing out now that there are seventy-five per cent more reinforcements than are necessary-


Howard Charles Green: Because there are 12,000
fewer casualties, fortunately.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, my hon. friends opposite are such good operators of armies and authorities on war that they thought we had a general commanding the forces of the allies overseas, in the person of General Eisenhower, who was going to take the army which we had last fall-


Howard Charles Green: Oh, that was your estimate.


James Garfield Gardiner: -and having kept them in operation for four weeks-*


Howard Charles Green: That was your own estimate.


James Garfield Gardiner: -he was going to continue to have them in operation for the next three or four months continuously. It was not my own estimate.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was the estimate of the former chief of the general staff.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was the estimate of the former chief of the general staff, and now I am surprised to find members rising in their places and saying that what we really want to have is not the conscripting of men to go overseas, but conscripting them to come back from overseas. In other words, the results have been so particularly good in connection with operations having to do with the army that that is the kind of criticism that is made in this house at the present time.
Let us for a few moments deal with the situation I really had in mind, speaking of the activities of General Pearkes. As a matter of fact, I was delighted when General Pearkes resigned. I had had difficulties with him, not having to do with raising troops at all, but
War Appropriation-The Army

having to do with the question raised last night by the member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). I will answer his questions' from the orders of General Pearkes and from what he himself has placed upon the record. At page 671 of Hansard of yesterday the hon. member for Haldimand is reported to have said
I should like to emphasize that point, because I have known of cases where men have been removed to other camps. For some reason or another their applications have not followed them, and considerable time has been required to make out new application forms. There has been difficulty in getting those soldiers home in time.
That is, home in time for farm operations. Then on page 673 the hon. member for Haldimand says:
Before we leave this subject I should like to ask if regulations are issued to the commanding officers in regard to this matter.
And then farther down:
Are the instructions mandatory, or is it in the discretion of the commanding officer as to whether or not he grants this leave? That is the question I have been wondering about.
I could go on and read other questions of the same kind dealing with the same point. In other words, the question which has been bothering the mind of the hon. member for Haldimand is the same question which has been bothering me as Minister of Agriculture ever since General Pearkes came back to the Pacific command following his period in Britain. In that connection I have just a few of the many documents on my files dealing with this particular question. I am going to place on Hansard only a few of those in order to indicate what the attitude really was and to give an answer to the hon. member for Haldimand as to what the condition really was in that regard. Here is one of May 1, 1944. Everyone will realize that was right in the middle of the seeding season of last year. Members on the opposition side of the house were bearing down upon the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence last night and yesterday afternoon as to what the regulations really are with regard to getting the men out of the armed service in order to help in agriculture, and as to what the rules are with regard to men asking for postponement who have been called up under the N.R.MA. regulations. Certain statements were made with regard to the matter. Last year the regulations were very much the same as they are this year. Farm organizations from one end of Canada to the other were pleading with this government all through February and March to get these regulations out and to let the people know what the position really was. Along in March the position was pretty well known.

On May 1, when a certain case was being dealt with which had to do with a man who was in Pacific command and, therefore, whose application for his release for agricultural purposes had to go to Pacific command, this reply came back signed for the brigadier.


Howard Charles Green: Who was he, may I ask?


James Garfield Gardiner: The brigadier's name is not here, but I give the hon. member the next order which is from General Pearkes. This is a copy that I have. It is signed for the brigadier by the brigadier i/c administration command. It reads as follows:
This application has been submitted to the appropriate national selective service mobilization board for consideration, which board has recommended that two months' leave be granted.
This is the case of a farmer who has made application for leave, and the army apparently then referred the application to the national selective service mobilization board, and here is the answer.


Howard Charles Green: Is it an N.R.MA. man?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; it would be an N.R.MA. man, or at least I would think so. He may be a general service man, but at any rate he is a gunner.


Howard Charles Green: That was at the time the campaign for conversions was going on?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will give you all the information about that in a moment. Remember, the mobilization board had recommended two months' leave. The letter goes on:
However, as it has been ruled that no farm leave is to be granted at present, application is not approved at this time.
I say to the hon. member for Haldimand that in spite of the fact that government policy had been announced in connection with this matter; in spite of the fact that applications were being made to other military camps right across Canada, this was the position.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, they were not.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will come to that in a minute. They were.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: They were not.


John George Diefenbaker: Which mobilization board was that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I imagine this would
be the one in Saskatchewan because it was a Saskatchewan man, and they recommended it. By the way, the mobilization board in Saskatchewan has had a lot of abuse. They recommended1 this farm leave, but it was denied by the Pacific command and the man was not allowed to go home in spite of the fact that the mobilization board had recommended

War Appropriation-The Army
that he be allowed to go home. This is the only source through which they would get information. Then, under date of April 25, there is an order signed by Major-General G.O.C. in C. Pacific command. It is addressed to all officers commanding units, Pacific command, and reads as follows:
The following is a statement of policy in this command with regard to compassionate farm leave as authorized by C.A.R.O. 3456 (as amended by C.A.R.O. 4259). Since all G.S. personnel-
This covers the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South.
-may be withdrawn from operational units at short notice for overseas service and all N.R.M.A. are to be encouraged to enlist for general service so that they may be available also at short notice for overseas duty, commanding officers are not to recommend any soldier of overseas age or category, except in the most unusual and most urgent circumstances. These cases will then be referred to me personally for approval or otherwise.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is the answer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I venture to say that
with that kind of order issued no officer in that command would give leave to any applicant who made application.


Howard Charles Green: Did you complain to the
Department of National Defence?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I did, and I have
a pretty thick file on it.


Howard Charles Green: What results did the minister get?


James Garfield Gardiner: I finally got results which I will probably give the hon. member if I have sufficient time.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: What right had he to lay
down the rule for that command?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the point I wish to raise.


James Arthur Ross: Wherein did that rule differ from the rule of other commands?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will come to that.
Here is a letter from the department of reconstruction, labour and public welfare of Saskatchewan. It deals with the matter.


Howard Charles Green: Did you read General Pearkes' order in full?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, but the other part
makes it worse. Do you want it all?
Mr. GREEN. The minister had better not read it then.


James Garfield Gardiner: Probably it would be
just as well to put it on Hansard instead of reading it all, but on May 27, 1944, the following letter was written to me. Every hon. member from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta knows that farm leave for seeding purposes is of no use to any one on May 27 in any year. What I am pointing out to the committee is that there were three jobs to be done. The government was providing by one means for the men who were necessary for the armed forces, and I think it has been pretty clearly demonstrated that the men had been provided, were provided and are still being provided. At the same time the government was required to supply the men for the agricultural areas. While my hon. friend has views about what happened out in the Pacific command, he did not say that most of the men in that command came from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec.


Howard Charles Green: They came from all over
Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but most of them came from those three provinces.


Mr. ROWE:: What difference does that make?


James Garfield Gardiner: If there is any honour coming to the troops that were gathered there -and I am sure there is a great deal-it is not all coming to the Pacific province of British Columbia; it is coming to the provinces represented by the soldiers in the camps in that province.
This letter is written to me. I had written to this body in Saskatchewan defending the activities of General Pearkes, the Pacific command and others who were acting in connection with this matter, and I had done so after consulting the minister. This is the letter which I received in return. It is dated May 27, 1944, and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Gardiner,
I thank you for your letter of May 17. We are endeavouring to get some results on the case of the above-named, but in spite of assurances that you have obtained at Ottawa, I am afraid I cannot agree that applications for leave from Pacific command have been made on the basis of merit.
The wire of the G.O.C., Pacific command, to the Hon. J. L. Ralston, Minister of National Defence, states: "No blanket interdict has been given except that conditions laid down in C.A.R.O. 3456 must be fulfilled."
I have just read the order which was sent out, and it is not in those terms. Then he goes on to say:
I attach a copy of a letter received by me from the officer commanding first battalion, Canadian Fusiliers C.A. which indicates that their brigade at least was operating under definite instructions from Pacific command that

War Appropriation-The Army
no leaves under that order would be considered.
I suggest that this was a general situation in Pacific command, and that the one-half dozen or so leaves granted-
Listen to that.
-as compared to the several hundreds granted in other military districts, is evidence that the general policy was disregarded in Pacific command.


Howard Charles Green: Of course the operational troops were under Pacific command.


James Garfield Gardiner: I must say we have had excellent cooperation from officials in M.D. No. 12, and no reasonable request for leave has been refused. Military districts other than Pacific command have all been most cooperative.
Here is a copy of the letter referred to, dated April 19, 1944, and signed by C. L. Carey, captain and adjutant, and C. M. MacMillan, lieutenanGcolonel commanding the 1st battalion, Canadian Fusiliers, C.A.
In answer to your M/N letter I am to state that according to directions received from Pacific command no leaves under C.A.R.O. 3456 will be considered by this brigade at the present time, due to exigencies of the service.
I could read a volume of correspondence which took place in regard to these cases. After these discussions, certain actions were taken by the government which did bring about some results, but hon. members from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta know that in spite of all the pressure that could be brought to bear most of the men who applied for leave in connection with farming operations had great difficulty in getting that leave in sufficient time to do them much good. As a matter of fact I brought one case to the attention of the minister and finally to the attention of Pacific command, in which the young man concerned had applied for leave in the spring and had been refused. He applied for leave in the fall and was again refused. Finally they let him go home, in order to help with the harvest, on September 7, after the harvest was all over.


William Earl Rowe: That has been the case all over.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not nearly so general elsewhere. Finally, since the changes under discussion, he was discharged. If I were to bring the figures which bear upon the question raised a few moments ago by the hon. member for Vancouver South, they would indicate that there was only one reason why eventually more men were given leave from Pacific command, although most of them got their leave too late. The reason was that there were many more men in the Pacific command than in the other com-

mands, so that eventually the figure there was somewhat higher than the figure in the others.
I bring up that point in order to answer the questions raised by the hon. member for Haldimand. I say to him and to anyone else interested, in this house or out of it, that if any further proof is required of what I have said already I am quite prepared to produce it, and it will show a number of things. It will show that because of these late decisions young men did come home from Pacific command finally only after a great deal of pressure had been brought to bear to have the order carried into effect. They did come home, and in some cases they went back to the Pacific command before their request for an extension of time had been allowed, with the result that some of them had to get a second leave in order to come back and finish their farming operations.


Howard Charles Green: Why did you not get after the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Ralston)?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did; and finally the hon. member for Prince was not minister. The gentleman who became minister took action in connection with these matters, and we have had more success since that time. That is the position in relation to this situation, and I am not going to say any more with regard to General Pearkes except this. He may have been the best army officer in the world, but he did not have a proper appreciation of the importance of producing food in the Dominion of Canada if this war was to be carried to a successful conclusion. Not having that appreciation, of course he was not the proper person to continue to carry on as head of the Pacific command.


William Earl Rowe: Not under the middle of the road policy.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend has
talked a great deal about a middle of the road policy. I do not know of any party in Canada that has stayed more closely to the middle of the road on this particular question than the Conservative party. They have not had the nerve, at any time since this war started, to come out for conscription. They have not had the courage, at any time since this war started, to take a real position on any question having to do with man-power. They have simply sat opposite and tried to-indicate to us that if they were in power they probably would do it a little differently, but on no occasion have they had the courage to come out and state their policy in relation to it-

War Appropriation-The Army


Douglas Charles Abbott: With one exception; the hon. member for Parkdale.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but he is not the party.


William Earl Rowe: And our leader, Mr. Bracken, both before and since he became leader.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the farmers have a right to speak about this matter, as well as those associated with the military. I believe members of the opposition, as well as the government side, have demonstrated the need for someone to speak on behalf of the farmers. During the last two or three days the principal criticisms of the opposition have had to do with the question of whether we are to have farm leaves this year. I say that as far as we in western Canada are concerned we shall be better satisfied with our farm leaves because General Pearkes is not there to deal with them.
This situation did not develop suddenly in 1944. I have another file of correspondence here which I could read, showing that exactly the same attitude was taken in 1943. There had to be a battle every time this policy was brought into effect, in order to get men out of Pacific command to the farms to do the farm work.


Howard Charles Green: Your battle was with the minister, not with the commander.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; our battle was with the Pacific command, trying to get them to do what was done in all the other commands across Canada in time to be of service. Eventually, when that result could not be attained, through pleading certain steps were taken which brought results, but the delays were fatal. Some may think I am the only critic in Canada of General Pearkes. Just for a moment I should like to bring to 'the attention of the committee some other correspondence I have on my file. At the time of my interview I did not raise the question with regard to enlistments last summer, but possibly the statement I made having to do with men going absent without leave may have been interpreted by some as having some bearing on that question. So that it might be advisable for me to complete the record by placing on Hansard some of the references which have been made to that matter. I have here a letter from a young man who was in the army, which well explains what I have in mind. It is dated April 22, 1944, and reads: Dear Mr. Gardiner,
Some weeks ago I wrote to you asking about the policy of the government in connection with calling men for the army and keeping them in the reserve army because their medical category
is too low for them to join active service. I know that this letter sounded like a typical whiner who has been "grabbed" by the army and didn't want to do his part. And since there has been no reply from you I am afraid this has been your interpretation of my letter.
In explanation of that I would only say that I had written him, but his letter had gone to where he had previously been, and he had been moved in the meantime. I do not think there can be any criticism of that particular move; I think the move was made probably for his own good, and the good of people generally. He goes on to say this:
I still, however, feel that I have been placed in a very humiliating position. As stated in my first letter, I have been kept in the reserve army after being rejected four times, for the active army and the air force.
I am enclosing two newspaper clippings which express precisely^ the attitude of the military authorities of this country, as well as a large percentage of the men in the ranks and the civilian population toward the men in the same position as myself.
I know that my political activities will be very limited for some time, but when the time comes I can assure you that I will do everything possible to defeat the government which allowed this situation to arise. When a man can be referred to in the public press as a "soulless human corpse," simply because he was born with a minor physical defect, then I feel that he has a justifiable complaint.
Yours truly,
And here is the article which he enclosed, in order to justify the feelings which he had as a result of having tried to enlist four times, and finally finding himself in the N.R.M.A. But he was not objecting to that. He was objecting to what certain officers had said, and certain officers did. This article has to do with the very meeting to which the hon. member for Vancouver South referred a few moments ago, and this is the sentence to which he objects-


Howard Charles Green: What are you reading from?


James Garfield Gardiner: From a Canadian Press report of April 22, 1944.


Howard Charles Green: What paper?


James Garfield Gardiner: This, I believe, is from one of the Ottawa papers, but it is the same quotation as appeared in the paper which was read from earlier to-day. This is the quotation :
In his address, made to a group of soldiers at Vernon training camp, General Pearkes said: "Cease wavering, play the man's part and join the active army of Canada."
Now, the advice may be very good for some people, but to the young men of the classification of whom we were told last fall there were 17,000 in the N.R.M.A., men who were not physically fit, for a public man and the press
War Appropriaticm-The Army

of this country to be dubbing those men as zombies when, as this man says, he had on four occasions attempted to enlist, is not only an insult to them, but an insult to the country in general.


William Earl Rowe: AVould you consider that any worse than the statement made by the present Minister of National Defence, Mr. Mc-Naughton in Grey North during the by-election, that all who would not join the general voluntary army were neither good for God nor man.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not hear him say that, and I would want to have it verified before I attempt to meet it.


William Earl Rowe: Well, he made it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then the article mentions Major Triquet's activities in relation to these meetings. It comes to my mind, because of statements that were made from the other side of the house during the last short session. Men seemed to take pride in being able to rise in this house and speak of theatres in some of our cities where people sit absolutely quiet, begin to boo when certain pictures appear on the screen. I will never forget an experience I had-


James Arthur Ross: To boo whom?


James Garfield Gardiner: Pictures my hon. friends on the opposite side of the house were speaking about, pictures of the leader of the government.
I will never forget an experience I had in one of the theatres of an eastern city when I sat in a seat in' that theatre and watched pictures of persons connected with certain of our allies appearing on the screen, and listening to the applause-and I joined in it. And then, immediately following that, was the picture of Major Triquet, right after he had won the Victoria Cross. And when his picture appeared on the screen in that theatre they did not applaud.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame!


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the best illustration I know of and the best answer I know of- to give to the people who congregate in some theatres in some parts of Canada where they boast of their patriotism.
There is no place for the showing of that kind of feelings in a country such as the Dominion of Canada, or in any other country. And there are very few countries in the world where people are so free as to allow that sort of thing to happen.


Howard Charles Green: Why did you not start the applause?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did start some applause. I came into the theatre just at the time that particular scene was going off the news, and I noticed no one applauded. So that when it came round again I started the applause. I got about a dozen or so to join with me in it.
I might say I had a similar experience in connection with another matter within the last week, in the same theatre.


William Earl Rowe: You usually do better in here.


James Garfield Gardiner: This matter of discussing our public questions in the way in which they have been discussed in this house, with member after member rising in his place and saying, so many men came from this part of Canada, and so many men came from that part of Canada; and so many were called from this, and so many were called from that, and so many obeyed from this and so many obeyed from that-well, that is not the method by which unity is developed in any country. We, as a young country, with a future, with people from all over the world gathered here under one government, can surely find a better way of showing our appreciation of the work those men are doing in developing this country than by attempting to perpetuate that kind of sentiment.
In any event, that is one criticism which was found in the press by my young friend who wrote to me, and others have written to me along similar lines.
This calls to my mind an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press, which paper I think has been critical of some of the criticisms made of General Pearkes. Under date of November 22, 1944, they say this:
Meanwhile it is obvious that General Pearkes' officers have seen fit to violate all the traditions of their profession. Soldiers, until they leave the King's' service, are not permitted to engage in politics, and some of the statements made yesterday are nothing but political in the most controversial sense. Whatever the merits of their views, and however sincerely held, no army, in time of war especially, can possibly function if it is involved in political controversy.


Howard Charles Green: There was an investigation into that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but the investigation did not pass over the Canadian Press report which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of November 21, and concerning which that editorial was commenting. In that statement the Canadian Press said this:
General Pearkes told the officers:
"This conference will be conducted privately, but I will allow you a few moments before the meeting gets under way for you to talk to the press and express your own views on the home defence question."

War Appropriation-The Army
Then they went on to express their own views on the home defence question in a manner which, I suggest to the committee, whether intentionally or otherwise, did encourage men to go absent without leave. And it was these activities-denying to men the right to go home on farm leave, men who were entitled to it, and not giving them the same treatment as they got in military districts outside of Pacific command, was one of the inducements to men to stay home, absent without leave. And there were other things which were done, including the suggestions which were made in the speech to which I have referred.
No matter what General Pearkes may think about it, no matter what my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party may think about it I personally think-and I intend to repeat it-that those speeches which brand young men by calling them zombies, and that kind of thing, and the criticisms which were made of men who came from some other parts of Canada, as compared with those who came from the part in which we happen to live-all those things did have a tendency to make men go absent without leave, and more of that kind of thing came out of the Pacific command during that period than out of any other part of Canada. Possibly the reason for that was that there were men from the province of Quebec in great numbers in the Pacific command.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And from Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: And great numbers from Saskatchewan, and also great numbers from British Columbia in the Pacific command. Perhaps the real reason for the statements made was because of that. But whatever the reasons were they did have the effect not only of encouraging but of compelling in some cases men to go absent without leave in order to take care of conditions which they found in their homes.
I wish to say in conclusion that so far as I am concerned I intend not only in this house but outside it to stand by the men. and the women of this country who have given of their all in the fighting forces, in the forces that have worked in our munitions plants and in the forces that have worked upon our farms to produce what they have done with results of which we can all be proud. We do not need to defend any-particular gentleman who perhaps was a good enough general in war and perhaps could have operated very well in some other place, and thus deny anyone the right to criticize his actions if they in any
way retarded the production which was necessary for the prosecution of this war to a final conclusion and more particularly to bringing about peace in a manner which will keep this world free from war in the future.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


James Arthur Ross: Just before the dinner recess we listened to the Minister of Agriculture for almost one hour delivering a tirade against General Pearkes, V.C., D.S.O., M.C., who has recently been retired from the army. This same Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Melville, was the minister in charge of war services in the early part of this war, in 1940, when the registration of manpower of this country took place, and out of that registration nothing worth while, nothing such as I had anticipated, ever came. Since that time, during these years of war, the Departments of Agriculture and of Munitions and Supply and the Canadian armed services have vied with each other for the manpower of this nation. Certainly there has been a great lack of coordination as between agriculture, industry and the armed services; and following the plebiscite of April, 1942, the will! of the people of Canada as then expressed has been ignored by this government up to the present date.
The minister added confusion to confusion in his discussion prior to the dinner recess. He demonstrated the great difference of policy which existed between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of National Defence. There is an absolute opposition of policy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What was the difference?


James Arthur Ross: The difference was this: the minister said that the necessary foodstuffs could not be. produced unless the men were released; and he harped upon the Pacific command. I could have cited many such instances as the Minister of Agriculture cited of attempts to get young men back on the farms, but the majority of the cases of which I have knowledge happen to have taken place in the eastern commands. His experiences and mine were exactly the same; but I think it should be realized that the operational troops of this dominion were at that time, for proper reasons, pretty well concentrated in
War Appropriation-The Army

the Pacific command. That is the significance of the differences which have been brought out.
The minister implied that he did not go about this country boasting of his services. I hope I shall not be accused of anything of the kind, and I do not want to be misunderstood, but I had the privilege of working with General Pearkes some years ago, and I say that he is a gallant soldier who has rendered great service to this country, not only in war, but- in the parts of the country where he has been located in peace time he has been a great citizen. He has played his part in the community -wherever he happened to be living and carrying out his military duties. This I know from many personal contacts with him. I think it is too bad that his record should have been attacked in the manner in which it has been.
In this connection may I be permitted to refer to a newspaper clipping, entitled "Pearkes says Gardiner Attack is Slanderous", dated March 8, 1945:
Replying to the charges made against him by Hon. J. G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, Major-General George R. Pearkes, V.C., who recently retired as G.O.C. in C., Pacific command, made the following statement this week:
"On February 19 reports appeared in the press of statements allegedly made by Hon. J. G. Gardiner accusing me and other officers of the Pacific command of disloyalty; these charges he reiterated in a letter published over his own signature in the Winnipeg Tribune of February 27.
"The statements are false and slanderous, but since they referred to my official activities I could not refute them without disclosing information relating to military matters, which I had obtained in the course of my official duties.
"I therefore requested the Minister of National Defence to make a statement protecting the good name of the officers of his department. He is in possession of full details as to the effort that had been made last summer and of the results achieved to obtain volunteers for overseas service from among the N.R.M.A. soldiers in the Pacific command, and he also has complete information as to the steps recommended and those taken to prevent absenteeism of the men ordered to the assembly camps in eastern Canada preparatory to their dispatch overseas when the order in council which authorized sending 16,000 N.R.M.A. soldiers was published.
"I am not permitted to make public the facts and figures in my possession, because these are regarded as the property of the Department of National Defence, but my reputation and that of the other officers concerned could have been cleared by the Minister of National Defence.
"This, however, he declined to do on the grounds that he has no responsibility for the correctness or otherwise of statements published in the press which have not been issued by the Department of National Defence.
"I therefore feel duty bound to state in reply to the personal attack made by Mr. Gardiner

through the press that throughout the whole of last year the officers of this command endeavoured conscientiously to apply the policies laid down by the government and that statements to the contrary are utterly false."
So much for that.
It was asserted by the parliamentary assistant this afternoon that the general should have been retired when he said he did not approve the policy of the government. That may be true. It is pertinent, however, to make a comparison between this case and that of the present Minister of National Defence, who has also stated that he does not approve the present policy of the government. He also retired, on November 1, and if my memory serves me aright he was appointed a minister of this government on November 2. Since then he has attempted to carry on in opposition to a policy which he has always said he believed in, a policy which this government has since enunciated. I do not see much difference; both generals were retired, but one received promotion to the ministry of a government in whose policy he does not believe.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is just this difference. A soldier may differ from government policy, but my understanding has always been that a soldier accepts the direction of the civil authority and does not attempt to impose his will upon that civil authority. He has never done so in any British country to my knowledge since the days of Oliver Cromwell.


James Arthur Ross: Well, there you have the position as regards these two generals, both of whom have rendered great service to this nation.
The minister before the dinner recess emphasized the handicaps on agriculture in this country, but I have done the same each session since 1940, and I have found fault with the manpower policy of this country ever since that time. So far from his statement being correct that his opponents have no policy, I have had one consistent viewpoint since the fall of France and the low countries in 1940, at the time of our first session here, and I have never deviated from it.
It is true enough that our agricultural production has been falling off of late, but for this the policies of the government are largely responsible. I pointed out a year ago one item which would reduce hog production in this country more than any other factor, namely, that the government agree to pay a bonus in the delivery season of ten cents a bushel on oats and fifteen cents on barley.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may be permitted, it is quite proper to say that hog production is down, but it is not correct to say that agricultural production is down. It is not.

War Appropriation-The Army


James Arthur Ross: Well, then, certain items of agricultural production have declined as a result of the policies of this government.
I have put on Hansard my prediction of what would happen with respect to hogs, because the farmer who grew this grain was not allowed to feed it to his hogs on his own farm and get that bonus. It is just adding to the transportation and manpower problems of this country apart from production on the farm, and that is one policy for which the present minister must take responsibility.
Another policy concerning which some of us have taken every opportunity to argue on the floor of this chamber is the matter of the discrepancies in income tax between the farmer and his wife and certain other married people. I may be going a little far afield under this item-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just a little!


James Arthur Ross: -but the minister recited all kinds of arguments before the dinner recess to support his case, and I am simply stating that in my opinion, while I do not wish to be personal or unfair, the minister is as much responsible for these difficulties as any other member of the government at this time.
With regard to the man-power policy we have the same policy to-day as has prevailed throughout this war. In my community there have not been many chaps who have been drafted because they volunteered first; yet I do not know any district in Canada which produces more foodstuffs per capita than we do. Just before I came here a group of farm lads just turned eighteen years of age volunteered for the army because, rightly or wrongly, they did not want to have it said that they had been drafted. I know these boys and their families personally and even at this stage of the wrar they could probably have rendered greater service by staying on the farm. But they did not want to have it said that they had been drafted. I agree with the minister that we have to step up agricultural production at this time to supply international demands, but [DOT] the old manpower policy of the government is still in operation and with the rest of the government the minister must bear his share of responsibility for that policy. In fact, he must take even more responsibility than many of the other ministers, so far as this is concerned.


James Garfield Gardiner: In order to make the record clear, the labour department has given instructions to the mobilization board that young men who ask for postponement when they are on farms, whether they are farmers'
sons or whether they come from villages, so long as they are on farms at the time they reach the age of eighteen and a half, are to be given postponement if they ask for it; and in the three provinces in the west, out of 1,293 who asked for it in December and January over 1,200 were granted postponement.


James Arthur Ross: I am not disputing that point. I have always argued that we should have had such a manpower policy as would provide draft boards that would have the authority to advise young men where they could best serve the country, whether in industry, in agriculture or in the armed forces. Those boys who volunteered the other day, I may tell the minister, are not the sort of chaps who would ask for postponement, because they would not have their pals come back from overseas and throw it up to them that they had asked for postponement. Rightly or wrongly that is the situation under the policy to-day, and that is what is being done.
Something was said about casualties to-day and the parliamentary assistant referred to the fact that he had seventy-five per cent over the requirements for reinforcements.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know my hon. friend wants to be correct. I said we had seventy-five per cent more than the projected estimates. I did not say seventy-five per cent more than requirements.


James Arthur Ross: Projected estimates?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The estimates projected at the special session last fall. We have seventy-five per cent more than projected at that time.


James Arthur Ross: I am sure we all regret that there are any casualties at all. He said there were 12,000 casualties less than had been anticipated since that session last fall.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No one regrets that, surely.


James Arthur Ross: I have just this moment said that we are all happy about that, but there is a reason for it too. We are sorry that there were any casualties, but when we were here last fall our army on the western front was out of action for a while.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; they were never out of action. They weTe in a quiet section of the line but were never entirely out of action.


James Arthur Ross: Many of the operations have been changed entirely and we are not in a position to argue the merits or demerits in that regard, but there are reasons for that situation, about which we are all pleased.
Before the dinner recess the minister made a statement to which I wish to refer. I presume he was properly reported. If he felt

War Appropriation-The Army
toward General Pearkes all that he led us to believe in his speech before the dinner recess, then I say that as a member of the cabinet he should have taken action probably more quickly than any other man in the government. It was his duty to do so, and he probably did in due course. However, there is another story that is printed concerning the minister and it has always raised a doubt in my mind. It relates to a meeting and is reported under date of December 11, 1944. I have here an article dealing with a meeting held at Welland on December 10. The report states:
"Public opinion can be wrong," Gardiner says.
Then it goes on to say:
"Public opinion can be wrong unless it is properly informed," agriculture minister Gardiner stated in an address last night, and blamed the Canadian-led Dieppe operation of 1942 on premature public demand for a second front. Addressing the Welland county Liberal association which nominated Labour Minister Mitchell, the incumbent member, as candidate in the next federal election, Mr. Gardiner said, in an apparent reference to the reinforcement crisis which resulted in the recent overseas conscription order in council: "At a time when we are being told that public opinion has won a wonderful victory, may I remind you that public opinion can be wrong," he said. "Public opinion only wins a victory that is a real victory when it is properly informed. Public opinion was never more wrong than when in 1942 it pressed one of the most gallant groups of young men that ever went into battle into Dieppe, just to prove we were not yet ready for a second front."
Mr. Gardiner said the war had reached the stage when "what we ought to do is sit down and figure out, with the advice of the government when we can take it-how we can be of greatest use to our allies in winning this war."
With the last paragraph I am in agreement.


James Garfield Gardiner: You will be with the other one too, as it was corrected. You would be in agreement with it.


James Arthur Ross: If that is the case I think this country should have a statement from the minister, because he was a minister of the government and, I presume, he shares in the responsibility for this operation. Surely he does not imply that the cabinet deliberately put these boys into action at that time just to satisfy public opinion, with the knowledge they had, which even private members supporting the government, as well as those of us on this side of the house, were denied. With all the knowledge they had, and which he implies was correct, surely, in order to satisf}'- public opinion, he did not agree to put those boys into that raid, which resulted in such terrible sacrifice. Surely he did not do that just to satisfy public opinion. I cannot

believe that of a minister, and I think he should enlarge on that. We should have some explanation.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend wishes to look up the corrections that were made he will find that what I said was that if that was the result, then public opinion was very much misinformed.


James Arthur Ross: That is not the way this article reads.


James Garfield Gardiner: Get the corrected one. You will find it was corrected to that effect within a day or two after that statement was published.


James Arthur Ross: I just have this article as it was published.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a very interesting statement in the Globe and Mail which corrects a number of things they said in commenting on the report at the time. Get it and read it.


James Arthur Ross: I am not able to follow all the press of Canada these days. That is quite an undertaking. However, if the minister corrects it, good enough. I thought it very strange coming from a member of the cabinet under those circumstances.
I wanted to make these points with reference to the manpower policy of the country because I was a bit surprised at the statements made by the minister before the dinner recess, seeing that he was in a position to do more about a proper manpower policy than many of his colleagues in the cabinet, since he was minister in charge of war services in 1940 when the registration was carried out. From that time on I thought we would have boards set up that would direct the people of the country into the proper channels, either industry or agriculture or the war services, wherever they could best serve, depending upon their training. But that is something we have not had. All the difficulties that he told us about before the dinner recess, in connection with the Pacific command, would have been absolutely avoided and a great deal of expense would have been saved the country. This second army has cost the country over $150 million annually for many years to keep a body of men out of industry, out of agriculture, out of the war and everything but the public treasury, and I do not think that is good business. And the same policy is still in force to-day.
I wanted to say a few words endorsing what the hon. member for Vancouver South said on behalf of one who cannot speak for himself

War Appropriation-The Army
on the floor of the house. The first year I came here I criticized certain persons in another corner of the house for everlastingly slandering -certain people who were not allowed to speak for themselves.


James Garfield Gardiner: Including General
McNaughton?


James Arthur Ross: Probably so; but General McNaughton was appointed by the government and he is in a different situation from most of the civil servants, who were not trying to become members of the house. After all, this government professes to respect public opinion. When given an opportunity the public decided that they did not want General McNaughton to be a member of this house; therefore I think we should respect public opinion. I do not wish to take up any further time on this matter.


Mr. WARREN:: It is quite evident that the hon. member for Souris has become nettled about the way in which the debate on the Pacific command has gone. It is also quite evident that he did not like the light that was thrown on the discussion by the Minister of Agriculture. But he should bear in mind the fact that it was not anyone on the government benches who started it. He should also remember that much pressure was being brought to bear on the government benches with respect to the situation in the Pacific command. Personally I was very much interested in the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture and I should like to compliment him upon the remarks he made this afternoon.
I wish to point out to the minister that he was not in his seat when the hon. member for Souris made his opening remarks. I listened very carefully to the Minister of Agriculture and I must say it is not a fact that he went after the record of General Pearkes or his reputation, character or citizenship, or anything of that sort. If he found occasion to criticize some of General Pearkes' dealings with respect to the man-power policy, well, that was an entirely different matter. Certainly he made no reference at all to the personal record of General Pearkes.
I did not rise in my place for the purpose of discussing this question; but the hon. member for Souris made reference to a group of boys in his own community enlisting in the army. I suppose his community is much like the one in which I live. We are terribly short of manpower. It is very difficult to get help on the farm. What are you going to do with a boy if he considers it his duty to enlist in the forces? Who is going to
tell that boy that his place is at home? It is just possible that if the boy feels it is his duty to serve in the forces, and pressure is brought to bear on him to stay at home, his whole life may be ruined thereby because he will have in the back of his mind the feeling that he missed an opportunity that was his to serve his country.
May I say a word with respect to the falling-off in the production of hogs as a result of the bonus on grain? I wonder if the hon. member for Souris is aware of the fact that because there was a subsidy paid on grain, barley and oats, shipped from the west to Ontario, a very large increase in hog production in the east resulted. Because of the subsidy paid on grain from the west hundreds of thousands of hogs were fed.
This is the first occasion since I came to this house that I have made any attempt to air any of my local problems on the floor. I know it is common practice of many hon. members to bring their local problems to the floor of the house. I have never felt justified in doing that, and I do not go very often to the office of a minister of the crown. I feel that these men are so occupied with the many duties that they have to perform that I should be able to find some way of settling my own local problems without taking up their time or without taking up the time of the house in airing them here.
Like most hon. members I get my share of local problems. Numerous people write me letters and numerous people come to see me. On this occasion, as a result of listening to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon, I am going to relate an incident that took place within the last year or so within my own riding. It has often happened that if a young man was called up or about to be called up his parents or the man himself would come to see me and tell me his story, which would be to the effect that he was needed at home on the farm. Well, I would take the trouble to inquire into the circumstances and refer his case to the proper officials. From the experience I have gained through dealing with these matters I have found that the officials have endeavoured to be fair and I have not had any occasion to complain, except in this one instance. I did have one young man in the Pacific command; I do not know how he happened to be there, but he was there. His aged mother and he himself came to visit me on one occasion. He was home on leave. They told me the circumstances. There were more than a hundred acres of very good soil. The home had been burnt but was being rebuilt. This boy was the only boy left. The other

War Appropriation-The Army
boys of the family were away from home. The mother was seventy years old and all alone. There were cows to milk, hogs to feed, sheep to attend to and other animals to look after. This woman was trying to manage alone.
It looked to me as if this was a case where the boy ought to be sent home or at least given postponement. I took the matter up in the usual manner without any results. Later on in the season the boy did get home for a certain length of time, not early enough to put in any crop but long enough to take off the hay, and then he had to return to his unit. Later on, I think it was after Christmas, after a severe and heavy snowstorm, this woman and her brother-in-law came to see me. I presumed that the young man had come home on Christmas leave and I suspected, although they did not tell me, that the boy had overstayed his leave. But here was all this stock to look after and the old woman endeavouring to do it alone. The brother-inlaw had more work than he could attend to. He lived over the hill and every morning used to walk through the snow to make sure that the old woman was still alive. I took the matter up again, and in the course of time I got a letter from the old woman telling me that two police officers had come, picked up the young man and taken him away. She was alone. That was the Pacific command. I do not think that could have happened in the district in which I have had most of my experience, but it did happen in Pacific command and bears out the contention of the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon. The hon. member for Souris observed that there appeared to be opposition in policy. Well, it would seem to me that as far as the Pacific command was concerned they were endeavouring to have a policy of their own, to conduct these matters in their own way without regard to any instructions they may have had from the government or what might be the policy of the government.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Pearkes' ease is obviously a clear and simple one. Here is a soldier who has his breast covered with medals and decorations for gallantry during the last war. That is granted. The Minister of Agriculture did not deny it. Everyone agrees with it. The first point to consider is this. When a soldier has shown gallantry on the battlefield a quarter of a century ago and has been rewarded for it, he is entitled to the respect of the community.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Hear, hear; of the Liberals, too.


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly; of everybody. On the other hand, does it mean that this man will be infallible for the rest of his life and never make a mistake? That is going pretty far. If one is to have respect for those who have been awarded the high honour of the Victoria Cross by the King himself, then I believe those holding that decoration should show themselves to be brothers in arms, and should not snub one of their number because he has scars on his face, to the point of not inviting him to the Vimy pilgrimage, and not inviting him to the meeting in Toronto of Victoria Cross holders in honour of Major Triquet last spring. They should give us an example of fraternity, but that was not done by General Pearkes.
I am now reaching the crucial point of the argument. Last year there was no question of conscription for overseas except in the mind of the then jingo minister and some jingo brass hats and a few others who took every means to substitute their own will for the law of the land1, in fascist fashion. As a Liberal and a democrat I have the right to say, as I have said, to Major General Pearkes, "You are too fascist. You want to substitute your own will for the law of the land." This charge can be made against the former minister as well as against General Pearkes. The hon. member for Souris spoke ably; the hon member for Lake Centre spoke eloquently and the hon. member for Vancouver South spoke genially this afternoon, but if they will consider the case objectively they must come to the same conclusion that I have reached, and they will be bound to admit their mistake in defending Pearkes, who is a fascist, when our troops are fighting for liberty.


William Earl Rowe: You say that because the war is pretty nearly over.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask my hon. friend
to allow me to go on. If he wants to say something later on so that I can hear him, I will be in1 a position to reply. But I reserve the right to say to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe that he, too, is a fascist.


William Earl Rowe: I am not quite as big a clown in my party as you are in yours. Go ahead.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will remind my hon.
friend that he was prevented from getting into power by the people of Ontario, who would not put up with him.


William Earl Rowe: You never even approached
it. Go ahead.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have no lesson to learn from my hon. friends. I call them fascists, but the hon. gentleman gets angry.


William Earl Rowe: You have been a prize clown for twenty years.

War Appropriation-The Army


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask my hon. friend, who was the associate of R. B. Bennett, to give me an opportunity to go ahead.


William Earl Rowe: You are still the prize clown of the house. You left this side and, went over there, but you are still the prize clown.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let him go ahead; I am
rejoicing. The truth hurts. He is making politics, and he should not make politics with blood and tears, as he has done since the beginning of the war.


William Earl Rowe: This is a short session. You
have not had as much time for buffoonery.


Jean-François Pouliot: I can tell the hon. friend
for Dufferin-Simcoe-


William Earl Rowe: I know you very well, better than you know me.


Jean-François Pouliot: How can my hon. friend
speak as he does now when he voted against the motion which I sponsored, with the hon. member for Kamouraska, for the defence of the farmers? We were never supported by him. He was always talking about it, but when it came to a vote we did not get his support. We had the support of others on his side, including the hon. member for Broadview.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Did you ever think of defending the country? You are talking about defending the farmers.


William Henry Golding: Order.
I would call the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that the hon. member for Temis-*couata has the floor.


William Earl Rowe: He has had it all day. He is inviting interruptions.


William Henry Golding: But if
the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe wants to speak, at. least he should address the Chair.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was so disappointed when my hon. friend was interrupted. Now, sir, I am sorry that I must make a little digression. Let me remind my hon. friends that time and time again we brought in motions asking, as they asked in their speeches, that farmers should not be conscripted,; but when it came to a vote they always took the side of those who did not agree with us.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Speak of your own party.


Jean-François Pouliot: They were all right when
making speeches, but when it came to voting-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Go on back where you
belong.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am here by my own
choice, but I cannot swallow the Tories; they are too hard to digest.


James Arthur Ross: You have something
there.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, that is only
buffoonery.


Jean-François Pouliot: I mean that Toryism is
bologna, but cannot be digested by a man with an ordinary stomach.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Then why don't you
develop a stomach like the cabinet ministers?


William Earl Rowe: Page General McNaughton;
he will stomach it for you.


Mr. BOUCHER:: You are at least amusing your former colleagues.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thought until now the
hon. member for Carleton was not. a Tory, but was just a plain, honest, Progressive Conservative. I never thought of him as a Tory.


George Russell Boucher: You are at least amusing your former colleagues on the government side.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He is trying to crawl back.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You just love him when
he says anything about the Tories, and you hate him when he says anything about you.


Thomas Langton Church: The Ottawa theatres are
empty to-night.


Jean-François Pouliot: As proof that Tories are
fascists, they cannot conceive that anyone may disagree with them. According to themselves, they are the self-depositories of revealed truth. I find there is an element of exaggeration in holding such an opinion of themselves. I will continue by saying that in making a distinction between the Tories and the honest Progressive Conservatives, there is all the difference in the world between the two classes of gentlemen. The Tories are black, and the honest Progressive Conservatives are nearly white.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And we are not spotted, either.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, not spotted, but they look just as cruel as leopards.


William Earl Rowe: On a point of order, I should like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, if this parliament has turned into mere buffoonery.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: We have boys who are fighting to the death for our liberty.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Who started it?
War Appropriation-The Army


William Earl Rowe: And this parliament has been detained from the 1st of January-jumbled, tricked and twisted-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Earl Rowe: And only just a few days before this parliament ends we have to listen to this buffoonery, with our boys overseas doing all they can-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are the worst offender.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of privilege.


William Henry Golding: On the point of order-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What is the hon. member talking about?


William Henry Golding: Answering the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, may I say that I did try to keep order, and that he was one of the worst offenders in not keeping order, or obeying the call to order. He kept speaking without even addressing the Chair. The hon. member can set a good example, and I agree with him that we ought to keep order in the chamber. However, I ask him to help me in doing that.


William Earl Rowe: If I wounded your pride in any way, Mr. Chairman, I will apologize; but still that does not affect the order in the chamber now.


William Henry Golding: It is not a matter of my pride, but on the point of order I say that you are quite correct. We should have better order than we have had.


William Earl Rowe: You have killed the point entirely.	.


Jean-François Pouliot: I appreciate what is being said. The remarks of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe respecting buffoonery in the chamber came immediately after the remarks by the hon. member for Waterloo.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And do not forget the "south" Waterloo, too.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Temiseouata has the floor and I would ask hon. members on both sides to keep order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I appreciate what you have said, Mr. Chairman, and we shall now go on with this important matter.
There is something that must not be overlooked, and that is that last spring when we complained of the way in which a large number of draftees were dealt with in the Pacific

command, Major General Pearkes was in command, and he remained there until about the time we met in November for the short session. At that time there was no redress. We were complaining that young men who were abiding by the law were being forced to do more than was required by the law. Who were these young men? They were precisely -many of them-young men who had started their training in 1940, at a time when the Minister of Agriculture was also Minister of National War Services. That was an incredible thing. The minister had to assume responsibility for the national war services regulations, which described agriculture as a seasonal occupation, mining and fishing as seasonal occupations, railroading as a seasonal occupation, and the young men engaged in these vocations were called up. I was also informed that those regulations had been drafted by three people, by a Quebec lawyer and a Toronto brigadier, who reported to a third party, the hon. member who afterwards became minister for air. Those regulations were all wrong. It was absurd to describe agriculture as a seasonal occupation. After the regulations were drafted a report was asked from five deputy ministers to confirm that description, and they reported that agriculture was a seasonal occupation, meaning by that that fanners work for only part of the year, which was untrue. Then the member for Temiseouata wrote articles in the press-they were in French

and sent a copy of each of those articles to each member of the cabinet to inform them about the work done by eastern farmers, how they drudged from dawn to dusk and sometimes later the whole year round including Sundays, so that it was impossible for a farmer to enjoy a legitimate rest. I understand that after the drought in the prairie provinces there was some unemployment among the farmers. Of course, conditions in farming in the west before the war were entirely different from conditions that prevail in the east. In the west the farmer has practically nothing to do in the winter.


Mr. FAIR:: You had better come out there and try it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know that conditions are different in the west to-day now that you have more mixed farming. I was speaking of those who grow grain alone and own orange groves in California, and who do their seeding and harvesting with mechanized equipment. I am describing what I know. I do not mean that every western farmer owns an orange grove in California.

_____________War Appropriation-The Army


Mr. BURTON:: Many western farmers
raise more live stock than many of the farmers in the east where my hon. friend comes from.


Jean-François Pouliot: I can tell my hon. friend what he probably does not realize, and that is that the dominion Department of Agriculture, as I have said before, has an eye only for the prairie provinces, and the east and British Columbia have never received the help that has been given to the three prairie provinces. I am not surprised that my hon. friend is boasting of what is done out in the west but it is done at the expense of the east. The idea was to help develop mixed farming in the west, and the farmers in the east have received no help whatever. To such an extent has that been so that if my hon. friend is fair enough to consult Hansard he will see that three years ago I proposed that the dominion Department of Agriculture be abolished and that the money spent by that department be distributed among the provinces in proportion to their farming population. Of course, that is a matter of opinion.
What I say is that the farmers of Canada have been defended in this house by only a small group of members of parliament who have taken every opportunity to inform the government on the essential activities of the farming population. That is what has been done, and the record is there for all to see.
The farmers were deceived through being called up for one month's military training. That was afterwards extended to four months when the Minister of Agriculture was in charge of the Department of National War Services. Before that four months had expired there was a change made by the head of that department and the four months was extended for the duration of the war. We protested against that.
Before conscription was brought in I offered to the government that I would raise a regiment in my own county within a week and I suggested that if every other hon. member would do the same we would have an army of 245,000 men within a week. But this is what the Prime Minister told me from his place in the house. He said that my proposal could not be accepted because it was not in the interests of agriculture; it was not in the interests of the forest industry; it was not in the interests of war industry at all, and it would be the worst possible error to call into the army farmers, lumberjacks and so on. Those facts are on the record.
How is it that the farmers of Canada have been defended in this house only by a group of men among whom there was one Conservative farmer? There are farmers in this house, but many did positively nothing when the time came to vote for the farmers. The record is there.
I also felt indignant that the farmers should be considered slackers and that those engaged in the forest and war industries should be considered slackers. They were doing their duty as farmers and in the forest and war industries. I wanted the rehabilitation of the farmers, and each time that an extension was made in the military training of those called up from the farm, what did I do? I tried to obtain amendments to the regulations that would benefit the farmers, not only of my constituency, not only of my province, but of every part of Canada. But I had to fight hard for that. I remember what help I got in having the regulations changed and recognition made of the farmers as doing essential work in the war effort. Farming was described in the regulations as a seasonal occupation. I did secure some recognition of the importance of the work of the farmer, the railway man, the lumberjack and all others who contribute so much to the war effort. I remember, I say, who helped me. The regulations were changed as a result of the support that I had from my late lamented friend, the former minister of justice, Mr. Lapointe. Two months or a month and a half before his death, in October, 1941, the regulations were amended; and I am not to boast of that; I have done my duty; but the member who worked the most to obtain these amendments was the member for Temiscouata; it was not the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, although the electors of Dufferin-Simcoe have benefited from it.
And now what do we hear? That we have not done our duty, when a lawyer, a country lawyer if you will, has done precisely what should have been done by another gentleman, himself a farmer of repute, a farmer well known in the agricultural societies of Ontario, a former privy councillor, a former leader of his party in this province. He has done nothing to help the farmer. The work was done by men from Quebec and by a few men from Ontario, to one of whom I must pay tribute, namely the Conservative member for York East (Mr. McGregor), who has supported us, and also, at times, with the assistance of members of the C.C.F. and social credit groups.
In the matter of the plebiscite, I pay tribute to the hon. member for Broadview, who voted with us, not sharing our point of view, but who voted with us just the same and showed that he had courage.

War Appropriation-The Army
When the farmers were called for the first time for one month's training, the time chosen was the dead1 season of the year; they were there during the winter and they were confident that the training would not last any longer than that. They dreamed that they were going into the bosom of the Minister of Agriculture and they awoke in training camps. That is what happened. Of course I do not complain of the minister's acceptance of the regulations, but they were designed to conscript everyone for the army, farmers as well as others. If we had not protested; if we had followed the same line of conduct as the hon. gentleman who interrupted me a moment ago had done, I should not have been surprised if the farmers in the army were five or perhaps ten times more numerous.
And what have we gained by our stand? We have the reward of the Canadian people. We can enjoy their respect. We can go anywhere, and the farmers and the railwaymen, and all men engaged in war industries, will know who are the members who have supported them in the house, not only to exempt them from doing any military training, but to rehabilitate them in the minds and the eyes of their fellow citizens. Their hearts are full of gratitude and appreciation for what has been done for them. One has only to look at Votes and Proceedings of 1942, especially at the time of the plebiscite, and even before it was held, to see what work was done by a handful of hon. members, who suffered humiliation because they were true to their principles, because they knew the people among whom they were living and were not afraid to defend them in this House of Commons. In the Senate nothing was done. The fight was here. The fight was carried on by a handful of men who were not afraid to defend the rights of those who had showed confidence in them by sending them to the House of Commons.
If I am asked, Mr. Chairman, why I supported the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay at the election of 1942, I will tell you now. It was because women of 3, certain age had to register not long before his election. I was informed that women were to be conscripted, and that is why I thought at the time it was important that an independ1-ent candidate should be elected in the province of Quebec to show that Quebec was not in favour of the conscription of women. That is what happened.
I say this without peevishness and without anger. I say it quietly. I say it because it is my conviction. Ho<w is it that there are men whose belief is respected when they say they

are conscientious objectors? The beliefs of Doukhobors and other sects are respected; the law makes special provision for them and grants them exemptions. But because the fanners of the province of Quebec have too much self-respect to play religion and politics together, they were forced into the army. If the minister says that production has not decreased on account of the fact that many indispensable farmers have been brought to the colours, I will tell him that perhaps the figures support his contention, but on the other hand agricultural production would have been much greater if farmers' sons had not been deceived as they have been.
And now, sir, speaking of industry, speaking of railroads, who is the member who has fought for railwaymen in this house? What have hon. Progressive Conservative members done to show that the railwaymen are w'orthy of the respect of Canadian citizens and have done their share of the war effort even if they have not military uniforms, even if they are in overalls? I remember the fight that I had last year and the trouble I had to secure the correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Labour and the presidents of the two big railway companies, in which these two gentlemen repeated exactly what the member for Temiscouata had been saying for months and years, that railwaymen were engaged in an essential occupation, that their work was vital to the war effort, that they were not slackers and that they Should be allowed to continue their work for the welfare of the country. There again I met the junkers. I met the former minister of national defence, a man who has been overrated to the limit, who has been made what he is and given importance by his colleagues of the cabinet. I thank those who have never opened their mouths in his defence, and I regret deeply that the Prime Minister has made the considerable blunder of coming to his defence after the warning I had given him that his colleague was going to stab him in the back.
When the Department of National Defence was supreme in selective service, Maj or-General Tremblay was inspector-general of the eastern command. He was not there most of the time; he had to sit in an office just the same as a clerk. If the soldiers in the eastern command were suffering, it was because the inspector-general, instead of doing his work as inspector-general, had been instructed to stay in an Ottawa building to gather the largest possible number of farmers, lumberjacks and others for the army. How is it that recruiting was so difficult? It was because there was no order in the Department of National Defence, because the minister in charge was too busy

War Appropriation-The Army
appointing his friends, his pet friends to fat jobs instead of supervising the administration of his department, the most vital job of the war. That is what has happened; and who has fought against that incompetent minister if not the member for Temiscouata? If I did so it was not because of any rancour; it was because, from the bottom of my heart, I was convinced that he was incompetent. Events have proved to us that he is incompetent; and when the leader of the Conservative party went to Grey North and complained of the mess that the Department of National Defence was in he was absurd enough, illogical enough not to point his finger to the former minister as the one who was responsible for that mess. And some members listened to his questions as if he were an expert. What expert! He is just the Charlie McCarthy to the brass hat Bergens. Yet they listen to him. Again, I fought alone, or nearly alone, with a handful of courageous members, for the farmers. With my friends, the hon. member for Levis and the hon. member for Rimouski, I fought, with these exceptions, positively alone to defend railwaymen against the former minister of national defence as head of that department; and now is he a saint any longer? Is he a hero any longer?


Howard Charles Green: Would it be possible for the parliamentary assistant to amplify the statement he made the other day concerning the reserve army, which, as hon. members know, is what was formerly known as the non-permanent militia? In his statement the parliamentary assistant said that the reserve army was to carry on for another year-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I
mentioned any period of time.


Howard Charles Green: Well, carry on. He did say something of the disabilities or handicaps under which they are working. I suggest to him that the time has come when the whole reserve army policy should be reviewed. Many members of that army are older men holding responsible positions across the country. It has been a real sacrifice for them to belong to the reserve army and to put in the nights required. for training and go to the camp each summer, and I suggest that, the war being in the position in which it now is, some change should be made. The suggestion has been made to me that after service for three years a member of the reserve army should be entitled to honourable discharge and, incidentally, that he should receive some badge for his service. The whole situation is not right and I suggest that some change should be made without further delay.
32283-a


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thank my hon. friend for his suggestions. The rather brief remarks I made about the reserve army the other day were intended as a tribute to the splendid work it has performed, and I said that for the time being, since we are continuing to maintain our flow of reinforcements, it was felt that the work of the reserve army should continue. I agree with what my hon. friend has said, that the time has probably now come for a very * careful review of the line which the future activities of the reserve -army should take, and I thank him for bringing the matter up. I shall see that it is brought to the attention of the minister, of the officers of the department, and particularly of General Phelan, who is in charge of reserve army activities.


Howard Charles Green: How many men are in the
reserve army now?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not the figures here.


William Earl Rowe: One hundred thousand?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I may be able to give an
answer in a moment.


William Earl Rowe: One hundred thousand, are
there not?


Mrs. CASSELMAN:: The other day the
hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) asked a question about appliances supplied for amputation cases in the present war, and I thought a rather bad impression was created about the quality and standard of appliances. I have been looking into the matter again. It is not the first time that I have tried to find out what service is being given to those who have suffered major amputations during these last months. I think there have been 1,640 cases since last D-day, which of course is a much smaller number than the 4,000 who were similarly wounded in the last-war, maimed perhaps, and now back in ordinary civilian occupations.
These amputation cases deserve a great deal of credit, for the way in which they treat themselves, for the moral courage of the highest order which they show throughout their hospitalization period and during the time they are being fitted and trained in the use of their new limbs.
The department here maintains a manufacturing department. The main manufacturing establishment and stores are in Toronto and there are twelve stations across Canada where men may be fitted with the standard product. The United States veterans' administration deals with civilian firms. In Great Britain they contract with civilian firms. Here we manufacture our own and I think our product

War Appropriation-The Army

will stand up with that produced in any of the other countries. When the men come back they may be fitted at any time in their lives or have their limbs altered. If they dealt with a civilian firm, as was suggested in a question that was asked, they would have one or two fittings and that would be the end. The department uses the best materials.
Last year, 1944, in February, an international conference was held here with representatives from the United States, Australia, United Soviet Socialist Republics and Great Britain to go into the question of the best appliances that could be obtained. A similar one was held this year in Chicago, in February, at which all the big civilian manufacturing firms had representatives from the United States, and our exhibits set up were praised as the equal of any.
As regards artificial eyes, the department here has made tremendous strides. Before the war a German cartel handled these supplies. The department has the only glass-eye maker in Canada. Along with the Corning Glass Works of New York and the university of Toronto they have developed an eye which is an excellent product. I just wished to correct any bad impression that had gone forth that care was not given along these lines to see that those who suffered maiming casualties of this kind were rehabilitated as far as possible.
There are one or two questions I desire to ask the parliamentary assistant. At what period in his hospitalization is a man who has suffered major casualties such as amputations discharged from the hospital under the army to the veterans' affairs department? Is he carried on pay and allowances until his discharge? Is there any difference in his pay during the time he is in the army hospital and in the care of veterans affairs if he needs later treatment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall ask my colleague, the Minister of Veterans' Affairs, to answer that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I first of all thank the hon. lady member for Edmonton East for her remarks in regard to the artificial appliances, both artificial limbs and eyes. Since some remarks' were made in the committee earlier on this subject I had an opportunity of making a thorough investigation of world comments upon what Canada is doing in this regard, and I can repeat to-night what I said on that occasion, that Canada places second to no country anywhere in the world in regard to appliances that are given to our boys who are maimed overseas. Some time ago I noted that in the United States we were placed at the top as compared

with all countries. It was my pleasure some months ago to interview personally a delegation from the U.S.S.R. and to give them three samples of various forms of artificial limbs as a small present from the Dominion of Canada. They will reproduce these artificial limbs in their own great country. I also had a meeting with one of the greatest surgeons on the continent who was attending the convention to which my hon. friend has referred. I also had the pleasure last week of attending the national convention of the War Amputations of Canada, one of the finest bodies we have in the whole dominion. They are cooperating with us and have been for years in regard to the placement of amputation cases. The rate of placement of amputation cases is very high indeed and will continue to be high for years to come. They themselves are abundantly full of courage in their own reestablishment and they have offered the department, and have done so for years, the finest and fullest cooperation in any plans whatsoever regarding their treatment once they are handed over to the former Department of Pensions and National Health, now Veterans' Affairs. We receive the fullest cooperation from them and one of their own officers is now in our department as a supervisor. I think it will be found that the amputation cases of Canada are the most contented and happy, and the most constructive of all our veterans.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: I happen to know something of the work of the War Amputations of Canada. I think they do a marvellous work. They have a placement officer in Halifax, I understand, who meets every hospital ship, talks with the patients who come in and tries to make them understand something of what is before them. It is a great thing to make a man look forward, with less trepidation, to what is before him. I think they do excellent work by sending a member of their group to the home where a casualty is reported in order that a man from the last war with a similar disability will tell the wife or the mother how he has been able to overcome his difficulties. I think they deserve the greatest praise and the individual deserves the great praise also in facing up to it and in doing what he can to fit himself again for a normal civil life. I thank the minister for what he has said.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have a short answer to give to the hon. member for Vancouver South. The latest reported strength of the reserve army is 83,000.


Mr. GILLIS:: I should like to say a word in regard to the remarks of the Minister of

____________War Appropriation-The Army
Veterans' Affairs in order to get some information;. The hon. member for York South did not suggest that the work of supplying artificial limbs might be placed in private hands. That was the impression given by the hon. member for Edmonton East a while ago. What I understood him to say was this: We have had artificial limb departments in most of the hospitals of the Department of Pensions and National Health for the last twenty-five years. These departments have been caring for the maintenance of veterans of the last war for the last, twenty-five years. It is a job in itself. These limbs have to undergo repairs every so often. The question that was asked by the hon. member for York South had to do with the amputation cases of this war. Because of the large number of amputation cases coming back this time, has the Department of Pensions and National Health been extended to. care for the additional work in manufacturing artificial limbs?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.
May I clean up one or two matters about which hon. members have asked? The hon. member for Mackenzie asked me how many medical men had been seconded from, the army for civil work. I am advised the total is twenty-three, of whom four are in Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked where the next of kin applied for war service gratuity. I am afraid some of my statements on that may not have been, entirely clear; therefore I will make a final one now. Application is made to the service to which the individual belonged. In reply to his question as to whether those who may be entitled to the claim are being informed of their right to apply, I am advised that all the services are now obtaining lists of the next, of kin from the estates branch and will notify them, that is the next of kin, enclosing the necessary application forms.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Whether they applied before or not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct. Just to close out the matter of the notice that went out to the schools about the calling up of boys of eighteen years of age, I am informed that, the original circular letter went to every secondary school and to officers commanding all reserve army units, to the cadet officer, military district No. 3, and the officer commanding the 33rd reserve brigade, military district No. 3-


John Horne Blackmore: Would the parliamentary assistant permit a question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Suppose one of the boys becomes eighteen in March or April; is he permitted to finish his high school studies before he is called into military activity?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; he is not- called for military activities until he is eighteen years and six months old. If he is a student at eighteen years and six months he may claim exemption on the ground that the studies which he is carrying on are of a nature that would entitle him to exemption. But- in any event he is not called into the army until he is eighteen years and six months old.


John Horne Blackmore: Is he classified as a student when he becomes eighteen years and six months old during the summer holidays?


Douglas Charles Abbott: If, in fact, he is a student and if he can show that he is carrying on a course of study which is such as would entitle him to exemption, the answer is, yes.
Finally, the hon. member for Haldimand asked me to table the various circulars of instructions which have been sent out- in connection with these various types of farm leave, including the new type of hog, dairy and beef production, and I do so now.


Mr. STIRLING:: Would the parliamentary assistant, explain why a larger sum is being asked for in the break-down for the army in Canada than for the army overseas, $324,000,000 in the one case and $306,000,000 in the other?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can only give a general explanation of that. Speaking offhand, I believe the difference arises from the fact that the army in Canada is charged with the cost of mechanical equipment, ordnance, ammunition and that sort of thing, which is purchased here; that accounts for the difference. The principal items of expenditure in the army overseas cover food, clothing, pay andi allowances and so on. The amount charged to the army in Canada includes those factors also, and, in addition, fairly substantial expenditures for such things as motor transport, guns, ammunition, gratuities, dependents' allowances and so on.


Grote Stirling: Even though the mechanical transport goes overseas, it is still charged to the army in Canada?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Quite so, because it is paid for here.


Grote Stirling: Then there is one other question, with regard to the unfortunate burning of ordnance depots in several parts of
War Appropriation-The Army

Canada. Would the parliamentary assistant give a list of those that have so burned, and the causes of the fires?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I presume I could obtain that.	.


Grote Stirling: Could we have a statement dealing with those matters?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, a little later.


Alfred Henry Bence: I should like to raise one point with the parliamentary assistant because at various times it has rather disconcerted me. Quite frequently members of parliament receive communications or visits from their constituents inquiring why they have not received replies to letters addressed to various departments of the government, particularly the Department of National Defence. By approaching the minister's office I have always been able to get fairly prompt replies to my inquiries, but quite frequently I do not want to bother the minister's office; and on a *number of occasions, as I say, I have been considerably disconcerted by not receiving *replies to letters addressed to this and other departments. There may be some reason for this, but I should like to point out to the parliamentary assistant that a member's constituents feel he is the one man in Ottawa to whom they can go to get information, and -when the member writes a letter to a particular department it seems to me at least an acknowledgment should be received within A very short time.
Mr, ABBOTT: I quite agree.


Alfred Henry Bence: Last Friday the parliamentary assistant said that, speaking generally, there was not very much trouble in connection with gratuities, except in cases where the person concerned was not entitled to a gratuity.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think what I said was that the trouble arose in cases where no application had been made and, second, where application had been made and refused.


Alfred Henry Bence: I have a case to which I should like to refer. It is rather a small matter to take up at this time, but it illustrates what I am referring to in connection with this matter of getting replies. In this particular case a notice was sent out on which was endorsed this statement:	"Your cheque will
be mailed February 20, 1945." This particular individual came to see me out in Saskatoon eleven days after February 20, and asked me to find out why he had not received his money. On March 3 I sent an airmail letter to the secretary of the Department of National Defence for the army, Ottawa. I had not

received a reply when I left to come to Ottawa. After coming here I sent a letter under date of March 28. It is now April 10; and certainly as the representative of a fairly large number of people in this country I am entitled to a reply from a department of government.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I entirely agree.


Alfred Henry Bence: I cannot explain to my constituent if I do not get a reply.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not blame the hon. member; and I do not know how I can explain, either. If my hon. friend will just give me a copy of the letter I can assure him that he will get a reply by an early hour to-morrow.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I have had the same experience with this department in writing concerning gratuities, so that the case mentioned by the hon. member for Saskatoon is not the exception.


Douglas Charles Abbott: On the question of gratuities, the committee will realize that this is a comparatively new function of the department. Some of us may remember that in the early stages of the war a good deal of difficulty was experienced in connection with cheques for dependents' allowances. I know when I first came here nearly five years ago I received many complaints from dependents who said their cheques were not coming regularly. I found that in the process of organizing the machinery to send out these cheques there was considerable delay. That gradually was overcome and the difficulties ironed out, so that to-day, judging by my own experience, the system has -become pretty efficient, since in recent years I have received very few complaints in regard to delay in sending out dependents' allowance cheques. As I explained the other night, applications for gratuities are coming in pretty large numbers. The other evening the accumulated total had reached seven thousand. I believe these applications are being handled reasonably promptly, but I have no d-ouibt the system will be improved as soon as that can be done. In the ordinary course the cheques go out within forty-eight hours after the application is approved. However, I will bring the remarks of the hon. member to the attention of the department. I regret that there appears to have been a failure to acknowledge letters; and I agree that letters from members of parliament in particular should receive prompt attention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the parliamentary assistant if there is any particular kind of case in which there will be any un-

War Appropriation-The Army
usual delay in forwarding the gratuity to the next of kin? I have in mind a letter which was shown me by a colleague this afternoon, in which it was stated that it would be necessary for this case to go to the estates branch, and for the military estate of the deceased soldier to be wound up before payment of the gratuity could be made to the next of kin. In this case the soldier had died more than six months ago. This raises the question whether in all cases payment will be made fairly quickly, or whether there will be delay in instances such as I have mentioned.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend will realize that I am no expert in departmental administration or in the handling of applications of this kind, but, as I said a moment ago with respect to the remarks of the other hon. member, I will bring his statement to the attention of the officers of the department particularly in charge of the handling of these matters and ask them to do everything in their power to expedite the disposition of these claims. Personally I do not know of any particular type of case which may be more difficult than another. Obviously, as my hon. friend will realize, the application must be checked; verification must be had of the length of service and the amount of gratuity to which the claimant is entitled, and of necessity that takes some little time. It cannot be done in an hour or two, or probably within two or three days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was concerned when I saw this letter because I had a clear memory of the wording of the order in council tabled the other day, which indicated that in these cases the amount of the gratuity was to be credited to the military estate of the deceased service man. If that is the case there may be instances in which there will be lengthy delay. I was hoping that it might be possible, since it has now been recognized that this gratuity should go to the next of kin, to have payment made without that sort of delay. There has been so much uncertainty and disappointment about the matter that I hope an effort will be made to deal with these cases as rapidly as possible.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Obviously care must be taken to see that the gratuity is paid to the proper person, but I can assure my hon. friend that every effort will be made to see that these claims are paid as promptly as possible.


Mr. QUELCH:: Could the gratuity not be paid in exactly the same way that back pay is given to the next of kin?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would imagine so.


Victor Quelch: If the dependents can
establish their right to the back pay of the deceased soldier I should think their right to the gratuity would be established automatically.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That seems reasonable.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Is there any assistance that can be given to the next of kin to help them make out the papers that may be required? The hon. gentleman is a lawyer, and he will understand what I mean.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That assistance is available at the headquarters of any military district. Legal assistance, if required, is available to the next of kin; the estates branch is glad to provide it.


Mr. ESLING:: The parliamentary assistant answered a number of questions to-night, but he did not bring down a reply in connection with the status of South African nurses, in so far as gratuities are concerned.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot do that.


William Kemble Esling: The parliamentary assistant
will realize that from a legal point of view they will say, "You have a contract." But those nurses are now in the central Mediterranean area nursing Canadian boys, and boys from Australia and New Zealand. All they ask is that they be entitled to the same gratuities as Canadian nurses. It is nearly three weeks since I instituted my inquiry. I know some decision has been arrived at, and I should like the parliamentary assistant to let the committee know what the status is.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The Minister of Veterans'
Affairs gave an answer last night, and it may be that he answered the point to which the hon. member is referring. I also added that some other features were still under consideration, and that no decision had yet been taken. That still holds true.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not in a position to
make any further announcement to-night. I assured my hon. friend that his representations would be carefully considered. The question was also discussed by the hon. member for Wellington South and the hon. member for Westmorland, and I may say that the representations of all three hon. members are being brought to the attention of the officers of the department who are making a most careful and, I trust, sympathetic survey of the matter.


William Kemble Esling: May we have a statement
as to the policy of the government in this connection before the session ends?
War Appropriation-The Army


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot make any promise as to that. If it is possible to do so, it will be given.


William Earl Rowe: With regard to the expression of concern on the part of the hon. member for Edmonton East, on behalf of amputation cases and those described as medically unfit, I would ask the parliamentary assistant if he would not give consideration by giving those oases at least some extension of the privileges extended by the railway services. I understand that the moment they are discharged they have to pay full railway fare, and have a struggle to secure rehabilitation in their different localities.
Naturally, after four or five years in the services they wish to visit friends in different parts of Canada. I suggest that the parliamentary assistant might bring to the attention of his department, and to that of the Minister of Veterans' Affairs, the advisability of extending the same service to those men, at least until the war is over, that is given to those on active service. It seems to me unfair that men who have lost an arm or a leg, and who have been away for four or five years, should have to pay full railway fare, while able-bodied men in the services enjoy reduced rates. I urge on behalf of those men that at least for six or twelve months, if not until the end of hostilities, they be given those privileges.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) [DOT] The Department of Veterans' Affairs will continue to cooperate in every possible way for the sympathetic care and consideration of amputation cases in Canada.


Joseph William Burton: I should like to speak to a matter which has caused a considerable amount of heart-burning. This is a condition which, in my view, should be avoided because it seems most unfair to ask what I have m mind from people who have made such great sacrifice.
Last fall some people living in my constituency received a telegram stating that their son was missing, following enemy action in .fa,y- They heard nothing further for a whi e. Then, later on, official confirmation ot that telegram was received, stating that the son was still missing, that the authorities were sorry they could not give any further information at the time, but that everybody hoped for the best.
A considerable length of time after that those parents received a letter from a minister who has nothing whatever to do with any of the defence departments in an official capacity, consoling with them, and expressing sympathy to those people. That was all well fMr. Esling.]
and good; but in the same mail delivery they received a letter from the dependents' allowance board stating that, since the son had been missing so long, they would no longer pay dependents' allowance. It seems ridiculous to have received a letter of that kind, and in the same mail delivery to have received another one expressing sympathy, from an official member of the government, and the hope that everything will turn out all right. It seems to me something is wrong in the department.
I contend that, regardless of whether or not the son was missing, so long as there was no proof of desertion the allowance should not have been cut off, and particularly in the manner in which it was done. I am happy to say that the fears of the parents were relieved some months later-in fact, since I came to Ottawa-when they received unofficially, not through the department, word that the son is a prisoner of war in Germany. If we are to be so hard in calculating the dollars and cents due these people, then why do we go to the other extreme of writing letters to tell them how much we admire the services and sacrifices these men have made?


Victor Quelch: My understanding is that a soldier can receive rehabilitation benefits only if he has an honourable discharge. Would the parliamentary assistant explain exactly what might disbar a soldier from obtaining an honourable discharge? If he is overseas for six years, and has spent six months in gaol, is he prevented from receiving it? I have in mind the case of an airman on coastal operations who was sentenced for low flying. He was told that because of his six months sentence he would receive a dishonourable discharge. Surely because a man serves a six months' sentence that would not automatically follow?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know the air force rules. My hon. friend is quite right when he says that a service man is entitled to gratuities only if he receives an honourable discharge. There is provision, of course, for making appeals from decisions of courts martial. I understand a board of review will go over those cases with a view, not necessarily to changing the decisions, but for the purpose of making a thorough review.
The hon. member is quite right, however, when he says that a man is not entitled to gratuities unless he receives an honourable discharge. Certainly if he were sentenced to six months in gaol as the result of an offence

which would justify such a term of imprisonment, I should think he would not receive an honourable discharge.


Victor Quelch: The minister knows very
well that in the last war many a man who had a wonderful war record had some temporary lapse and got into trouble and was sentenced, and for that reason was given a dishonourable discharge in spite of his splendid war record.
I think the benefit of the doubt should be given to the soldier who has a splendid war record behind him but has been sentenced to a few months in gaol and is therefore dishonourably discharged.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think such a case would
be most sympathetically considered by the board to which I have referred and which is made up of representatives of all three services.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In connection with this
matter of dishonourable discharges I would ask the parliamentary assistant if he is familiar with the programme now followed in the United States where they make every effort to rehabilitate the soldier who has had some temporary lapse from good behaviour and give him a chance to make good and wipe out the words "dishonourably discharged" from his papers. A few days ago a father-came to see me about his son who had been dishonourably discharged. After having taken part in an action during which the father claims that his son was knocked out or made dizzy, the son wandered back from the lines, finally was sent to a detention camp, and later on, after trial, was sent to prison. He is now in prison in England. If they can rehabilitate their young men in the United States to the point where they can wipe out the words "dishonourably discharged" from their papers, we can do it in Canada, too. After this war is over, many of these men, who may have taken part in strenuous active service and perhaps missed death by inches, when they return to Canada will have a difficult enough job in getting employment in competition perhaps with those who have not been over and also with those who have come back with creditable records, and I feel that we can rehabilitate the vast majority of our men whose papers are marked "dishonourably discharged" so that they will not be forever handicapped in applying for employment. Naturally, if an employer to whom they applied for work saw the words "dishonourably discharged" on their discharge papers they would have a difficult time getting any employment. I would, therefore, suggest to the parliamentary assistant that if he is not already familiar with it he inquire into the programme in the United States to which I have referred, and see if we in Canada cannot give these
War Appropriation-The Army_______
young men who come back dishonourably discharged an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves to the point where the words "dishonourably discharged" may be wiped off their papers, so that they may be given a chance to make a living.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be glad to do that.


John Horne Blackmore: Last year while we
were considering the war services grant bill I pointed out to the minister who was piloting it that in my judgment the ruling under which a soldier lost his gratuity by reason of an offence committed was very unjust. I still believe that my contention was well founded. Take the case raised by the hon. member for Acadia. Let us suppose that a soldier has given good service for four years and then commits an offence as a result of which he is sent to prison for six months. What is the punishment for that offence? Six months. If, in addition to punishing the soldier by six months in prison, we take from him the war service gratuity which he has earned by four years of good service, we are punishing that offence altogether beyond what it merits. My judgment is this, that we should give the soldier his gratuity for every day of good service during which he earned the gratuity, regardless of whether or not he commits an offence later on in the service, even to the point of having a "dishonourable discharge." I just wished to bring that to the attentioin of the parliamentary assistant. I believe that much confusion, much dissatisfaction and much injustice will result, for the reason I have stated, from the application of the act as it stands.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to go into this matter again because I have done so two or three times already and my opinion is pretty well known. The parliamentary assistant mentioned a board of review.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not sure that that is the correct name. It is a board anyway.


Clarence Gillis: Has the soldier an opportunity to present his case before that board, or is it just an inquiry in camera involving the examination of documents by two or three people?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know. This is a brand new thing. I am not quite certain that the arrangements are finally completed. Possibly I am a bit premature in referring to it, but such a board is being created, if it is not already functioning. _


Clarence Gillis: I think it is actually functioning. I cited a case in the house the other night and I had a call yesterday from an official of the department asking me for the name and regimental number of the soldier.
War Appropriation-The Army


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was from my department.


Mr. GILL IS:: That is right.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That shows how vigilant we are.


Clarence Gillis: Yes. So that the board is functioning. What I wish to know is whether the soldier has an opportunity of presenting his side of the story before the board. I think the worst feature of the whole thing is that a dishonourable discharge destroys a boy's chances of getting work for the rest of his life, because the first thing he is asked for iwhen applying for employment is "Where is your discharge?"


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is an old soldier and knows that discipline must be maintained.


Clarence Gillis: I agree, and I stated, when I spoke before, that when a man is twenty-four or twenty-five years of age and deliberately breaks military law, he should know at that age what he is up against and should be punished. But most of these' cases are boys of eighteen or nineteen years of age who do not know what it is all about and the offence is not always deliberate. A young fellow came back from Italy, and on the second night home he was celebrating and got tangled up with a policeman. He was in uniform at the time, so that he got nine months in gaol, and automatically he is discharged. He had committed no infraction of military law on service, and when he got into this bit of trouble he was just celebrating, as he had a right to do. But he was punished as no civilian would have been. I do not blame him for celebrating. I know that if we who came back from the last war had all been caught for the many things we did by way of celebration, a good many of us would not be here. Therefore I say that there should be some opportunity for the soldier to present his side of the case before this board, and then the board would be in a position to separate the sheep from the goats and see that justice was done.


John Horne Blackmore: Two questions were asked by the hon. member for Edmonton East and I failed to hear them answered. I listened carefully to the reply made by the Minister of Veterans' Affairs but I had the impression that he had not heard what she asked. She asked just at what stage a soldier who suffers an amputation passes from the care of the army into the care of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Would the minister care to answer that now?
[Mr. Gillis.l


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; if the soldier is seriously wounded, and there is no opportunity of his being reconditioned up to the point of further service, he is naturally discharged to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and is under our care. In an amputation case he would be there until he is fitted up with appliances and able to return to placement in the community through readjustment processes. At the present time we have several hundred of them in our various hospitals in Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member also asked, what is the relationship between the pay and allowances given to a soldier while under the army as compared with those which are given as far as soldier patients under the care of the Department of Veterans' Affairs are concerned?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the hon. member will find that in a serious case like that they have been generous in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That has always been the case. There is very little complaint in Canada from amputation cases so far as the allowances are concerned. I think, if the hon. member will consult the officials of the soldier organizations, he will find that there has been very little complaint in that direction.
Mr.. BLACKMORE: I have been desirous of bringing a number of cases to the attention of the government, but I thought they should be brought at the time when the Department of Veterans' Affairs was being discussed. It seemed to me that a large percentage of the cases which have been presented here by hon. members were completely out of order, and that has put me at a considerable disadvantage, because I have tried to be somewhere near being in order. But since we are on this subject now, and having a sort of free-for-all,
I will bring forward one case which I should very much like to have the Minister of Veterans' Affairs clear up. I received a letter the other day from a man in British Columbia in which he told me something which, I must say, astounded me; he said that his pension had been rated at fourteen per cent and that he was being paid ten per cent, and he said that several other veterans whom he knew were in a similar category to himself in this respect.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I Should have to see the particular case. If my hon. friend will be good enough to let me have the particulars to-morrow morning I shall . be very glad to look into it at once.

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply