1945-10-04

Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, before motions are called I should like to make a statement to the house with regard to a development in connection with food requirements which I think should be made known not only to the house but to the country.
Yesterday, October 3, about noon, I had a phone call from Sir Ben Smith, British Minister. of Food. The telephone call was to acquaint me with the fact that the food position in Great Britain at the present time is more difficult than at any time since the beginning of the war, and making an appeal to us to help in any way that we possibly can in connection with supplying one particular kind of food, namely bacon.
He stated in that telephone conversation that unless something could be done during the next two months it would be necessary in Great Britain to reduce the ration from three ounces to two ounces per week. It will be recalled by hon. members that the ration throughout the greater part of the war stood at four ounces, and during a considerable part of it the amount was higher than that. But toward the end of the war it became necessary to reduce the ration to three ounces. It is now

Bacon-Increased Shipments ______
suggested that unless within the next two months we can do something to assist, it will be necessary to reduce that ration to two ounces. The cause of this, of course, lies in the fact that Great Britain has been doing everything possible to assist in building up the supplies of food on the continent which are necessary to maintain conditions there.
When that appeal was made I directed the meat board to make a study of our position in Canada, and to communicate further with them in connection with the matter. Through the further communications we have thought it wise to suggest to the British government that an attempt will be made in Canada to increase our shipments of bacon to Great Britain over the next two months.
Our present dommitments or allocations require 11,000 tons in October and 11,000 in November. The suggestion is that if we could increase that amount by 3,000 tons in October and 3,000 in November they could continue their three-ounce ration during those two months, and that probably after that they would be able to take care of the situation. We had suggested to them that we would probably find no difficulty in continuing the
11.000	tons for October, and in increasing to
18.000	tons for November. They came back, however, with the suggestion that it would be most difficult for them to carry on throughout November unless we could increase our shipments in October.
So, Mr. Speaker, what I wish to say to the house, and to the people of Canada generally, is that we believe that if we all cooperate we can make these shipments possible. We anticipate no difficulty from the producers, because we are just now entering upon the period of greatest shipments or greatest marketings of farm products, particularly hogs. We believe that while the hog deliveries will be slightly lower than they were a year ago, sufficient hogs will be coming into the market to make these shipments possible. In the next place it will be necessary for us to operate our packing plants to capacity during that period of time; and in the third place it will be necessary to have available the shipping facilities which will take to the point where it is required the fullest amount we can possibly supply to the market. We do not anticipate any difficulty in connection with shipping facilities or with refrigeration. There can be very little difficulty in the matter of getting the facilities necessary in that direction. So we have undertaken to do everything possible to see to it that this bacon is advanced to the British

within the next two months in an increased amount of 6,000 tons over and above what we had previously been expecting to ship.
I am sure that in making this known to the house and to the country I do not need to make any further appeal than the appeal that has been made by the Minister of Food in Great Britain. I believe it is not only in the interests of humanity that we should send forward the product, but it is in our own interests as a country which is going to have products to sell that we should be able to meet this, which may be the last, appeal made to us to do something a little in advance of what we thought we would be able to do in order to bring to a most successful conclusion our activities in connection with the supplying of food to the European continent during and after war. I believe that every effort will be made to see to it that this product is sent forward.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: (Mr. Speaker, I am sure the
house has listened with interest to this advice from Great Britain as to their requirements for protein food. I am sure also that the house will approve the decision made by the government to try to increase the amount that will go forward. I do not want to raise any contentious issue at this time, but I would point out that this gets us back to our failure to increase production. We increased supplies last spring at the very time when our production was down 45,000,000 pounds a month. I think that is where our chief failure lies. This section of the house will support the minister in his effort to try to have the Canadian people supply this additional amount to the old country.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Bigg&r):: All I should like to say is that this section of the house, as the leader of the opposition has put it, will do everything possible to support the minister in the promises he has made.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): This section too, Mr. Speaker.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want to start a discussion on the matter, but I would like to say that in accepting the kind remarks from the three leaders of the different oppositions I do not wish it understood that I am agreeing with the remarks made by the leader of the official opposition in so far as they refer to production.


John Bracken: I did not expect you
would.
British Children



BRITISH CHILDREN


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):	Mr. Speaker, I think the house will be interested in hearing the contents of a very gracious telegram which was received on September 30 from the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. It is as follows:
From the Secretary of.. State for Dominion Affairs
To the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Canada
London, September 29, 1945.
No. 204. Now that almost all the children evacuated to Canada under the children's overseas reception board scheme have reurned to the United Kingdom, I wish, on behalf of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, to express our grateful thanks to His Majesty's government in Canada and to all those foster parents, officials, school teachers and private citizens throughout Canada who have cared for these children so generously and sympathetically during the past five years.
It will never be forgotten that in the time of our great need you welcomed our children into your homes, and not only fed and clothed and educated them, but gave them that patient care and thoughtful guidance which only parents or the best of friends can give.
We realize that the responsibility for these guests from overseas must have pressed heavily on the foster parents at times, especially as the strain of war increased and they had to contend with their own anxieties and problems. Their patience, and that of the officials and social agencies, has never failed, and to that has been added kindness and generosity of countless Canadians who have given freely of their skill, their time and their money to make the Children's stay both memorable and happy.
For all this inestimable kindness and generosity, I thank you all most sincerely on behalf of the United Kingdom government and of the parents. Some of our boys and girls have elected to make their homes with you. and we are proud to think that a number have served in the Canadian forces. All are bringing back happy memories of their five years in Canada, and links which have been forged as a result of your hospitality between so many homes in our two countries are based upon real affection as well as of gratitude.
Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.
To that gracious telegram the following reply was sent:
From the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, Ottawa
To the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, London
No. 227	Ottawa, October: 2, 1945.
Your telegram No. 204 of September 29. On behalf of the government of Canada I express to you our cordial appreciation of your message of thanks for the reception accorded in Canada to the children evacuated from the United Kingdom under the children's overseas reception

board scheme. Your message is being made public here and I am sure that it will be much appreciated by all those in this country who were associated with the care of the Children during the last five years. The imminent dangers which led to the evacuation have passed into memory, we hope never to return. The successful execution of the scheme leaves behind it new and close ties between many families in our two countries and warm friendships which will endure. We are glad that some of those who came to Canada under the scheme will remain with us.
Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs.

Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago I made a statement to the house on wheat prices. At that time I should have liked to be able to deal further with the marketing of wheat, but finality had not been reached at that time. To-day I should like to give the house a statement on the very important matter of wheat marketing. It is a little longer than I should have liked it to be, but I ivant to get the facts in connection with this matter on the record.
Since the crop year 1941-42, the government's wheat programme has included a restriction on the total quantity of wheat to be marketed within any one crop year. In view of the present wheat position, the origin and purpose of the restriction on wheat marketings might be carefully explained.
The following circumstances led to the adoption of a policy of restricting the volume of wheat to be marketed within any one crop year and the volume of wheat to be marketed by any single producer during the same period:
1.	In the early years of the war, overseas markets for Canadian wheat were limited and consisted mainly of the requirements for the United Kingdom. Even shipments of wheat to t-he United Kingdom remained at a fairly low level owing to the submarine menace and the shortage of shipping in those days. There was, therefore, no opportunity to market all the surplus wheat which resulted from the large crops harvested in 1939 and 1940.
2.	On July 31, 1940, the carry-over of Canadian wheat was 300 million bushels, and the 1940 wheat crop was estimated at 514 million bushels for the prairie provinces, making total supplies of over 800 million .bi/ihels for the crop year 1940-41, with a prospective export market of about 230 million bushels. The

Wheat Marketing Statement
1940-41 programme provided for seasonal delivery quotas but no over-all restriction on the marketing of wheat. Consequently, the government took the necessary steps to see that producers had an opportunity of marketing all of the wheat which they desired to market in the crop year 1940-41. During the crop year, producers delivered 456 million bushels of wheat and at the end of the crop year; very little remained) on farms. Marketing of the entire 1940 wheat crop was only possible because arrangements were made to provide temporary storage facilities both at the lakehead and at country elevator points.
When the grain policy for the succeeding crop year, 1941-42, was under discussion, it appeared that the carry-over of wheat at July 31, 1941 would be in the neighbourhood of 500 million bushels, practically all in the licensed storage facilities of this country which in pre-war days had a capacity of some 450 million bushels. This meant that country elevators would be congested at the start of the new crop year and the physical ability to take delivery of wheat was severely restricted.
3.	Under these circumstances the suggestion was advanced in western Canada from responsible quarters that the government should permit the marketing of that amount of wheat which could be sold at home or abroad during the crop year 1941, and the stockpile as at July 31, 1941, should be carried as a war-time reserve. This suggestion was accepted by the government, and the 1941-42 grain programme included a restriction of marketings to 230 million bushels-an estimate of the volume of wheat which could be disposed of in domestic and export markets during the crop year 1941-42.
4.	Having arrived at an absolutely safe position in respect to quantities of wheat required in the prosecution of the war, it was becoming increasingly evident that war-time demand was gravitating to live stock and live stock products. This demand came not only from the United Kingdom and from our growing armed forces, but from the domestic market which had been expanding steadily. The government, therefore, decided that positive steps should be taken to increase the production of live stock and live stock products, necessitating an increase in feed grain production. To that end the Wheat Acreage Reduction Act of 1941 provided financial benefits for the diversion of wheat acreage to other grains and summer-fallow, which proved to be effective.
The same basic wheat situation and livestock situation continued in Canada in the succeeding years, and the limitation on wheat
marketings has remained an important feature of the dominion government's wheat policy in each crop year since 1941-42.
The necessity of this provision is indicated by the following table, which shows the carryover of Canadian wheat, annual production in the prairie provinces, and total available supplies for the four crop	years from	1941-42 to1944-45:	July 31,	TotalStocks	New crop	supplies(Million bushels)	1941-42	... 480	296	7761942-43....	. . . 424	528	9521943-44	... 595	268	8631944-45. ...	... 356	411	767
During this period, carryover figures ranged from 355 million bushels in 1944-45 to 595 million bushels on July 31, 1943. Total supplies of wheat in Canada ranged from 952 million bushels in 1942-43 to 776 million bushels in 1941-42. These figures indicate the extent to which war-time reserves of wheat were continuously carried in Canada and the enormous quantities available in relation to immediate needs. It is obvious that without over-all restriction of marketings a situation might have arisen, and in fact did arise in 1942-43, where it was impossible to take delivery of all wheat offered by producers. The limitation on marketings provided the basis upon which all producers would share alike in any quantity of wheat which could be marketed within any one crop year. Otherwise, marketing opportunity would have been available in the first instance to producers at delivery points where grain storage happened to be more adequate.
Throughout the years under review, and even down to the present crop year, the government has never advocated expansion in wheat acreage, but on the contrary has advocated the maintenance and expansion where possible of the production of live stock and live stock products. This does not mean that the government did not recognize the necessity of maintaining a large volume of wheat for importing countries when the war in Europe ended. The figures which I have quoted indicate the extent to which this objective was kept in mind throughout the years. On D-day about 300 million bushels of wheat were available in Canada with the 1944 harvest sixty days away. On V-E day about 320 million bushels of wheat were on hand, with substantial quantities still to be delivered by producers prior to July 31, 1945, and the 1945 crop not far away. We had these supplies after providing the United States with over 160 million bushels of wheat in 1943-44 to supplement their feed grain supplies.
Wheat Marketing Statement

Early in 1943 the market situation improved largely because of the large imports required by the United States. But at this point a new factor entered the grain picture. This was the difficulty of securing sufficient transportation to move the quantities of wheat and feed grains required in the domestic market and in the export market. Since that time, transportation has been the controlling factor in the volume of wheat and other grains which could be made available for export. In 194344, in the fifth year of the war, the railways were called upon practically to double the volume of transportation available for the movement of grain, and even with these increased transportation facilities it was very difficult to keep up with available demand at all times. Since the crop year 1943-44 we have always had to bear in mind that the transportation factor had to be considered as well as the current and prospective demand. Not only were there large quantities of wheat to move, but by this time we were producing large surpluses of feed grains which had to be distributed in deficit areas in Canada and in the United States, and transportation became a vital consideration in the government's grain policy.
When policy was under discussion for the crop year 1945-46 we felt that the transportation situation was such that we would have a carryover of wheat on July 31, 1945, of about 325 million bushels, the equivalent of about a full year's export under the then existing conditions. We thought that a small crop of, say, 300 million bushels would give us total wheat supplies of over 600 million bushels in addition to 150 to 200 million bushels of marketed feed grains, or total supplies which would press upon the capacity of our railroads and port facilities having regard to other forms of war-time traffic which they were carrying. We also realized that if the 1945 crop were a large crop we would have to face extremely difficult conditions in respect to the movement of marketed grain. This fact, accompanied by the intensification of the demand for feed grains and live stock and live stock products, provided ample grounds for retaining the over-all marketing restriction in 1945-46. We also had another important consideration in mind. We knew we had on hand a very large volume of wheat which could be used to meet overseas requirements in case the war ended; all the wheat which Canada, as one of the wheat exporting countries of the world, could be excepted to carry to meet early post-war requirements.
In one respect our calculation of our wheat position early in 1945 was not borne out by subsequent events. V-E day resulted in the

raising of exports in the crop year 1944-45 by about 65 million bushels, and the reduction in our July 31 stocks from an anticipated 325 million to 258 million bushels, with, of course, some of the post-war European demand already met. The 1945 prairie wheat crop has turned out to be a crop of moderate size-some 300 million bushels. Whereas we expected wheat supplies of perhaps 650 million bushels for the crop year 1945-46, our total supplies will aggregate about 550 million bushels, with an additional 170 million bushels of feed grains to be marketed and transported during the present crop year. The supply of some 150 million bushels less wheat than we expected early in 1945 will, none tne less, tax the capacity of our railroads during the first half of the present crop year, and particularly our ability to move grain through available Canadian and United States ports.
During the present crop year we expect to export about 325 million bushels of wheat, leaving between 75 to 100 million bushels of wheat on hand July 31, 1946. Since V-E day over one-half of the wheat going into Europe has been Canadian wheat, and that percentage will be fully maintained during the present crop year.
The average yield per acre in western Canada this year is not large. Most of the surplus from the 1945 crop will be marketed within the 14-bushel limitation. There are some areas, however, and many producers who will have wheat in excess of the 14-bushel delivery limitation. If the restriction on the limitation on marketings is lifted for the balance of the present crop year, it will probably mean an additional 15 million bushels of wheat available for importing countries during the present crop year. In view of the efforts which this country is making to provide food for Europe, the government feels that if a little more wheat can be provided by lifting marketing restrictions for the present crop year, this action should be taken. It has therefore been decided to remove the 14-bushel limitation for the present crop year.


John Bracken: I wish to make just an observation with respect to the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. His review of the marketings of wheat during the war years has been very interesting, but the point he was leading up to, I gather, is that the restrictions formerly imposed with respect to marketing have been removed.


James Angus MacKinnon: For this crop year.

Civil Service Hours


John Bracken: For this crop year. In
view of the need of food overseas and in view of the situation now existing in Canada, I think the government's decision in this respect is to be commended.



RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: I have received representations
from various groups, associations and individuals in connection with the cancellation of reduced rates on railways over the week-end for dominion and provincial holidays, and also for parties of ten or more. I have considered these representations and I should like to make a statement to the house.
For some years it has been found necessary in order to assure the maximum use of railway facilities for the prosecution of the war to suspend or cancel certain reduced fares for holiday and excursion travel which in normal times have been afforded by the Canadian railways to the travelling public.
There are now in force the following orders:
Order in council P.C. 2557 of March 30, 1943, extended to November 15, 1945, which prohibits the sale of reduced fares for dominion or provincial holidays, weekends and parties of ten or more;
Orders of the Transport Controller:
T.C. 01P of June 24, 1942, cancelling special tariffs of reduced rates or fares covering agricultural exhibitions, celebrations, coach excursions, horse races, organized excursion parties and other special fares;
T.C. 02P of July 30, 1942, cancelling bargain fares, eastern to western Canada, prairies to pacific coast, and certain conventions;
T.C. 07P of June 25, 1943, suspending home visitors' fares and summer tourist fares.
The Canadian railways report that the movement of the armed forces is now taxing their facilities to capacity, and that in September the capacity of their equipment was exceeded. I expect that the return of service personnel from Europe to Canada will continue over the next few months in sufficient numbers to require the maximum use of all available railway trains, accommodation and operating crews. The repatriation and demobilization of the armed services place a great strain on the operation of the Canadian railways which during the war years have shouldered the increased burden of transportation demands
with vigor and efficiency. Great credit is due the railways for their important contribution to the war effort and final victory.
In addition to this expected movement, a large number of British prisoners of war and internees from the Pacific will travel across Canada, and this will take a lot of railway equipment, but it can be done advantageously by the use of sleeping car equipment returning from the Pacific coast.
During the period of demobilization it behooves the travelling public to refrain as much as possible from unnecessary railway travel on pleasure or for visits to their rela-ties until after the service movement is finished which will be about the end of next April. During the month of December, I expect that the railways will again be called upon to handle inbound troop movements through the port of Halifax, necessitating longer hauls for equipment. December is ordinarily an unusually heavy month for the railways on account of Christmas holiday travel, and the additional movement of service personnel may tax the railways beyond the capacity of their equipment.
It is with regret that I have to announce that there will be no removal of the restrictions now in effect on reduced fares for railway travel until after January 1, 1946, when the whole question will again be reviewed. I hope to be able to announce the lifting of the restrictions on reduced fares by the middle of January, but of course this will depend upon the traffic conditions prevailing at that time.



CIVIL SERVICE


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, on the second of July last one-half of the extra hour which the members of the civil service had been working during the war was restored to them. It has now been decided that, effective on November 1, the civil service will return to its pre-war hours of work.
The net result of the change will be that the extra hour which the civil service worked during the war will now be returned to them.
In view of transportation difficulties it will be necessary to retain staggered hours of arrival and departure where these are at present in effect, for the time being at any rate.
The government, and I am sure the house generally, wishes to express its wholehearted appreciation to the members of the public service for their work during the war. Many have come to Ottawa from all parts of Canada
Old Age Pensions

for several years of strenuous service in the war effort. Many have been loaned by industry; many have left their household duties, or their well-earned leisure hours of retirement, to take their place in civil service ranks.
The permanent civil service has accomplished a splendid piece of work during the war. To all these the government and the house expresses its sincere appreciation and gratitude.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw attention to a statement reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of this morning with regard to the debate on old age pensions. The minister said that the figure of $50 a month advocated by the hon. member for Vancouver East would involve in 1948 an expenditure of $850 million. I am quoted as supporting the resolution. I did not. I gave my views as they appear in Hansard. I have been a supporter of the principle of old age pensions since first I came to this house. As regards the age, I said that I would not know whether the minimum should be sixty or sixty-five, and in my opinion a survey should be made. Yesterday I opposed very strongly the application of a means test for the low-paid citizens, and also contended that the list of persons eligible in this class should be extended. I repeat that I have been a supporter of old age pensions since 1921, and I commend to the attention of the government what I have said on this matter.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time for the purpose of asking leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the adjournment of the house, under standing order 31, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the strike at the Ford plant at Windsor, Ontario, affecting some ten thousand employees, and the danger of this strike, if not settled immediately, spreading to other automobile plants and affecting a total of some thirty thousand employees and ultimately involving workers in other industrial plants throughout the

country. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that if you doubt the urgency of the matter you will use your discretionary power to allow the house to decide.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would like to hear first from the hon. member on what grounds he claims that there is urgency.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, on the matter
of urgency, this industrial dispute in Windsor is the first of our post-war difficulties in the field of labour relations. The attitude of the government in this regard may determine future labour relations in the very difficult period in the transition from war to peace. The urgency, sir, is on the following grounds. First, the strike has the city of Windsor tied up with ten thousand employees of the Ford Motor company involved. There are some thirty thousand workers in similar plants, under the same union, who have taken a strike vote and are standing by. They decided by a ninety per cent vote at least that if and when it was demonstrated to them that action on their part was necessary they would join the Ford strike, with immediate strike action. I am afraid that if some action is not taken by the government immediately we may find ourselves, perhaps this time next week, with all the automotive industry tied up, and, in addition to that, other plants across this country which are unionized, perhaps utilizing their affiliation, through the congress of labour and other bodies, to take similar action in support of the Ford workers. I have this afternoon some definite proposals to make which would perhaps expedite the settlement of the matter,


James Horace King: I do not see any urgency just now. There is no riot, there is no trouble of any kind-


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Are we going to wait
for riots?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: -and I believe that the
hon. member had and still has the opportunity of putting this particular question to the minister concerned, with respect to the strike, or of putting the question on the order paper. Therefore, not finding any urgency in the motion of the hon. member, I have to rule it out.


Clarence Gillis: I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of disagreeing with your ruling. That is your prerogative and I know of no way in which it can be challenged. At the same time, the action you suggest-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Clarence Gillis: The matter of putting the
question on the order paper-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.

Ford Motor Plant Strike


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not debatable.


Clarence Gillis: The matter of putting a
question on the order paper or putting a question to the minister would offer no solution.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: I rise to a point of
order, Mr. Speaker. With all respect to my hon. friend, this is not debatable.


Mr. GRAYDON:: The hon. member might
be given this leniency.


Major James William Coldwell: It is a government
ruling.


James Horace King: The hon. member knows
that rulings of the Speaker are not debatable. I think I have been generous to him in suggesting some means by which he may have an answer to the problem in which he is interested.


Major James William Coldwell: I very regretfully feel
that I must challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order,
may I direct my hon. friend's attention to previous rulings of Speakers in this house, notably that given by my hon. friend the member for Yukon (Mr. Black) when he was Speaker. He gave this ruling on February 19, 1932. I will quote the appropriate sections:
Mr. Ralston appealed from the Speaker's refusal to permit an appeal from his decision-
-on a similar motion to adjourn the house on a matter of urgent public importance. You will find this at page 748 of the third edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms.
And the question being put by Mr. Speaker: Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained; it was decided in the affirmative.
Debates. House of Commons, 1932, Vol. I, pages 360-1-2-3-4-5.
When the Speaker's decision is sustained by the house it is a binding rule in the house until it is altered.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit to you that this house is at all times in control of its own procedure, and that a Speaker's ruling, made under one set of circumstances, must not be considered as indefinitely binding the house for ever; otherwise we shall never be able to do. business as private members in this house. I respectfully suggest that we have a right to challenge this ruling, and I am appealing to the house for support of the contention that we are making.


Mr. GLEN:: May I be permitted to say, Mr. Speaker, that this matter has been already decided, by the last parliament, on two occasions if my memory serves me correctly.


Major James William Coldwell: This is a new parliament.


James Allison Glen: Nevertheless a new parliament is bound by the same rules as the last parliament.


Major James William Coldwell: Not the same rulings.


James Allison Glen: Standing order 31, under which this motion was made, states that the member desiring to make such a motion-

then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker,


Major James William Coldwell: That was done.


James Allison Glen: -
-who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.
I remember one occasion on which the Speaker's ruling was challenged when I was in the chair, and I then pointed out, as has been pointed out by the acting leader of the house, that an appeal had been made by Mr. Ralston against the Speaker's decision.. The decision was confirmed on two subsequent occasions, and the house then confirmed it with the standing orders as we now have them. The Speaker has exclusive right to determine whether the motion is in order or not. The point was confirmed in one case by a recorded vote, and I submit to the house that in this case, the standing order being as it is, the Speaker has no option but to rule according to his own judgment, and the house must therefore accept it without appeal.


Gordon Graydon: May I on a question of privilege, following the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen), make this observation. I think he might also have properly added that the Speaker has an alternative which he did not mention, and that is to submit to the House of Commons the point as to urgency. I know that this is perhaps a little irregular, a little out of order, but it does seem to me that the question of urgency has been sufficiently established and it might at least have been referred to the house. I make that suggestion to Your Honour with great diffidence.


James Allison Glen: If I may be permitted, I would point out to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) that on March 27, 1935, a motion was made for the adjournment of the house when Mr. Bowman was Speaker. The motion dealt with the request of mayors and representatives of certain cities and towns in the Dominion of Canada to be heard at the bar of the house, "in order to lay before parliament the critical conditions prevailing"- exactly in accord with the motion that has

Ford Motor Plant Strike

been made to-day, critical conditions prevailing in a certain locality. In that ease the Speaker ruled the motion out of order as not being a matter of urgency.


Gordon Graydon: How are we to know
whether the cases are parallel or not?


Mr. MacINNIS:: Mr. Speaker, there are
three ways in which a question of this kind can be dealt with. I agree that Your Honour has the prerogative of deciding whether the matter is one of urgent public importance, but if Your Honour is under any doubt as to the urgency of the matter, then you may ask members to rise. If you will notice, No. 4 of standing order 31 reads:
If less than twenty, but not less than five, members rise in their places, the question whether the member has leave to move the adjournment of the house shall be put forthwith, without debate, and determined, if necessary, by a division.
But if, when Your Honour asks the members to rise, twenty or more rise in their places, then Your Honour must call upon the hon. member making the motion to proceed with his discussion.


James Allison Glen: The hon. member is not reading correctly the meaning of the standing order. In order to have the matter properly before the house may I read section 3 of standing order 31, which is as follows:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member hasi the leave of the house.
In that case Mr. Speaker is of opinion that it is urgent, and he asks the house if the hon. member has leave to introduce it. The standing order continues:
If objection is taken, Mr. Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places.
This request is made only if objection is taken, and then, as the hon. member says, and as the standing order provides:
If less than twenty, but not less than five, members rise in their places, the question whether the member . . .


Angus MacInnis: Would the minister read
the last part of subsection 3, which he did not read?


James Allison Glen: The last part of subsection 3?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It does not apply.


James Allison Glen: I have already read it, but
I shall read it again.
Subsection 3 reads:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent

public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house. If objection is taken . . .
By a member of the house.
. . . Mr. Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places and, if more than twenty members rise accordingly, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who has asked for leave.
The hon. member has omitted to notice that if the Speaker has decided that it is urgent, he puts it to the house. If objection is taken by any member of the house, it then becomes the duty of the Speaker to call a vote of those for or against.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what should
have been done in this case.


Mr. POULIOT:: May I be permitted-


James Horace King: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have a right to speak on a point of order. The rules are not drafted in a way to be understood clearly if we take only one standing order. There are some standing orders which complete others, and to understand standing order 31 we must revert to standing order 12. There is nothing in the book which says that at this stage there can be no appeal from the ruling of the Speaker. There is a rule in the book which says that some motions are not debatable, but, sir, let us now take them together in order to be fair to all. My intention is not to speak ex cathedra, but just to appeal to the fairness of the Chair.
This is an unusual case, because a motion to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of urgency changes the agenda or the programme of the whole of the sitting in which it is made. The order of the day must be set aside until the debate on that matter of urgent importance is finished.
Paragraph 1 of standing order 31 reads as follows:
Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business (standing order No. 15) has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon.
The motion was made at the right time, therefore there is no argument about this. The second paragraph reads:
The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter.
That was done; the only discussion that there might be is about the matter of urgency. Is it urgent or not? All the formalities have been complied with; the only question for the Chair to decide is whether it is an urgent

Ford Motor Plant Strike
matter of public importance-two things, "urgency" and "importance". Paragraph 3 reads:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, . . .
I do not know whether that was done, but I presume it was.


Mr. KNOWLES:: It was done at two
o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: I continue with the
paragraph:
. . . who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.
That was-


An hon. MEMBER:: That was not done.


Jean-François Pouliot: Here we come to the
crucial point of the matter:
'If objection is taken . . .
There was no objection taken; the only objection came from the Chair. Usually it is submitted as a matter of course. I continue:
If objection is taken, Mr. Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places and. if more than twenty members rise accordingly, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who has asked for leave.
That was not done, and it is precisely because that was not done that some hon. members appealed from the ruling.


Mr. REID:: I wonder if I could ask the
hon. member a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: Excuse me, please. I
have the floor. It is not to be unpleasant, but I am making my argument.
Now let us go back to standing order 12, a most important rule, which has to do with the privileges and rights of hon. members, and which assures the privileges and rights of members of parliament. The first sentence of paragraph 1 of standing order 12 reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the house without debate.
The point is that there is no debate on the ruling of Mr. Speaker, but the house has the right to appeal from it; and if the majority vote for the continuation of the debate on the motion, it is carried on; if not, it stops there. That is the point. I submit, sir, that the rules cannot be taken separately; they must be taken jointly. There is an appeal from your ruling, and I am sure that in all fairness you will act accordingly.


James Allison Glen: May I be allowed to ask the house to consider standing order 12, which the hon. member has quoted?
47696-47i


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member has spoken three times on the point of order. He has the right to speak only once.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You had no right to speak at all.


James Allison Glen: In a debate-


Mr. IRVINE:: What is your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order with regard to the discussion which has taken place?


James Allison Glen: There is nothing before the Chair.


Major James William Coldwell: There is an appeal from the ruling.


James Allison Glen: A ruling has been made.


Major James William Coldwell: How many times may an hon. member speak? I rise to a point of order. How many times may an hon. member rise to discuss this question?


Lionel Chevrier: How often have you broken that rule?


James Allison Glen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member takes exception to my speaking now. I submit there is nothing before the Chair. There is a discussion going on in the house with regard to the matter of procedure. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has quoted standing order 12, which reads-


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may we have your ruling? How many times may an hon. member rise to discuss this matter? We should like to have that ruling, so that we may know in future how to guide ourselves.


James Horace King: A point of order was raised by the hon. member, and I understand that another hon. member has a right- to answer it.


James Allison Glen: The hon. member for Temiscouata has referred to standing order 12, which states:
Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the house without debate.
Then he applies the contents of standing order 12 to standing order 31. But urgency is not a point of order. Urgency is a matter of substantive consideration; it is not a point of order. An appeal may be taken on a point of order, but standing order 31 does not give that right of appeal, because the essence of that standing order is urgency. It is not a point of order; it is a matter for the consideration and decision of Mr. Speaker alone.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, and I believe there is one before the Chair,
Ford Motor Plant Strike

may I say that I was seeking to get your eye, Mr. Speaker, at the time you saw the hon. member for Temiscouata, so as to make in my way the argument he presented for your consideration. I should like to add to it now, by way of answer to the objection just made by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen), an objection which I suggest was not well taken.
The hon. member for Temiscouata called attention to the words in standing order 12 which state that Mr. Speaker shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the house without debate. The Minister of Mines and Resources asserts that that does not apply to standing order 31, because in his opinion the decision Your Honour made on the hon. member's request was not on a point of order. But he himself-the minister -quoted paragraph 3 of standing order 31 a number of times, which has in it these words: "who"-referring to Mr. Speaker- "if he thinks it in order"-and so on. I submit that it was your opinion that the request of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), seconded by myself, was not in order. That is the crux of the matter now under discussion, namely that the request was out of order.
I know that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), who is leading the house, has already quoted decisions made by Speakers in previous parliaments, and has pointed out the fact that those decisions were upheld by votes of the house. But I find nowhere in the book of rules any order to the effect that Speakers' decisions, even if upheld by votes of the house, become rules of the house. It seems to me that the only thing that is binding, or that carries from one parliament to another, is the set of standing orders themselves.
On many occasions I have endeavoured to quote citations contained in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, and have been told that those really do not hold. It has been pointed out to me that only the precise standing orders count. If the citations contained in this book do not count, or do not hold, then surely the decisions of previous parliaments are not binding upon this parliament. I submit it is our right to decide that standing order 12, which gives the house the right, of appeal from a Speaker's ruling on a point of order, definitely includes standing order 31, because it says:
. . . Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.

Your Honour has ruled against the motion on the ground that in your opinion it is not a matter of urgent importance, and, taking the words of the standing order, you have ruled that in your opinion it is out of order. I submit the hon. member for Temiscouata is perfectly correct in his contention that the house has a right to appeal from your ruling, and that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is in order in so doing.


James Horace King: Order. When this motion was put before the house, as Speaker I had to decide whether or not there was any urgency. Having heard the hon. member, and having heard the motion, I was not quite sure. There was a doubt in my mind, and I gave him an opportunity to show or to prove to me that there was an urgency. My interpretation was that there was no urgency, and as such the motion was out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the point.


James Horace King: Now, standing order 12,
which was mentioned by two or three hon. members in discussing my ruling, says:
Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the house without debate.
All I say is that in my ruling I did not decide a question of order. My interpretation was as to whether or not there was any urgency. As the question, therefore, is not raised on a question of order I understand there is no appeal.


Major James William Coldwell: No debate.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I am in accord with the ruling Your Honour has made in respect of the application by the hon. member for Cape Breton South to move the adjournment of the house. In your opinion, which is final, it is not a matter of urgency. The Minister of Mines and Resources has clearly explained the application of the rule which applies. As I see it. the hon. member for Cape Breton South has given Your Honour and the house sufficient reason why it is not a matter of urgency. He said that if he had an opportunity to talk he could suggest some solution for the difficulty at Windsor. The place for him to go with his information is to the Minister of Labour, not to this house. The Minister of Labour is the proper person to whom to refer it.


Major James William Coldwell: No, it is here; what
is the House of Commons for?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: I think hon. members
will agree that I have been most generous to all parts of the house, even to the extent

Questions
of asking the hon. member to prove to me that there was any urgency. I believe I was generous in giving him that opportunity. I have given my ruling, and we should proceed now with the business of the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Next order.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many persons are, or were, employed by the or in connection with the work of selective service, (a) as of September 27, 1945; (b) as of January 1, 1945?
2.	What was the total amount paid them by salary and expenses as of each of the said dates?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	The number of persons who are, or were, employed by the or in connection with the work of selective service, (a) as of September 27, 1945, 8,315, plus 929 casuals; (b) as of January 1, 1945, 8,092, plus 412 casuals.
The figures above embrace the staff engaged on unemployment insurance and selective service work. The work connected with the administration of national selective service and of unemployment insurance is so closely related that it is impossible to determine how much of the change is due to national selective service and how much to the normal activities of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
2.	The total paid them by salary and expenses,
(a)	for the month of August, 1945:
Salaries	$1,064,794	52Expenses	
46,460	87

(b)	for the month of January, 1945:
Salaries	$ 992,901 79
Expenses	 42,287	32

The figures above include those covering the staff engaged in unemployment insurance and selective service work. It will be noted that a change has been made in the terms of this question and the answers above reply to question No. 2 as if it had read: 2. What was the total amount paid to such officials or employees for salary and expenses, (a) for the month of August, 1945;
(b)	for the month of January, 1945.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD- PROSECUTIONS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many prosecutions by provinces have been instituted by or under the instructions of the wartime prices and trade board?
2.	How many convictions have been secured?
3.	How many enforcement and/or investigating officers, by provinces, are employed by or ar.e on loan to the said board in connection with the investigation or enforcement of its
regulations?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Nova Scotia	 495
New Brunswick	 314
Prince Edward Island ..	62
Quebec	5,061	(1)Ontario	3,105	(2)Manitoba	
787	(3)Saskatchewan	
735Alberta	
624British Columbia	
894
12,077
(1)	Exeluc ng Hull district.
(2)	Includ ng Hull district-excluding Fort William and Kenora districts.
(3)	Including Fort William and Kenora
districts.
2.	11,411.	Total
3.	Prince Edward Island... 6
Nova Scotia	 40
New Brunswick	 35
Quebec	 316
Ontario	 376
Maintoba	 53
Saskatchewan	 91
Alberta	 47
British Columbia		73
1,037


NATIONAL DEFENCE-DISTRICT AND COMMAND HEADQUARTERS-AUDIT
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	Did audits at district and command headquarters of the Department of National Defence disclose inadequacy in the control of recording cash receipts, cheques and money orders?
2.	If so, what was the nature of this inadequacy?
3.	What remedial action has been taken?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The audits revealed that, in some instances, records had not been maintained, and, in other instances, certain personnel had not been bonded, in accordance with prior instructions issued by the department. No defalcations were found.
Questions

3. Remedial action was taken by informing the District Officers Commanding of the observations. They, in turn, instructed all heads of branches and divisions to conform to the departmental instructions in future.


STEVENSON AIRFIELD, WINNIPEG
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Have any plans been made for extending the runways and enlarging Stevenson field, at Winnipeg?
2.	Has any date been set for the implementing of said plans?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Tentative layout plans have been made for enlarging Stevenson field at Winnipeg and constructing longer runways.
2.	No.


SHIPMENT OF FEED GRAIN FROM WEST TO EAST
Mr. McCUAIG:: How much money has been spent by the federal government in connection with shipping feed grain from the western to the eastern provinces, from 1940 to date?


James Garfield Gardiner: 


S64,116,824.34. CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. LOW:: 1.	What are the names and civil occupations of each of the members of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	,What is the name and occupation of the executive officer of this organization?
3.	What are, (a) the names; (b) occupations or duties; (c) location of employment, of all other persons in Canada employed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation whose salary is over $100 per week?
4.	What are the, (a) names; (b) terms of employment; (e) rules governing the preparation and presentation of the script of all regular news commentators retained by the corporation in Canada?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Name-Civil occupation
Howard B. Chase (chairman), executive, brotherhood of locomotive engineers.
Rene Morin, general manager, general trust of Canada.
Dean Adrien Pouliot, dean of science, Laval university.
Mrs. T. W. Sutherland, newspaper owner.
F. J. Crawford, stockbroker.
W. J. Parker, president, Manitoba pool elevators.
B. K. Sandwell, editor- Saturday Night.
A. W. Trueman, president, university of Manitoba.
2.	Augustin Fr.gon, general manager.
The general manager of the corporation is chief executive officer and, subject to the direction of the board of governors, he is responsible
(Mr. Lapointe.]
for the carrying out of the provisions of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936, and of the regulations and by-laws made thereunder. Subject to the approval of the board of governors, he manages the activities and finances of the corporation.
3.	Name-Occupations or duties-Location of employment.
J. M. Beaudet, director of French network, Montreal.
E. L. Bushnell, director general of programmes, Toronto.
I.	Dilworth, Pacific regional representative, Vancouver.
C.	W. Jennings, general supervisor of programmes, Toronto.
R. P. Landry, director of personnel and administrative services, Ottawa.
D.	Manson, assistant general manager, Ottawa.
G. W. Olive, chief engineer, Montreal.
J.	A. Ouimet, assistant chief engineer, Montreal.
W. E. Powell, assistant commercial manager, Toronto.
J. R. Radford, supervisor of station relations, Toronto.
E.	A. Weir, commercial manager, Toronto.
4.	Commentators are engaged on a per occasion basis and are not regular employees of the staff of the corporation.


* WHEAT FLOOR PRICES-BASIS CHURCHILL
Mr. BOWERMAN:: 1.	Has the government received a request from the Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, board of trade, that the $1 floor price on wheat be payable, basis Churchill as well as Fort William, Vancouver and Prince Rupert?
2.	If so, has the government reached a decision?
3.	What is that decision?


James Angus MacKinnon: I have received a request such as is referred to here from the Prince Albert board of trade. After consulting with the wheat board on the matter I intend to discuss it with my colleagues in the government. It is a technical matter about which I cannot give an offhand opinion, but I would hope to have an answer shortly for the hon. member. I would point out that -Prince Rupert is not a price-basing point. I wonder if the hon. member would allow the question to drop on my undertaking to give him a reply just as soon as I get it?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Was there not a request from Prince Rupert?


James Angus MacKinnon: No. I asked the hon. member what I did because I have no unanswered questions on the order paper.

United, Nations Food Organization



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	For what period of time was Jacques Greber employed to advise in the beautification of the capital?
2.	What amount w-as paid to him by way of, (a) salary, fee or honorarium; (b) living allowance; (c) travelling expenses?
3.	Was he responsible for the location of the national war memorial and the planning of the plaza area?
4.	What is the nature of the contract between Mr. Greber and the government for future work, including details of the length of time for which he has been employed and the rate of remuneration to be paid to him?


Mr. MAYHEW:: Return tabled.


CANADIAN ARMY-HEADQUARTERS-GERMAN EQUIPMENT &quot;ECLIPSE&quot;
Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	What were the numbers of officers and other ranks at national defence headquarters as of January 1, 1945, and what are the numbers at the present time?
2.	What vrere the numbers of officers and other ranks at Canadian military defence headquarters as of January 1, 1945, and what are the numbers at the present time?
3.	What were the numbers of officers and other ranks at 1st Canadian army headquarters as of January 1, 1945, and wffiat are the numbers at the present time?
4.	Are 1st and 2nd Canadian corps headquarters completely disbanded? If not, why has this not been done?
5.	Was there an operation designed to supervise the handling and disposition of all German equipment known as Eclipse?
6.	If so, what were the numbers of officers and other ranks engaged on this operation on June 1, 1945, and what are the numbers at the present time?


LECTURES TO CANADIAN ARMY PERSONNEL OVERSEAS
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Was a series of lectures scheduled to be given to Canadian army personnel overseas by Canadian civilians within the past several months of this year?
2.	If so, was this series cancelled, and what was the reason for this action?


ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL-LEGAL COUNSEL
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Does the government, or the Canadian bar association or local bar associations throughout Canada provide counsel in the larv courts for soldiers in trouble?
2.	Have any complaints been received regarding cases in which soldiers are involved, being conducted without the soldier having counsel?
3.	What has been done since the last session when this matter was discussed in the house, and what action, if any, has been taken?



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure for carrying into effect the agreement for a food and agriculture organization of the united nations to be signed and come into force when twenty nations have notified their acceptance of the constitution set out in the said agreement; and to provide that all expenditures in carrying out the agreement shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament.
He said; His Honour the Deputy of the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
I would like to place myself in the hands of the house with regard to this resolution. In order to explain why, may I say that at the meeting held at Hot Springs, I think in 1943, a decision was made to set up a conference on food and matters pertaining to food. The first meeting of that conference is to be held in Quebec beginning on October 16. It is urgent that between now and October 16 we should become parties to that arrangement by the passing of a measure based on this resolution.
This legislation is made necessary as a result of the fact that more than twenty nations have agreed to become part of that conference-twenty was the figure set at Hot Springs. Twenty-eight countries have asked for the privilege of operating under this arrangement. We hope to bring down the legislation next week. The only reason it was not brought down earlier is that we have been dealing with other matters that had been arranged for at the beginning of the session. I would like to ask the permission of the house to allow this resolution to go into committee and to pass its second reading to that stage to-day, and then whatever discussion we wish to have on the matter could take place on the second reading of the bill, which I would hope to have brought down next Tuesday. It is necessary to pass this resolution, because there is money involved.
John Bracken: We were led to believe by the leader of the house that the discussion on this matter would take place next Tuesday. Speaking for this party, I may say that we would be entirely agreeable to whatever procedure is necessary to get the measure for-

United Nations Food Organization
ward, subject to our being permitted to discuss the matter later. We are not prepared to proceed with any discussion to-day.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was the understanding I had with the leader of the opposition.


Jean-François Pouliot: If hon. members who have observations to make can make them now-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There must be unanimous consent; this is not debatable.


James Horace King: This motion is not
debatable.


James Garfield Gardiner: If there is any objection, of course it will not proceed any further. I understand the leader of the opposition to say that he consents to our going on, so long as the discussion can be held on Tuesday. We were simply getting into such a position that we could have before the house the legislation for second reading next Tuesday.


Major James William Coldwell: Do I understand the Minister of Agriculture to say that there is to be no statement made to-day? If there is to be a statement, we would wish to discuss it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am prepared to say that there will be no statement. I simply want the house to agree to moving up the resolution the necessary stages so that we shall be in position to have the bill for second reading next Tuesday.


James Horace King: The "next sitting of the house" means the next day on which the government will be ready to proceed.


James Garfield Gardiner: I want to have second reading of the resolution to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. GARDINER moved that the house go into committee on the resolution.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Jean-François Pouliot: I have just one word to say, w'hat I wanted to say before. I have no objection to discussion in committee taking place at any time, nor have I objection to a debate taking place in the house at any time, because that is the business of the committee or the house to decide. But here we have a most difficult matter to consider. We are willing to do something in that regard, but the fact is that this resolution states a future policy. Any member may make a suggestion to be taken into consideration when the bill is being drafted, and the bill can be improved in the light of any suggestions made by hon.

members. But when a bill is drafted by the experts of any department-I am not speaking particularly of the Department of Agriculture, because I suffered from this practice when Mr. Bennett was in power, and I tried to do something through the then Secretary of State, Mr. Cahan-we must swallow it whole; there is no possibility of change. That is why I am making this suggestion, not particularly about this measure, which has already been decided upon, but so that in future the discussion take place on the resolution itself. The country may then benefit from the experience of hon. members on all sides of the house and the suggestions they may make.


Thomas Langton Church: This committee should be informed as to just what is being done in connection with this agreement for a food and agriculture organization. Who is to be in charge of it? What do each of the twenty nations contribute, and how is it administered as to China? What food is to be given? A report has been made by the American Red Cross bearing on this matter. I called the attention of the Prime Minister to it in the debate on external affairs in August of 1944, and he said that he would look into it.
My next point is that parliament should be informed of what Canada and the other countries are going to do under this agreement. We shall have to vote the money. Where are the supplies going? From what I have heard, some supplies destined to China did not reach China at all. What about transportation from North America across the seas? Who is in charge of that? School teachers are all right teaching school and in many other ways; in fact, some of our best leaders have been drawn from that class. But we should have in charge of this business someone who has a practical knowledge of food products, live stock, transportation, expert administration, and so forth. I ask the minister who is in charge, because the Prime Minister is not here. I want to see the resolution go through, but I ask that a proper survey be made along the lines I have indicated and that the public be informed, because the public will have to pay. I am in favour of this step to send food and supplies to suffering peoples, but in this matter we should act as business men. We are voting hundreds of millions of dollars; where is the money coming from? It is coming out of current revenue. Parliament should be informed of just what is to be done. In some matters you cannot get any information from the press, and at times we might as well be meeting in secret for all the public hear of this chamber. We are to blame if we pass the resolution without getting this

United. Nations Food Organization
information. It is the duty of the opposition to look into this agreement, to examine, explore, explain and criticize if necessary, and see whether it is in the public interest. I might point out also that the resolution is debatable.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, may I
call attention to what I think the arrangement is, and if there is any dissatisfaction with that arrangement I shoud like to hear from the members. My understanding is that there was a discussion between the leader of the house and the leaders of the opposition groups with regard to when we should discuss this matter, and that it was agreed that we would discuss it next Tuesday. The only question I raised this afternoon was whether the debate should take place on the second reading of the resolution or on the second reading of the bill. It takes a day to introduce the resolution and have it ready for another sitting; then another day to pass it, even if we do not discuss it at all, and then a further day to bring down the bill. Because of the nearness of the conference, if we followed the usual procedure we would have to go into the conference without the legislation, or at all events we would have no opportunity to discuss it here. Therefore I suggested that we decide now whether we should discuss the matter on the second reading of the resolution or on the second reading of the bill, and I understood that the discussion would take place on the second reading of the bill. When we come to the second reading of the bill I shall be prepared to give all the information asked for by the hon. member for Broadview. I have it here before me, and I shall be glad to place it before the house at that time, when every member will be free to discuss the subject matter of the resolution or the bill as freely and as widely as possible. I therefore suggest that the discussion take place on Tuesday, because I do not think the members are prepared to have it take place now.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to make
just one correction. The minister said he understood that a certain course had been agreed upon by the leaders of the opposition groups. This is the first I have heard of any such agreement. I did see in Hansard that the acting leader of the government had asked that the resolution be advanced one stage, and I think that is the intelligent thing to do. I am not opposing it at all. I think it is the right thing to do under the circumstances.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is
correct. Quite unintentionally I overlooked him.


Major James William Coldwell: Don't do it again.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly not.


John Bracken: I do not think there is
any major difference of opinion in the house with respect to the procedure that is being taken. I was advised by the leader of the house that the government wished to get this matter advanced, and that there would be full opportunity for discussion next Tuesday I approve this procedure in order to expedite the passage of the measure. I think the minister has made out a case for expediting it. I understand that there will be no limitation but that the fullest opportunity will be given to discuss the measure next Tuesday. On that understanding we approve of passing the measure through these preliminary stages now without further discussion.
Resolution reported.
Mr. Gardiner moved that the resolution be read the second time and concurred in.


John Bracken: Might I say one word?
In view of the fact that there may be some in the house who may not agree with either the principle or the details of the measure now before us, may we take it for granted that in taking these steps now we are not committing ourselves either to the principle or to the details?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly.
Motion agreed to; resolution read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 14, for carrying into effect the agreement for a food and agriculture organization of the united nations between Canada and certain other nations and authorities.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, for the Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to empower the governor in council to do such things as are necessary or expedient for carrying out the provisions of the interim agreement on international civil aviation, signed at Chicago on the seventh day of December, 1944, or any recommendations of the interim assembly or interim council of the organization, or any committees thereof, made pursuant to such provisions and to provide further that all expenditures in connection therewith be defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament.
[Stage Direction]
International Civil Aviation
[Stage Direction]
He said: His Honour the Deputy Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Thomas Langton Church: Has the interim agreement on civil aviation been tabled? I have never seen it.


Mr. HOWE:: I will make inquiries. I do not think it has, but I will see that it is tabled immediately.


Thomas Langton Church: Would it not be better to wait until the Prime Minister returns? It is a very important matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it is important that the agreement be advanced. The Prime Minister may not be back for some time, and the provisional organization is meeting in Montreal in the next few days.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That a select committee be appointed, 1. To consider all legislation passed since the commencement of the war with the German reich relating to the pensions, treatment, and reestablishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces and of other persons who have otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related to war;
2. To prepare and bring in one or more bills to clarify, amend or supplement the above legislation;
With power to send for persons, papers, and records; to print its proceedings, and to report from time to time to the house;
That the provisions of section 1, standing order 65, be waived in respect to this committee.
And that the said committee shall consist of the following members:	Messrs. Abbott,
Adamson, Ashby, Baker, Belzile, Benidickson, Bentley, Blair, Blanchette, Bridges, Brooks, Bruce, Claxton, Cleaver, Cockeram, Croll, Cruiefcshank, Dion (Lake St. John-Roberval), Dorion, Drope, Emmerson. Fulton, Gauthier (Portneuf), Gibson (Hamilton West), Gillis, jreen, Halle, Harkness, Harris (Grey-Bruce), Herridge, Isnor, Jutras, Kidd, Langlois, Lapointe, Lennard, Marshall, Mackenzie, Macdonald (Halifax). MacNaught, McKay, Merritt, Mitchell, Moore, Mutch, Pearkes, Power, Probe, Quelch, Ross (Souris), Sinclair (Vancouver North), Skey, Tremblay, Tucker, Viau, White (Hastings-Peterborough), Whitman, Winkler, Winters, Wright.
He said: When I gave notice last evening of this resolution I informed the house that it was not my intention to debate it at this stage. As hon. gentlemen will observe from the order paper, a committee is suggested for

the approval of the house of sixty members, ex-service men of both wars, I think a very able committee, who have a tremendous task of work ahead of them on behalf of this parliament. Hon. members who were here in the last parliament will recall how sincerely and strenuously former committees of this house laboured in our committee rooms, without any trace or tinge of partisanship, and how they in the finest spirit of cooperation produced during the last five and a half years what I consider to be one of the best structures of legislation of its kind in any country of the world.
It has been a tradition of this parliament for the last twenty-five years that committees dealing with veterans' affairs be non-political and non-partisan, and those who were here before remember the work of the various committees-the pensions committee of 1941, the committee on the Veterans Land Act, the committees dealing with canteen funds, returned soldiers' insurance and various other phases of the legislation which is now before us.
Every opportunity will be presented for complete debate when the various reports reach this house and the government introduces its measures for first, second and third reading.
If hon. members will look at standing order 69 they will note that it is quite proper to have amending legislation considered by a committee of this house who will report back to the house, and for the government then to introduce its legislation.
The work of the committee will be, in the first place, to consider all the legislation since 1939, all the orders in council passed since 1939, all regulations which have been passed under statutes other than the War Measures Act, as well as under the War Measures Act since 1939-I think some of them were referred to the other day by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker)-and also to consider the administration of the legislation which we now have partly on the statute books and which we intend, after this committee's work is concluded, to have entirely on the statute books of Canada as a permanent guarantee of security for those who have been overseas, who have fought in the old war and in this one.
Mr. McLURE:: Will it be a full-time job?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I
am afraid it will be a very big job. I think we owe it to those who have served us in both wars to have this legislation in permanent form on the statute books of Canada. I bespeak at the present moment the cooperation

Pensions and Reestablishment
of this house in the immediate setting up of the committee. I hope we shall begin our work next Tuesday. We must get down to it as soon as we can, because it is going to take, I am afraid, most of the time of those who are members of that committee.
I am sure that in the committee now to be established we shall receive the same cooperation which we enjoyed in the committees of other years, and that the work will be a monument to the humanity and the industry of this house.


Thomas Langton Church: Would it not be possible
to have these various bills and statutes and orders collected into some sort of code? As things are, it is most difficult for a lawyer to refer to them. I commend to the minister and the committee the suggestion that all this material be contained, if possible, in one bound volume.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I went very carefully into that matter with the legal authorities, as it was my own desire also that that should be done. But the best we can do is that, when the various measures are reported back by the committee, and the government introduces legislation accordingly in this house and the house passes substan-itally in final form and shape the bills submitted to it, either as submitted or amended, there shall be a consolidation of all these statutes in the form recommended by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church).


Clarence Gillis: With respect to the terms of reference of this committee, I have in mind a problem which I raised in the house a few days ago, namely, that of many of our returning service personnel who are coming back to this country undergoing detention, men who were given dishonourable discharge, with loss of gratuity, and that kind of thing. Will this committee be in a position to probe that particular matter and bring some recommendation to the house?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My intention, subject to the discretion of the committee, would be that all matters affecting the welfare of exservice men and women can be considered by this committee.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: As the minister has suggested, I do not think we should take much time to debate this resolution. There are one or two points I wish to bring to his attention and to the attention of the house.
First, I congratulate the minister on setting up this committee. It was obvious, I think, 47*596-48J
that such a committee would be necessary in this parliament, and at this time, now that the war is over.
We have had many veterans' committees since 1916. I think that was when the first-committee was set up by parliament to look after pensions. That committee of course began from scratch, and since then many acts have been put on the statute books of the country and many regulations passed having to do with soldiers' affairs. We have had many distinguished men on these committees and looking after soldiers' pensions and other matters since the first great war. Among them I might mention such men as Mr. W. F. Nickle, N. W. Rowell, Mr. Hume Cronyn, Sir Herbert Marler, the Hon. Cyrus MacMillan and the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), who was chairman of the committee in 1938. These men all did excellent work, but the fact that we now have to set up another committee shows that this type of work is never finished.
We are fortunate, Mr. Speaker, in having in this house a great many returned men. I believe there are eighty-two.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Eighty-four.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Eighty-four returned men from the two wars, the last war and this one. Those of us who listened to the speeches made by these men from all parts of the house realize that they are going to add very greatly to the ability of this committee, as they have done to the debates and other proceedings of the House of Commons.
One point I wish to make is this, and I hope the minister will consider it. These returned men are all greatly interested in veterans' affairs, and they are all well qualified to discuss the work of the veterans committee. I feel that every returned man in this House of Commons should be given an opportunity to sit on the committee. The minister has spoken of former committees, and I think I am correct in saying that every former veterans committee appointed in this house contained all the returned men in the house. I believe that is correct. A precedent was established. The minister has also said that the proceedings of these committees have been non-political. I have had the honour of sitting on two committees myself, and I can vouch for the fact that the minister is correct when he says that the proceedings have been entirely non-political. I also understood, Mr. Speaker, that when the steering committee was considering the question of setting up a veterans committee in this house the minister expressed his intention of
Pensions and Reestablishment

placing all the returned men in the House of Commons on the veterans committee. I would ask the minister now just what changed his mind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did not know at the time that there were so many. A committee of eighty-four would be unwieldy.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister says he did not know at the time that there were so many. I wonder-and I do not say this offensively- if it was the fact that he did not know there were so many opposition returned men. I think that is the point, Mr. Speaker. I would point out to the house that of the returned men in the house there are thirty-two on the Conservative side, thirty-five on the Liberal side-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thirty-seven.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Ten in the C.C.F., three in the Social Credit and two among the independents.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You missed out two.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I stand corrected. I understood they were reserve army men and had not served overseas. I may be incorrect in that. The minister may say that such a committee would be too large. My experience has been that only about fifty per cent of the members of a committee can attend its meetings regularly. They have other duties, and not more than fifty per cent is the average. I feel that a committee sitting day in and day out fifty per cent, or forty members, would not be an unwieldy committee or one that could not carry on and do good work.
I do not wish to discuss the many matters that will come before the committee. The minister has truly stated that there are many things for us to consider. I think the most important which this house and the country have to deal with at the present time is the matters of veterans' affairs. As regards those who have been wounded, it is platitudinous to say that they must receive the very best attention which the country can give; and as regards the dependents of the men who died overseas, it is also I am sure the desire of the house and the country that we should pass legislation which will give them their due rights and the best that the country can give.
There is one matter that I should like to say a few words about, and that is the question of hospitalization. There are thousands of wounded men coming back at the present time. I had the honour, the opportunity and the pleasure a year ago of visiting many of our Canadian hospitals overseas, and I wish to take this occasion to pay tribute to the 
army medical corps for the splendid work it did in connection with those hospitals. I do not think there could have been anything finer. But the point I wish to make is this. As these men come back from these splendid military hospitals, let us see that the hospitals in Canada during the coming years are just as efficient and just as good.
Not long ago I read a criticism by an American colonel of the veterans hospitals in the United States after the last war. He stated, as I have stated now, that the military hospitals were the very finest, but he criticized the veterans hospitals, stating that they were in no way up to the standard that had been maintained by the military institutions. That condition may not have prevailed in this country, although on many occasions I have heard severe criticism of our veterans hospitals. But I will say again that we must give to those wounded men coming back the very finest hospitals the country can provide. We must see that they have the most competent doctors it is possible for us to place in those hospitals, and the best nurses; and other attendants must be efficient. These hospitals will be not only hospitals to these men, but, for many years to come, homes as well, and we must make them not only hospitals but homes.
The minister says the committee will be sitting for some time. I have no doubt it will be sitting for the rest of this session; I doubt if it will be able to complete its work in that time. Many things will happen before the committee makes its report, and there are thousands of young men coming back who will be looking for jobs which must be provided for them. That is something which this committee cannot look after. These young men who are going to college will benefit little, and it will do the country little good, if after three or four years in college they find that there are no suitable jobs or suitable work for them when they graduate. I would ask the minister nowT: Does he anticipate that amendments will be made to the Civil Service Act? Will that come within the terms of reference of this committee?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The committee will be entitled to make recommendations in regard to civil service preference as affecting veterans.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: So far as that is concerned, it will come within the terms of reference?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh yes; the reference is very wide.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I ask this question because I think that while under the civil service commission the returned men of the last war

Pensions and Reestablishment
obtained fair treatment, there were a good many abuses. I notice, and I think it is general knowledge, that a good many of the men who took the civil service jobs took them in the low brackets, and in many cases it was not possible for them to get up to the higher brackets. I believe the Canadian legion has recommended that some system be evolved whereby these men can receive special training and help in order to fit them to advance in the civil service. That is a very good suggestion, and one which possibly might be attended to now before this committee sits, because with all the thousands of men coming back and with the reorganization and reconstruction of the civil service it may be necessary to place many of our returned men at once.
I now come to the matter of appointments which do not come under the civil service. There are many thousands of them in the gift of the dominion, provincial and municipal governments. It has been the practice too often in the past for political expediency and patronage to enter into these appointments from the very highest to the very lowest. Now that the war is over and these gallant young men are coming back, I hope that no questions of politics or patronage will enter into the appointments affecting them. That principle should start from the very highest and apply to all, down to the very lowest government appointments. May I give an example of what I have in mind? Just before the last election there was in the gift of the government the appointment of four senators and one judge from New Brunswick. To those five vacancies not one returned man was appointed. I repeat, returned men should have received consideration. I have no personal objection to the men who were appointed, except from the returned soldier's point of view. They were excellent men, and they may have had some good reason-I am sure some of them had-for not having been soldiers in the last war. However, the point is that there were returned men who were just as well qualified. If I cared to I could mention an hon. member from New Brunswick who sits in this house to-day, who served with distinction in the last war and who had three sons in the war just concluded. This man lost a son and had another one wounded. It was the expectation of the people of New Brunswick, irrespective of politics, that consideration would be given to this returned man when appointments to the senate were made. There is a great principle involved there, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the government will take these matters into consideration.
I should now like to say a word on the question of housing. I ask the minister whether housing will come within the terms of reference of this committee?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly, if requested by any of its members.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That also is a matter which can hardly wait for two or three months. I do not wish to labour the point this afternoon; it has been discussed many times. But we all know that veterans' housing is in a chaotic condition in Canada. There are thousands of young men coming back who are not able to buy houses for themselves and their wives. Many of these young men married overseas, and some of them have married since they returned. This matter must receive the immediate attention of the government, and not wait for reference and regulations so far as the committee is concerned.
A few weeks ago I took occasion, with some other hon. members, to visit some of those so-called veterans' houses near the city of Ottawa. I think they are totally inadequate for the purpose for which they are being built. They are too small, and too expensive, as my deskmate the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) says. I was told that they would cost between five and six thousand dollars. They are little one-storey houses containing two bedrooms. This government passed the Family Allowances Act, for what purpose? As I understood it, it was to encourage the increase of the population of Canada. Are we going to ask our soldiers who come back to this country to live in a house where there are only two bedrooms? One must be taken by the man and his wife. How many children can you put in one bedroom and expect them to be raised in the manner in which children should be brought up?
I must not take up any more of the time of the house this afternoon, but I congratulate the minister on having secured the services of General Burns as head of his rehabilitation branch. I think that is correct?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: General Burns is one of the most outstanding soldiers that we have in Canada to-day. I am satisfied that if conditions and rules and regulations permit, he will do a fine job. I would again ask the minister to reconsider enlarging this committee so that it will take in every returned man in this House of Commons. I feel that if he does not do that, the committee will lose the benefit of the advice of some very able men. I wish to assure the minister that
Pensions and Reestablishment

so far as the returned men from this part of the house are concerned, I can assure him that he will have the fullest cooperation in this committee, as he has had in committees of the past. If I am not too presumptuous, Mr. Speaker, and knowing the returned men of the other groups in this house, I feel that I can say the same thing for them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there are a few words that I should like to say on this motion. I shall touch on just two matters. First, I should like to ask a question or make an appeal in connection with the terms of reference. The other matter about which I should like to say something is the composition of the committee.
The terms of the reference read in part:
To consider all legislation passed since the commencement of the war with the German reich. . . .
In referring to the motion the minister gave the date, "1939". I should like to know- perhaps he can give me the assurance in the midst of my remarks-whether that will give the committee power to review the Pension Act and the War Veterans' Allowance Act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which were passed prior to 1939?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, because all have been amended since 1939, and those amendments must come before the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Therefore * it will be possible-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the definite intention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -to review the entire picture.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Absolutely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am concerned about
that because in my capacity as a member, like all hon. members of the house, I have had many sad cases of old soldiers of the last war brought to my attention, I know that our thoughts at the moment are more particularly with the younger men who are coming home from the war just concluded; but on all sides of the house there is a keen desire that we do not forget the old soldiers of a quarter of a century ago. When many of these men try to get consideration for the plight in which they find themselves they find that their last recourse is to the War Veterans' Allowance Act; but there are certain restrictions in that act, notably the designation of what was an actual theatre of war, which bar them from benefits

under that act. Many of these cases have been brought to the attention of the minister and his department over and over again. I have seen many of the letters that he has written in which he has said that these matters have been noted and would be considered when amendments to the act were under consideration. I hope that the case of the men of the last war will receive ample consideration from this committee, and that one of the things that the committee will have power to recommend is certain very necessary revisions to the Pension Act and especially to the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
In connection with the need for amending the War Veterans' Allowance Act, I would hope also that the arrangements which have been made with respect to the widows of veterans of the last war will come under review. May I ask that question of the minister now? Will they come under review as well?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I stated clearly, but perhaps not very lucidly, that every single piece of legislation affecting those soldiers passed since 1939 will come under review.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is fine to get these things on the record, because that was not a piece of legislation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have said it three times already this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was not a piece of legislation; it was an order in council.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That makes no difference. I said explicitly that all orders in council would be tabled and would be the subject of discussion, and also all regulations which were not by way of orders in council. That was stated clearly by me this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, it is clearer still now; we are glad to know it, and I thank the minister for the definite assurance he has given us.
The other point I should like to speak about is in support of the appeal the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) has just made to the minister. I, too, am sorry that the minister did not see fit to stand by his original suggestion that all veterans who are members of the house would be made members of this committee.
I know the members of the committee, if it is set up as the motion now stipulates, will do their work on a non-partisan basis. They will do it as veterans, out of concern for their comrades of the two wars. There is no doubt in my mind as to that. But I submit that

Pensions and Reestablishment
they start out with a handicap because of the committee's being set up in the manner the minister has proposed.
The figures have already been given-I do not know whether they have reached Hansard -as to the number of veterans in the various groups in the house. I understand there are thirty-seven in the Liberal party, thirty-two in the Progressive Conservative party, ten in the C.C F. group, three 'in the Social Credit group and two among the independents.
But the composition of the committee is to be thirty-three from the Liberal party, sixteen from the Progressive Conservative party, six C.C.F.'ers, three Social Crediters, and two from the eight independents in the house.
That division was proposed in a letter which I. as C.C.F. whip, received from the chief government whip, the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir). The letter, referring to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), states:
He has asked for a committee of sixty members. On the basis of the arrangement made by the steering committee this would provide for six members from the C.C.F. party membership.
I presume that similar letters went to the whips of the other parties. I quote that paragraph from the letter of the chief government whip only to indicate that the basis taken for the composition of this committee is that which the so-called steering or striking committee had arrived at with respect to another matter, namely that of standing committees.
I submit that has nothing to do with this matter. In fact, as a member of the striking committee I was told in that committee that any decision we made there with respect to the standing committees did not have any bearing upon the composition of other special committees to be set up by the house. However, it is quite clear from the letter I have just read, and also from the names in the motion now before us-and the party designations of the hon. members mentioned are easy to identify-that the basis chosen in this instance is the one arrived at by the striking committee-not, may I say, by unanimous decision-for the standing committees.
That basis, if I may place it before the house, is that the Liberals shall have fifty-five per cent of the membership of all committees, the Progressive Conservative party twenty-five per cent, the C.C.F. 10-8 per cent, the Social Credit group 5-1 per cent and the independents 3-1 per cent.
Against that list of percentages, which total 100 per cent, let me remind the house that the number of members in the various groups
in the house entitle those groups to the following percentages on all committees: Liberals, 52-7 per cent; Progressive Conservatives, 27-3 per cent; C.C.F. 11-4 per cent; Social Credit, 5-3 per cent; Independents, 3-3 per cent.
I shall not discuss the matter of standing committees at this time. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, you might rule me out of order if I were to continue that part of the discussion any further. I have brought this information to the house only because this is the first time the matter of committees has been discussed. We are being asked to set up a committee on the basis of a division which was communicated to the whips of the various parties-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. I suggest that the hon. member is entirely out of order when he refers to the proceedings of the striking committee, a committee which has not yet reported to the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I expected that point to be raised. However, as whip of this party I received a letter asking me to submit on behalf of the party-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The point raised by the Minister of Veterans Affairs is well taken, when he refers to any reference being made to the striking committee before the report of that committee has been brought in. Such reference is not according to the rules of the house, and to that extent the hon. member is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have been doing my best to avoid any infringement of the rules. However, I submit that if we are not permitted to refer to that committee, then the motion for the setting up of the standing committees should have been made before the one now under discussion. As I have indicated from the letter, part of which I have quoted-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not our fault.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And not mine, either.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Perhaps not.


Gordon Graydon: What kind of buckpassing arrangement have we here?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it that the other whips received a letter similar to the one I received. It indicates that the basis is to be that arrived at by a committee, the report of which has not yet been made.
I do not wish to develop this point further, except to say that if the minister was not prepared, as he suggested in the first instance, to recommend that all veterans of the house
Pensions and Reestablishment

be placed on the committee, then the least he should have done would be to appoint members from the various parties who were veterans in proportion to the strength of those parties in this house.
I say again I have complete confidence that no matter what handicaps face them the veterans who serve on the committee will do a good job on a non-partisan basis, and will fight for the rights of their comrades of both wars. I do say, however, it is regrettable that they should go into a committee which has the handicap of its having been set up on a political basis, with a larger percentage given to one party than that to which such party would be numerically entitled.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where does my hon. friend get that rule?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am basing my claim on plain, ordinary, logic, simple arithmetic and simple justice.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no such rule in this House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I thought
once before this afternoon. If the minister did not want this kind of discussion, and if he did not want the question raised as to the political complexion of a committee as important as this one, he should have done one of two things. Either he should have stood by his original suggestion, and put all the veterans of the house on the committee or, if he had to reduce the size of the committee, then it should have been set up in proportion to the size of the political groups in the house. Perhaps an even better division for a smaller committee would have been to set it up in proportion to the number of veterans in each group in the house. Such a division might not give this group any greater strength. That is not the point. The point I wish to make is that this should not be done on a political basis at all. It so happens that on a percentage basis there are more veterans in the Progressive Conservative group than in any other group in the house. Far be it from me to defend the interests of the Tory party; I am not. This is a matter of principle. I think the veterans should be represented in full on this committee. I notice my hon. friends to the right do not quite know how to take me in saying this, but there it is.
When answering the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) the minister said that the reason all veterans in the house were not made members of the committee was that there were more than he had thought there were. I believe the total is eighty-four and the proposal before us is for a committee of sixty members. I agree that large committees are some-

times unworkable, that you can get better work done by a committee of twenty or fifteen members and sometimes a committee of two or even one is a good idea, if it is the right man. But since the proposal before us is for a committee of sixty, I suggest that the difference between sixty and eighty-four does not justify the argument that the latter number would be too many.
I have no doubt that in recent days I have got under the minister's skin a bit with my persistence in connection with the discussions we have had about committees, much of which could not be repeated in the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On either side.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall not say anything
more about that. But despite any hard feeling there may have been, despite the fighting that has occurred about these committees, despite the fact that before we get through this afternoon the discussion may take on a political complexion, I hope the minister will consider the suggestion so well advanced by the hon. member for Royal, which I am trying to support, and change the composition of this committee so that it will include all the veterans in this house.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be brief in my remarks because I expect to be a member of this committee and I shall have an opportunity of saying what I want to say after we have heard the evidence of the various organizations. I think it is necessary that this committee be set up at the earliest date possible. I wish to congratulate the minister upon having made the scope of this committee so wide open. I understand that it is to deal with all orders in council and all matters having to do with pensions and rehabilitation. In other words, it is to be as wide open as possible.
There has been a great deal of good legislation passed in the last few years, but I think the minister will agree that since so many orders in council have been passed there is much confusion to-day about just what the law is. I think he will agree also that a number of adjustments are necessary in order to make some of the acts work effectively. After we have heard the representations of the various soldier organizations I think we shall be in a far better position to judge as to what needs doing than we are at the present time.
I believe all will agree that the committees of the past have done good work. It has often been stated that the soldiers' committees were the least partisan of any of the com-

Pensions and Reestablishment
mittees set up by the house, and I think most people will agree with that. I was sorry to hear the parliamentary assistant to the minister become a little political in his remarks the other night. I hope he will not continue with that stand when we are in committee because, if he does, he knows very well it will make it harder to carry on the business of the committee effectively.
The success of the job of soldier rehabilitation will depend to a large extent upon the success of the programme of the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe). If his programme falls down, then our job will be that much harder. We hope the Minister of Reconstruction carries forward an aggressive programme. As I said before, this committee has a big job to carry out and the sooner it gets at it, the better. Therefore, I shall say no more at this time.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS' POULIOT (Tem-iscouata):	Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the minister upon the choice of an assistant, who has been a member of this house for a number of years and has shown a knowledge of what he is speaking about. His selection is worthy of praise. The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) is a veteran; he has broad views on many matters and he is zealous in helping the veterans. The minister did exceptionally well in selecting the hon. member for Rosthern as his right arm in the department.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has spoken about the size of the committee. I wonder if the committee will be of any use. In saying that I do not mean to offend those who will be members of the committee, I say it because of the actions of a board which is composed of outsiders, one being a member of the Quebec legislative council, which is supposed to look after the veterans. It is impossible to get satisfaction for the veterans except by writing personally to the minister. I contend that veterans have suffered injustice.
I am thinking of any young man who was eighteen years of age when he was drafted for overseas service. The war is over; he has come back and he wants to try to get some help. A gratuity of $7.50 a month is supposed to be paid for each month of service in Canada, and 115 a month for each month of service overseas. The gentlemen in charge of the Quebec office were so parochial that they did not even send the necessary forms to the Riviere du Loup office of unemployment insurance and selective service to take care of soldiers coming back from overseas who might be applying
for gratuities. These forms were in Quebec but the bureaucrats were so stupid that each time a veteran went to the Riviere du Loup office they had to write to Quebec because that was not a branch office of the Department of Veterans Affairs. One form would be sent for that one man, and then they would have to write for another form for another man. This occasioned considerable delay. I pointed out the absurdity of the matter and it was corrected.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was that veterans
affairs or defence?


Jean-François Pouliot: It was veterans affairs.
Defence has nothing to do with it once a man is discharged.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But when he applies
for gratuity?


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps I am not using
the right expression, for I must confess that I have not read the statute. All I know is what has been said in the house. When a veteran went to the Riviere du Loup office to get what he was entitled to as a veteran he found there were no forms there. Because of the bureaucracy at Quebec it was necessary for the Riviere du Loup office to write for a form every time a man came to that office. I know the minister is full of good will and, if I speak as I do to-day, it is because I want definite instructions given to all bureaucrats to cut this red tape in order that these boys may have a chance to get what they are entitled to as soon as they arrive home. That is the first thing, and I had it corrected.
Here is the second thing. Yesterday the Princess Louise Dragoon Guards were received in Ottawa with the beating of drums and a fine procession. They deserved that, but the boys are not as well received as they deserve to be. At times their parents suffer annoyance and tribulation because of the stupidity of the military police. Take the case of the young man whose case was publicized in the press of yesterday. This was a fine boy from my county who was wounded at the time of the invasion of France. He won the Military Medal, but he told me that the only remembrance he had of France was the blood of his friends who had died at his side. This young man came home with a piece of shrapnel in his kidney. He came to my office, and I read something that had been published in the local paper about him. It was well done, and the parents were pleased. Afterwards this young man had decided to go to Quebec city to be looked after in the military hospital. What happened afterwards? The military
Pensions and Reestablishment


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: The boys who come back from overseas cannot all expect to get jobs from the government. There must be cooperation between the government and industry

.	Pensions and Reestablishment
to rehabilitate all the men who have been in the armed forces, not only those who have served overseas btit also those who have done their duty here in Canada, according to the law and the instructions they have received. It would be a great mistake to pay no attention to the boys who have acted in conformity with the law and obeyed all the instructions they have received, who have done their full duty. It is not their fault that they were not sent overseas. Some of them have gone far away; they have travelled across this country. Right at the very time that we had complaints that the trains were overcrowded,, we had units in Canada sent travelling across the country from coast to coast and then sent travelling back again from coast to coast. That was going on all the time. It- was a racket, to send them all over. I shall not say more about that now because the then minister of national defence has been discarded, but it is true just the same.
I hope that the members of the committee who are veterans of the first war will not snub the young boys, but will help them, and that they will assist the minister by supplying him with scissors to cut red tape, starting at the citadel in Quebec, the big post office building on the hill, where the headquarters of District No. 5 are located, and seeing to it that all these people shall be fired from the army.
I will tell the house another reason why the war is not finished: it is because so many of these people never earned a living in their lives before they got into the army during the war; they want to continue there for a long time; they are swivel-chair heroes. I denounce them, and there is one of them whose picture I will depict in the near future. He is here in Ottawa. He is a pet of a former minister of national defence. If they do what I suggest I shall have the utmost confidence in the wisdom of all the members of the committee which is to be appointed, to send the swivel-chair heroes back home; to confound them with real soldiers would be an insult.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: I do not intend to take the time of the house to discuss things which I think should properly come before the committee or before the house at a more fitting time. But I wish to make reference to the fact that some objection has been raised to the relative strength of parties on the committee. I can understand the reason for this objection being raised, but I must say that, after twenty-five or twenty-six years of experience on committees dealing with veterans' affairs, I have found in working with members of all polite
ical parties that when we enter the field of veterans' affairs we work on a basis of nonpartisanship. Regardless of the political faiths of the members of this committee, I am quite sure that every member will think first of the veterans of this country and not of the party to which that member may belong; and I am quite confident and quite happy to leave the investigation entirely in the hands of the committee as now composed.


Mr. D. KING HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: This resolution provides that a select committee be appointed to consider all legislation passed since the commencement of the war, relating among other things to the treatment of returned men. When the treatment of returned men is being considered by this committee I hope that it will do all in its power to see that soldiers who have returned from the war suffering from nervous diseases are not placed in provincial insane asylums. I hope that it will see that suitable military hospitals are provided for these men and that they are not put into provincial hospitals which are occupied by the insane and which are sometimes very much overcrowded. I know it is said by some people that these men can get better treatment in provincial hospitals. I question if that is true of many of our provinces. I know that if I were the parent of a man who had returned from overseas suffering from a nervous condition I would not want to see him put into one of those institutions. Returned men should have their own hospitals.
There is another matter to which this committee might give some attention. I am not satisfied that veterans who are patients in our military hospitals invariably get the best of treatment and advice. I have in mind the case of an infantry soldier who was in hospital in Italy. He was brought back t-o this country suffering from some disease and was placed in one of our military hospitals. He has been there for months, and his condition has not improved, in fact, if anything it is getting worse. I wrote the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) about this matter. He assured me that he would look into it, and I appreciate that he is doing so. But I have seen this veteran on one or two occasions, and I have thought, when I have talked with him and considered his condition and tried to find out something about it, that if I were his father I would be far from satisfied with the treatment that boy was receiving, that I would want to have specialists called in to advise as to the best treatment. I may be mistaken, but I do not think in these military hospitals' we have such specialists, and I do not know if provision is made
Pensions and Reestablishment

whereby they can be obtained for particular cases. There should be provision that they can be called in, and I would urge the committee to see to it that in military hospitals there be provided or made accessible specialists in cases where particular treatment is needed or in what I may term obstinate cases where the condition of a returned man is not any too well understood by the staff of the hospital.
Those are the only two suggestions which I wish to bring to the attention of the committee at this time, and I hope they will be considered by it.


William Irvine: I have no intention of debating this question. I am very glad a committee is being appointed. I know that its job will be a very difficult one and that it will tackle many and varied problems, and that in the hands of the veterans of this house the problems of the veterans will be taken care of.
I rise rather to ask a question than to discuss the motion. I believe the question was already asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), but I was not sure that I understood the minister's answer. There are some young men who are in difficulties. I have discussed one particular case with the minister, so that he will understand exactly the type of case which I have in mind. What I wish to make sure of is, will cases of men who have been court-martialed and are now in Canadian gaols be discussed in this committee?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are no reasons
why they cannot be discussed; but in regard to taking action, I think the only action we could take would be by way of recommendation to the Department of National Defence, which itself would take action, probably by other means.


Angus MacInnis: May I point out in that connection that the important matter in my opinion is not just that these people have been sentenced to confinement. If I understand the matter aright, they have been dishonourably discharged, which deprives them of gratuities and all the other benefits to which veterans are entitled. That may come about because of a misdemeanour which is just a matter of momentary impulse and the whole of the man's past services may have been forgotten. I think that is what the committee should keep in mind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is
right; but in many statutes already passed by the last parliament benefits are not available

to those who have not been honourably discharged. That matter of course could be reviewed by the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. BROWN (Essex West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, who I regret is not in his seat at the moment. Perhaps he can answer later in the day or to-morrow. Can the Minister of Labour inform the house as to developments in the proceedings with respect to the strike at the Ford Motor Company plant at Windsor, and other threatened strikes?


Major James William Coldwell: May I follow that up by putting another question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the gravity of the strike situation at Windsor, will the government or the minister consider the immediate appointment of a controller to take charge of the Ford plant and resume production there, pending the negotiation of an agreement between the parties? I ask the question because of the urgency of the situation.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):	It has taken a long time
to reach the orders of the day, and the Minister of Labour is at the moment outside attending an important meeting. May I be permitted to bring these two questions to his attention and he will reply at the earliest moment.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY REQUEST FOR STATEMENT IN VIEW OF PRESIDENT

[Stage Direction]
truman's message to congress On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Will the acting leader of the house be in a position to make a statement within a few days regarding the St. Lawrence waterway, in view of the message of President Truman to congress yesterday recommending an early start?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):	That will be for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs.
HOUSE OF COMMONS suggested committee on revision of rules On the orders of the day:


Mr. RODNEY ADAMSON (York West):: In view of what happened in this house this afternoon, I would address a question to the

Atomic Energy
acting leader of the house. Will he consider setting up a committee to review and revise the rules of the house?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):	In view of the events of
this afternoon the question is timely. I had notice of a similar question from the member for Wellington South (Mr. Gladstone). It is on my desk. Evidently both hon. gentlemen were thinking in the same direction.
In regard to a special committee of the house on standing rules and orders, hon. gentlemen who were here a year ago will recall that in February, 1944, we did establish such a committee and that committee made a unanimous report to this house. Unfortunately the house did not seem to think along the lines of the committee and the report was not adopted by the house. In a matter like this it rests writh the house itself whether it wishes to have another committee set up or to discuss further the report of the committee of a year ago. The latter procedure would involve a resolution by a minister of the crown to set aside a special time for consideration of the report of the committee of 1944. I think the former procedure would be preferable. I shall take the first opportunity to confer with the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the leaders of the other groups as to what the wishes of their groups are in regard to this matter, and if there is a general feeling in the house in regard to it I will take it up with my colleagues.



ARGENTINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the aggressive diplomatic position which now appears to be taken by the United States of America toward the government of Argentina, I would ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs to inform the house fully of the current political developments in that country, indicating to what extent Canadian interests are affected thereby. I would also ask the minister what steps if any are being taken by Canada in connection with recent developments in the Argentine.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): First of all I wish to thank the hon. member for his kind thoughtfulness in sending notice of this question not only to myself but to the under-secretary of state for external affairs.
It makes it very much more expeditious to get answers when that is done. I am sure my hon. friend would not expect one, on brief notice, to make an extended statement on the internal situation in Argentina. The question would call for a statement on current political developments in the Argentine and one could not on brief notice attempt to make an at all comprehensive statement on political developments in that country. I may say that the Canadian ambassador in Buenos Aires is in close touch with developments there. He has presented his credentials and keeps in close touch with what is going on, and in the normal course of his duties he would take such local action as might prove to be necessary if any Canadian interests were being affected. The government is following as closely as possible, from the reports it receives and also in consultation with other governments, the course of events in Argentina, but there is nothing further I would feel it might be proper to say at this time.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I direct another question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday President Truman told congress that he would initiate discussions with Canada and Great Britain looking towards international cooperation in the control of atomic energy, and called on the world to outlaw the atomic bomb. In the meantime he intimated that the secret of the new bomb would be preserved within the group of Great Britain, Canada and the United States. Have there been any discussions of a formal or informal nature between the governments of Canada and the United States of America with regard to the points covered by President Truman in his message to congress? If so, does the government of Canada hold views similar to those which he so expressed at that time?
A further question is this: Is Canada proposing to institute a body similar to the United States atomic energy commission, which appears to be clothed with wide and special powers to direct and control atomic energy experimentations? May I also ask, in view of the importance of the subject, when it is anticipated that the discussions, which President Truman mentioned, among this group of powers will be initiated, and who will represent Canada in those discussions?
Atomic Energy

Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): With respect to the last portion of my hon. friend's question, no previous notice had been received and I am not in a position to make any statement at this moment. As to the earlier portions of his remarks and questions, the full context of President Truman's message to congress of yesterday has not yet been received in Ottawa, and I am not prepared to comment upon it until we have an opportunity to examine it closely. I can say now that there have been discussions with officers of the government of the United States over a considerable period dealing with the development and employment of atomic energy. The Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) has been a member of a combined policy committee, which was established in August, 1943, the other members of which were Mr. H. L. Stimson, then United States Secretary of War, Doctor Vannevar Bush and Doctor James B. Conant for the United States, and the late Field Marshal Sir John Dill and Colonel J. J. Llewellin for the United Kingdom. It was a committee of the highest level dealing with the research work and experimentation that were being carried on.
The present representatives of the United Kingdom on this committee are the Earl of Halifax and Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson. Consideration is being given to the most effective organization to be adopted in Canada for the further study of Canadian policy and activities in this field, and I hope that in this connection a further announcement may be made before long.



UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May
I ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government has been advised of the decisions taken by the united nations preparatory committee regarding choice of a headquarters for the united nations organization? I ask that question because newspaper reports indicate that the headquarters of that organization is to be situated in the United States. In that connection I make one observation to the minister, namely, that I am not at all satisfied that what I regard as very strong claims for Canada have been pressed as enthusiastically as in my opinion circumstances would warrant.

Hon. L. S. 8T. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):	With respect
to my hon. friend's question I would not like to say offhand what are the contents of the communications we have received in respect of those preliminary discussions. I should like to take his question as a notice for further inquiry with respect to which I shall make a statement as soon as possible.



AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth):: I
should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence for Air Services. Does the statement of Air Marshal Breadner as reported in the Globe and Mail of this morning reflect the government's policy in connection with our post-war air force?


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Minister of National Defence for Air):: The hon. member was
kind enough to send me notice of this question, and I have had an opportunity of looking over the item referred to. I must take this opportunity of congratulating the Globe and Mail on their speedy reporting. The article refers to the speeches made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott), General Crerar, Admiral Jones and Air Marshal Breadner at the McGill university founders' day dinner. I am now informed that that dinner is taking place to-night, and no speeches have yet been made.



EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES DURING LAST SIX MONTHS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: Since Canadian canned meats are being advertised for sale by New York city retailers, and being sold free of points, will the government advise the house, at the earliest opportunity, what meats, fresh and canned, have been exported to the United States within the past six months?


James Angus MacKinnon: I shall be glad to accept that as a notice and get the information.

Canadian Army-Maple Leaf



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. C. C. I. MERRITT (Vancouver-Burrard):: I should like to draw the attention of the house to an undertaking given by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott) on September 24, that he would obtain and place on Hansard copies of the Maple Leaj editorials which were the subject of questions on that day. Later, on October 2, two days ago, in response to a request of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) the Minister of National Defence tabled copies of those editorials. The following day, yesterday, those editorials did not appear on Hansard. Consequently I rise to-day to ask that in the absence of the Minister of National Defence, his colleague, the Minister of National Defence for Air Services (Mr. Gibson) might perhaps read those editorials into Hansard in pursuance of the undertaking given by his colleague, or, in the alternative, might move, with the unanimous consent of the house, that the editorials be attached as an appendix to to-day's Hansard.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I shall be very glad indeed to direct the attention of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott) to the hon. member's remarks. My impression is, however-I am not sure that I am correct in this -that the articles in question would need to be read into Hansard before they could be produced. I do not think that tabling of them would authorize their appearing in Hansard. However, I shall be glad to see that the Minister of National Defence becomes acquainted with the observations which the hon. member has made.


John Bracken: The point is not that the Minister of National Defence be advised, but that these editorials be placed on Hansard pursuant to the undertaking given by the minister. There must be some procedure by which they can get on Hansard, and that is what I asked.


Lionel Chevrier: I thought the hon. member's question was that they be tabled.


John Bracken: No.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not referring to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt).


John Bracken: No. I am very clear on this. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) said that he wanted them put in Hansard, and there was a very clear undertaking that that would be done.


Lionel Chevrier: When the leader of the opposition asked the question the other day I thought he asked that they be tabled; that is my recollection.


John Bracken: That is not my recollection, but whether it was or not, the undertaking was clearly given by the Minister of National Defence, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver South, that they would be put on Hansard in the same manner as some other material with respect to the same matter was put on Hansard by the minister. That has not been done; the house expects it to be done. I suggest to the government that they should see it is done by whatever means necessary.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: Before the matter is disposed of-


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Would the hon. member allow me to have the floor, since I brought up the matter? So that the matter may be perfectly clear and in order that there may be no doubt about it at all, I wish to read the reference which appears on page 381 of Hansard:
Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to carry on the discussion. All I wanted to do was to ask the minister to make sure that he had given his undertaking that he would obtain copies of these editorials and place them on Hansard. That is all I ask.
Mr. Abbott: I have already given that undertaking, Mr. Speaker.
Now. Mr. Speaker, if it comes to any question of referring the matter to the Minister of National Defence, or any question as to the procedure whereby that solemn undertaking given by the minister may be fulfilled, then I suggest that it is quite within our power to do so by unanimous consent, which, I am sure, the minister would be the first to ask for were he in his place. I suggest that by unanimous consent of the house they be taken as read and placed on Hansard now.


William Ross Macdonald: With respect to the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard as to the procedure which can be adopted at this time, may I say that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard rose to ask a question. He asked the question. The Minister of National Defence is not in
Halifax V-E Day Riots

his place at the moment. It seems to me that there has been sufficient discussion of the matter, and the leader of the government has stated that he will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of National Defence. I do not think we can gain much by proceeding with the argument.


Gordon Graydon: On a question of privilege arising out of what was said by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) a moment ago. He made clear what his recollection was of the question which was put by the leader of the opposition when he asked to have those editorials put on Hansard. Perhaps I might turn to page 662 of Hansard of October 2 and read just a sentence or two of what the leader of the opposition said, because I think it is pertinent to the discussion. It is as follows:
Will the minister be good enough to inform the house if he has received the documents in question, and, if so, when we may expect that they will be tabled, so that they may appear in Hansard?
That is perhaps the reason why the Minister of Transport arrived at the understanding he did.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question which could be communicated to the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand), who is not in his seat at the moment. I believe this is a matter of urgency, because people are being requested to pack early their Christmas parcels for Great Britain. Will the same facilities be given to persons in Canada wishing to send parcels to Great Britain as according to newspaper advertisements, are now being extended to people sending to the continent of Europe? At this time the limitation is five pounds to Great Britain and eleven pounds to the continent. Could the same facility be given with respect to parcels for Great Britain?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I shall bring this matter to the attention of the Postmaster General during the dinner recess, so that he may reply to my hon. friend.


Major James William Coldwell: And may we have a reply from the Minister of Labour at eight o'clock?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall try' to get in touch with him.



HALIFAX V-E DAY RIOTS REMISSION OF SENTENCES OF NAVAL PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice a question arising from a press report in the last few days to the effect that there have been certain remissions or reductions in sentences passed on naval personnel following the V-E day riots at Halifax. Has he any statement to make in that regard?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): From his familiarity with practice in the department, my hon. friend will know that in respect of short sentences-that is to say, sentences of six months and less-it is not the usual practice of the Department of Justice to advise the exercise of clemency.
But in view of the very favourable reports received from local, judicial and executive authorities, as well as from the armed services, the offences committed in the course of V-E day celebrations have been considered on a special basis, with more than usual leniency. As a result, thus far there have been twelve releases from prison, out of a total of sixteen gaol sentences.
The record shows that of the twelve released from prison out of the total of sixteen, three were ratings of the navy; two were from the merchant marine; four were men who were serving with the army, and three were civilians In connection with the other four, with respect to whom clemency has not yet been recommended, one was serving with the navy, one with the merchant marine, and the other two were civilians. Then, seventeen had been sentenced to terms which required to be served in penitentiaries. '


John George Diefenbaker: More than two
years.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, more than two years. Ten of these were members of the armed forces, and seven were civilians. The decision as to clemency in these cases has been under consideration. Of course a special docket is made up with respect to each of these cases, and in connection with these seventeen we are still awaiting reports from the office of the attorney general of Nova Scotia. We hope to have them soon, and to be able then to arrive at some decision in each individual case.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Demobilization-Air Services
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
Ou the orders of the day:
William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). Since he is not in his seat at the moment, perhaps he will answer it to-morrow, if not to-night. I have been advised by the cattle growers' association of British Columbia that a packing plant strike is pending or threatening in Vancouver and that there is a possibility the producers will try to sell before the stoppage consequent to the strike occurs. This would be disastrous to the cattle men. Therefore I should like to ask the minister if he has been advised of a possible packing plant strike in Vancouver and, if such a possibility is likely to occur, what he has done or what he proposes to do to settle the grievances before the strike takes place?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to
direct the attention of the Minister of Labour to the hon. gentleman's question.



CANADIAN SERVICE PERSONNEL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott), or in his absence to his parliamentary assistant. What steps have been taken by his department to speed up transportation from Britain to Canada of the wives and children of the men who were or who have been in Canada's armed forces, so that these wives and children may be in Canada for Christmas.


William Ross Macdonald: I think that
question should be placed on the order paper.



WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, October 2, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money
for the carrying out of measures deemed necessary or advisable in consequence of the war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Golding in the chair.

Colin William George Gibson: Mr. Chairman, it is customary for ministers of defence when presenting their estimates to make a statement concerning the activities of the various forces.
In making a statement to-day concerning the Royal Canadian Air Force, I realize that this will be the last report to parliament on the wartime activities of the force.
Under the circumstances, for the benefit of the members and also for record purposes, I would like to give a short resume of the war record of the R.C.A.F., its present position and the plans for the future.
My remarks may well be divided under the headings yesterday, to-day and to-morrow.
On August 31, 1939, slightly over six years ago, the Royal Canadian Air Force had a total permanent strength of only 3,048 officers and men. In addition there were 1,013 all ranks in the auxiliary air force.
With the outbreak of war the air force forged ahead-taking on additional commitments and rapidly increasing the number of its airfields and personnel. Strength grew from the 3,048 of September to a peak of 232,585, of which 17,412 were civilians-not in uniform. From this peak the numbers decreased, until on V-E day the total was 181,489, of which 11,015 were civilians. In the intervening period the R.C.A.F. had suffered casualties totalling 21,866, of which 6,615 were fatal, 8,836 have been officially presumed dead, 1,526 are missing, 1,376 were seriously wounded or injured, and of the prisoners two are unaccounted for in Europe, three not yet officially reported upon in the far east, and the remainder were either reported missing and have since been found to be safe, or were prisoners of war either released, escaped or repatriated under the Geneva convention.
The first major step in the development of the air force was the signing of the British commonwealth air training agreement in Ottawa on December 17, 1939, by Great Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. By this instrument the dominion became the operating partner of the most extensive training programme which, up to that time, had ever been developed. The Royal Canadian Air Force acted as general manager in this programme, and as a result of this heavy commitment the main role to be played by the force in the early days of the war was deter-

Demobilization-Air Services
mined. For many months that role was to be mainly training rather than operation, and so it was only a token operational force which was despatched overseas in the early days of the war. It was not until late in 1940 that the original three squadrons were reinforced by the first graduates from the training plan-the first trickle in the flood which was to mount to the tremendous total of 131,553 graduates before the termination of the plan, and of these 72,835 were members of the R.C.A.F. Of the total figure 49,808 were pilots; 29,963 navigators of various categories; 15,673 air bombers; 18,496 wireless operator-air gunners; 14,996 straight air gunners; 1,913 flight engineers, and 704 naval air gunners.
Following the termination of the B.C.A.T.P. agreements on March 31, 1945, a special agreement was entered into with the government of the United Kingdom to provide for the continuation of training for a limited number of R.A.F. personnel at R.C.A.F. schools in Canada. The costs of training these men were borne by the United Kingdom. After V-J day this, too, was concluded and the last graduating class was "winged" on September 7. During the short life of this supplementary plan 1,211 airmen graduated, of which 465 were pilots and 746 navigators and navigators B. All but fifty-seven were members of the Royal Air Force.
The three squadrons of the R.C.A.F. which had been sent to the United Kingdom in 1940 *were unable to absorb the ever-growing stream of R.C.A.F. personnel who graduated from the plan, and as a result the vast majority of the early Canadian graduates were posted to R.A.F. unite. Throughout the war there were always many more Canadians serving overseas with R.A.F. units than with R.C.A.F. units.
With the large numbers of R.C.A.F. personnel arriving in the United Kingdom the expansion of Canada's operational organization became highly desirable. Differences in pay entitlements, service conditions, trade divisions and other important factors in the life and careers of R.C.A.F. airmen, as compared with personnel of the R.A.F., complicated administration both for the R.C.A.F. and for the R.A.F. Accordingly additional R.C.A.F. units were formed to absorb a percentage of Canadian aircrew, and long before hostilities ceased, forty-eight R.C.A.F. squadrons were fully operational overseas. Under the original plan these were to be R.A.F. units in everything other than name and nationality of aircrew, ill groundcrew were to be found by the R.A.F.

until such time as sufficient personnel could be released from the B.C.A.T.P. schools and posted overseas. The ultimate aim was of course to have R.C.A.F. squadrons, manned fully by Canadians-both aircrew and ground-crew-by the process which came to be known as Canadianization. Though this goal was never fully reached, at the cessation of hostilities in Europe, the percentage of Canadian groundcrew in our overseas squadrons was uniformly high.
The magnificent record of these Canadian squadrons is now a matter of history, as is the "record of the other thousands of R.C.A.F. personnel who did all their operations with the R.A.F.
The most famous of Canada's air formations was of course the No. 6 Bomber group of Bomber command; and the famous Vancouver Pathfinder squadron of the same command. During the last year of the group's operations, under the command of Air Vice-Marshal C. M. McEwen, C.B., M.C., D.F.C., records were broken again and again and the Canadian squadrons established a reputation second to none in Bomber command. During the war the Canadian heavy bomber squadrons carried out 48,927 sorties in 262,982 operational flying hours, and dropped 125,575 tons of bombs on Europe.
They established a record surpassed by no other formation. They produced men in every way worthy to take their places in the hall of fame, alongside the heroes of the first world war.
In this last war, just as in the first world war, Canadians also excelled as fighter pilots. R.C.A.F. fighter squadrons flew 144,851 sorties in 212,148 operational flying hours, and destroyed 1,241 aircraft, probably destroyed 142 and damaged a further 607. The unit scoring the largest number of successes was the famous city of Edmonton squadron, the aircrew of which knocked down 169 Germans, and destroyed 82 flying bombs.
From October 1, 1944, to the termination of hostilities in Europe our fighters flew 26,163 sorties and lost 144 aircraft. But during that period they destroyed 236 enemy aircraft and made 1,600 cuts in vital nazi rail communications. They also destroyed 958 vehicles, 516 railway cars and 92 locomotives and damaged an additional 632 locomotives. In addition they either destroyed or damaged two mediumsized ships, one cruiser, six E-boats, 97 barges and 40 tanks.

Demobilization-Air Services
Our coastal command squadrons, also, established a magnificent record. Their role was not spectacular, but day after day-night after night-virtually twenty-four hours a day- our men, to use their own expression, "stooged" over the ocean-in all kinds of weather, keeping the sea lanes of the world open for united nations shipping. From this side of the Atlantic our squadrons based in eastern Canada and Newfoundland provided protection for shipping on the northwest Atlantic. Their patrols took them to mid-ocean and frequently required them to be diverted to Iceland, the Shetlands and even to the British isles. During these operations our aircrews flew 25,500 sorties [DOT]in 175,000 operational flying hours and made 69 attacks on U-boats. It was on this work that the late Flight Lieutenant David E. Hornell won undying fame-and the Victoria Cross.
The R.C.A.F. transport units, formed late in the war, also established records. One Canadian squadron, based in Burma, flew more operational hours, more sorties and carried more freight than any other similar unit in the R.A.F.-and that record still stands.
From the outbreak of war to the 15th of September last, members of the R.C.A.F. were awarded 7,107 decorations including one Victoria Cross, 66 Distinguished Service Orders, 3,481 Distinguished Flying Crosses and 484 Distinguished Flying Medals. I have here a complete list of dceorations and commendations awarded to members of the R.C.A.F. and Canadians in the R.A.F. for services in the war, which I will table at the conclusion of my remarks.
Canadians in the R.A.F. received a total of 356 awards including one Victoria Cross to the late Squadron Leader Bazalgatte, 16 D.S.O.'s, 196 D.F.C.'s and 24 D.F.M.'s.
I shall also table the names of all those personnel decorated subsequent to the list tabled on April 4, 1945.
Following the cessation of hostilities in Europe the R.C.A.F. was called upon to take part in the occupation of Germany. Our quota consists of a force of about 10,000 made up of two heavy bomber squadrons; four fighter squadrons with wing headquarters; three medium range transport squadrons, equipped with Dakota aircraft and, until December 31, 1945, one Liberator long range transport squadron. These transport squadrons are controlled by a wing headquarters based in England. At the present time the transport squadrons, two of which were previously based in India and Burma, are occupied in regular transport
duties, including repatriation of liberated prisoners of war and other personnel from the East. The Liberator and two of the Dakota squadrons, based in the United Kingdom are assisting in this work between Karachi and the United Kingdom. Also included in the occupational force are those personnel who are employed on the control commission and for the disarmament of Germany, on both of which tasks certain positions have been allotted to the R.C.A.F.
After the defeat of Germany our attention turned to the Pacific, and a force was mobilized for service in that area. To make up this force eight heavy bomber squadrons from No. 6 group flew across the Atlantic to the east coast of Canada and began training for the new theatre of operations. It had been intended to equip these units with Lincoln aircraft-an improvement on the Lancaster, which had served our squadrons so well in the latter days of the European war-but the early capitulation of Japan, put an end to these preparations, and six of these squadrons have now been disbanded.
The two units still being retained are continuing a programme of training designed to keep them in a state of efficiency. They will form part of the post-war organization of the R.C.A.F. and will provide the necessary defence for our shores in addition to the air sea rescue activities which are part and parcel of all coastal operations.
General demobilization is now proceeding with all possible speed and has of course been materially increased since V-J day. All surplus personnel of the R.C.A.F. are being released on a first in-first out basis, with overseas service counting double.
In addition, where the exigencies of the service permit, personnel may be released on application in the following cases:-
(a)	Prospective employers may make application for the release of key personnel to provide for the expeditious and effective reconversion of industry from war-time to peacetime production and the maintenance of maximum employment. In those cases where the industrial selection and release board recommends release, appropriate action is taken by the R.C.A.F. wherever possible.
(b)	Personnel in Canada who produce satisfactory evidence that they are entitled to be reinstated in their former employment, in accordance with the terms of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, and who intend to return to such former employment.

Demobilization-Air Services
(c)	Personnel in Canada who provide satisfactory evidence that they will undertake or resume farming operations where there is need of their services. This includes personnel now on farm leave without pay.
(d)	Personnel in Canada who intend to proceed with university or other similar educational studies, provided satisfactory evidence is produced that they have been accepted for training at a university or similar institution.
(e)	Personnel transferring to other armed forces.
(f)	Personnel whose release is authorized on compassionate grounds.
(g)	Personnel who have attained their forty-second birthday.
(h)	Personnel who apply for release to resume school teaching.
The following personnel are being released regardless of their priority points:
(a)	Married personnel of the women's division and the nursing service.
(b)	Over-age officers.
(c)	Personnel medically unfit for operational flying.
Personnel serving overseas are being repatriated in accordance with their point score which is based on both total length of service and length of service overseas. They are all being released on arrival in Canada with the exception of those in certain administrative ground trades where existing shortages necessitate their continued employment in Canada.
From V-E day to 1st October, 37,907 R.C.A.F. and W.D. personnel were repatriated to Canada from overseas. Of these 6,455 were repatriated from September 1 to October 1, inclusive.
Between V-E day and the official announcement of V-J day 17,556 service personnel had been retired or discharged and the number of civilians employed had been reduced by 1,108. From V-J day to September 30, 37,396 left the service, and during September alone 30,627 passed through the release centres into civilian life, or over 1,000 per day.
At the present time the strength of the R.C.A.F. stands at 124,052 made up of 27,910 overseas and 96,142 in Canada, of which 9,109 are civilians. Of those in Canada 28,071 are awaiting release.
It has been realized that rapid demobilization would be most dangerous unless certain steps were taken to prepare air force men

and women for their new role, and to make the transition from service to civilian life as painless as possible. It is hardly necessary to remind the house of the extensive system of personnel counselling, which has been in operation in the R.C.A.F. for many months. Every person being retired or discharged from the Royal Canadian Air Force is interviewed by a personnel counsellor and his or her aptitude for particular civilian occupations is gauged. This is no haphazard matter, but a scientific assessment of the qualities and technical skills of those interviewed so that they may be advised as to the type of employment to which they are best suited.
In addition to the personnel counsellors we have the education officers, who conduct courses in all units, and thus implement the advice of the counsellors. Interested personnel may improve their education or their technical skill and fit themselves for better and more interesting work on demobilization. With these two aids it is safe to predict that a very large percentage of demobilized personnel of the R.C.A.F. have improved their qualifications during their service careers.
Concurrent with the demobilization of personnel of the R.C.A.F. has gone the closing of schools, units and stations. During the peak of the commonwealth air training plan we had 100 schools and 182 other units established across Canada.	[DOT]
Following the termination of the B.C.A.T.P. agreement, schools utilized under the plan have been progressively closed. Of the major training schools, there were still twenty-nine open at V-E day.
Immediately following the cessation of hostilities in Europe steps were taken to reduce the number, and at V-J day the twenty-nine schools had been reduced to seventeen.
The collapse of Japan brought further drastic reductions so that at the moment only four major schools remain open, pending the establishment of an interim force.
Cuts in the operational units have been no less drastic. On V-E day there were twenty-six operational squadrons in Canada made up of twelve bomber reconnaissance, three fighter, three composite, three transport, two communications, two ferry and one operational training. On the 30th of September only nine remained made up of two long range bomber reconnaissance, three transport, one ferry, one communication and two photo squadrons. One of these transport squadrons will be disbanded next month.

Demobilization-Air Services
Operational stations have also been closed, so that now only five of the original twenty-four remain.
With the closing of stations and disbanding of units much equipment becomes surplus to immediate needs. The amount of equipment to be retained as a reserve is based on an estimate of five years requirements. The stock position at all equipment depots is checked by the procurement branch so that surpluses are ascertained and disposed of. Storage of this reserve equipment is provided at reserve equipment maintenance units established across the country.
In disposing of properties the stations are first placed at the disposal of the other services. If not required for the operations of these departments, the property concerned is declared surplus to requirements and, (a) in the case of leased property, returned to the owners, or (b) if purchased property, turned over to Crown Assets Allocation Committee for reference to other government departments including the Department of Transport, and if not required, turned over to War Assets Corporation for disposal.
Surplus equipment is treated in a similar way.
I should like to make it quite clear that there is nothing sinister in our methods of disposing of surplus equipment or supplies. There appear to be some people who have the impression that anything we no longer require we destroy, and I should like if possible to disabuse their minds of this matter.
In a highly technical force like the air force it is inevitable that scientific skill will constantly produce new and improved equipment. As new developments appear old models become obsolete, and in war time we cannot afford to send our boys into the air with anything but the most modem equipment available.
As a result much equipment becomes surplus to requirements-sometimes because it is obsolete, sometimes because it is worn out or damaged, and sometimes both, but in every case careful consideration is given as to the disposal of this equipment, and disposal of it is made through War Assets Corporation.
While we are still engaged in the process of demobilization it is realized that with the end of the war plans must be prepared for our post-war forces.
No definite decision has yet been made as to the strength and composition of the postwar air force, as until the nature and extent
of any commitments that we may have under international or regional agreements have been determined it is obviously impossible to reach any final decision.
In the meantime plans are being prepared to provide Canada with a balanced force which would be capable of rapid expansion should the necessity arise.
The proposed post-war organization will be made up of three parts:
(a)	Regular
(b)	Auxiliary
(c)	Reserve
The regular force should comprise all branches of air force activities including bomber, fighter and transport squadrons, together with the necessary ancillary units, and for this purpose a strength of from 15,000 to 20,000 personnel is planned.
The auxiliary force will be made up of squadrons based at strategic points throughout the dominion and corresponds to the militia units of the army. These squadrons will provide opportunities for our young men to qualify for their wings or to secure training in their groundcrew trades.
The reserve will be made up of qualified air and ground personnel who in an emergency may be recalled for further service. Meanwhile, like the members of the auxiliary force, they will continue their normal peace-time occupations.
In planning for this post-war organization, arrangements are being made to perpetuate squadrons which took such an important part in the downfall of Germany. These will be localized as far as possible in the districts with which they were affiliated during their service overseas.
The production of the atomic bomb will no doubt have far reaching effects on the whole science of war, but whatever its effects may be upon the other services, I consider that it will undoubtedly increase the relative importance of air power.
The new field of atomic energy has introduced a situation which will require increased attention being paid to aeronautical research. This research will be imperative if the R.C.A.F. is to keep in line with changing conditions and -by the pooling of research findings-abreast with the developments in the specialized field of aviation.
With this in mind a division of research and development has been established within the force, which works in close cooperation with the other services and the National Research Council.
Demobilization-Air Services

One of the most important fields of research for which Canada is especially suited is in the sphere of cold weather operations. Much experimental work was carried on in this direction during the war period, and it will be continued in the days of peace. Information gained in this way is not only valuable to the service but is of benefit to civil aviation generally.
It would perhaps be of interest to hon. members to learn of the work at present being carried on by one of the R.C.A.F. units known as the radio wave propagation unit.
Canada's proximity to the north pole and its consequent position in the auroral region carries with it not only the advantage of being the centre of global airways, but also the disadvantage of giving the dominion a condition involving certain radio black-out spots. This condition is peculiar to Canada. The danger of these black-out spots to navigation can readily be appreciated. In an endeavour to combat this condition a radio wave propagation unit to forecast workable radio frequencies is now in operation. The research is being carried out, and will be continued, to determine the effect of the auroral zone, and to adjust predictions accordingly. Ionospheric recording units, by means similar to radar, record hourly the conditions affecting radio transmissions in the ionospheric layers, that is the space stretching from 40 to 260 miles above the earth's surface. This data is correlated with that of actual operating conditions and analysed. By these means predictions of workable frequencies may be made so that contact may be maintained on all wireless circuits at all times.
As a result it will be possible to ensure the most efficient use of equipment and radio facilities. The importance of this service in the saving of personnel, ships and aircraft cannot be overemphasized.
There is one particular division of the R.C.A.F. of which I want to make special mention, and that is the Women's Division.
While no decision has as yet been reached as to the employment of women in the permanent air force, I should like to express the' appreciation of the Department of the outstanding part played by the Women's Division throughout the war.
The Women's Division is the pioneer women's service organization in Canada, and has proved itself equal to every test to which it has been put. Those tests were neither few

nor simple. Arduous-and in many cases heavy-work has been undertaken cheerfully, and carried out carefully and efficiently.
Though precluded from flying duties, these women, recruited "so that men might fly" have been of inestimable service to the R.C.A.F. and to Canada. The Department of National Defence for Air joins all of Canada in saying "Thank you" for a job magnificently done.
Pending the determination of the composition of the permanent air force an interim force has been authorized, covering the period to September, 1947. For this force, which will operate under active service status, volunteers are being accepted both from serving personnel and from those who have been transferred to the reserve.
This interim force in addition to providing personnel for our occupation squadrons and home establishment, will also be used as a proving ground for personnel. These two years will give our officers an opportunity to evaluate the fitness of personnel for the peacetime role of the R.C.A.F. and at the same time enable those who join to decide if they wish to make a career in the service.
While persons who do not elect to serve in this interim force will not be barred from appointment to the permanent force, those who do enroll will be in a favourable position for permanent appointment.
In presenting the cash requirements for the R.C.A.F. for the current year, it will be seen that the cessation of hostilities has enabled me to revise my previous estimates and to make material reductions below the requirements for the previous year.
As compared with the sum of over $1,090000,000 voted for the last fiscal year, the requirement this year is slightly over $598,-
400,000,	or a decrease of 45-4 per cent.
The major saving is made in the commitment for the maintenance of overseas squadrons, where there is a reduction of over $216,000,000.
A comparative statement of cash requirements for the last fiscal year and for this year has been prepared and is available for members of the house.
While, with the coming of peace, reduction in the strength of the R.C.A.F. becomes inevitable, the same spirit of initiative and enterprise within the service will continue to maintain the high standard of performance which is characteristic of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Demobilization-Air Services
Royal Canadian Air Force Estimates-1945-1946
Comparative Statement of Cash Requirements 1945-1946 to Cash Voted in the
Fiscal Year 1944-1945
Item
1.	Civil salaries and wages	
2.	Pay and allowances	
3.	Travel, transportation and freight	
4.	Construction, purchase, repairs and operating expenses of properties	
5.	Personnel supplies and services	
6.	Communications, signals and wireless equipment	
7.	Ammunition and bombs	
8.	Mechanical transport and marine craft....
9.	Fuel costs for aircraft, M.T., and marine
craft	
10.	Aircraft, engines and spares, including overhauls	
11.	Miscellaneous stores and equipment	
12.	Flying training contracts	
13.	Maintenance of overseas squadrons	
14.	Sundries	
Less estimated recoverable in respect of training for United Kingdom	
Cash requirements 1945-1946 $ 12,094,320 269,437,334 23,912,775	Cash voted 1944-1945 $ 22,478,709 323,315,774 27,345,330	Decrease $ 10.384,389 53,878.440 3.432,55526,832,427 15,061,674	57,439,838 38,515,252	30.607,411 23,453.57816,724,519 10,487,068 2,451,532	34,654.365 18,175,000 7,026,713	17,929,846 7.687.932 4.575,18124,347,379	19,892,038	Inc. 4,455,34171,881,105 6,245,000 1.000,000 129,018,454 4,132,067	188,947,545 15,992,000 29,345,667 345,664,964 8,981,443	117,066,440 9,747,000 28.345.667 216,646,510 4,849,376$613,625,654	$1,137,774,638	$524,148,98415,138,538	47,774,638	32,636.100$598,487,116	$1,090,000,000	$491,512,884
And now, Mr. Chairman, with your permission I should like to table a list of honours and awards to members of the R.C.A.F. and a list of decorations that have been won throughout the war.


William Henry Golding: I wonder if it would be the wish of hon. members that this be included in Hansard, with unanimous consent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Colin William George Gibson: The list
is as follows:
Honours and Decorations
Awarded to Canadians from the Outbreak of War to 15th September, 1945
Canadians
Air Force Cross	
Bar to Air Force Cross	
Air Force Medal	
Associate of the Royal Red Cross	
British Empire Medal	
Commander of the Order of the British Empire
Commend ation	
Companion of the Order of the Bath	
Conspicuous Gallantry Medal (Flying)	
Distinguished Conduct Medal	
Distinguished Flying Cross	
Bar to Distinguished Flying Cross	
Distinguished Flying Medal	
Bar to Distinguished Flying Medal	
Distinguished Service Cross	
Distinguished Service Order	
Bar to Distinguished Service Order	
George Cross	
George Medal	
Knight of the Order of the British Empire	
Member of the Order of the British Empire_____
Mentioned in Dispatches	
Military Cross	
Military Medal	
Officer of the Order of the British Empire....
Victoria Cross	
..C.A.F.	in R.A.F.	Total337	18	3551	141	"i	4211	11187	"i	18825	2	27235	23518	"i	2212	121	13,481	i96	3.677181	26	207484	24	5081	11	166	16	826	2	84	1	517	1	181	1iso	2	1521,630	49	1,6793	2	51	152	'"3	551	1	2
Awards for Gallantry-Air

Awards for Gallantry-Air

Awards for Gallantry-Air

FRENCH AWARDS Legion of Honour 0788, W/C Desloges.
Croix De Guerre 01100752, F/S Adair, F. M.
*J12346, F/L Alliston, A. J.
J25399, F/L Anderson, J. A. J93069, P/O Beekingham, R. L [DOT]J15156, F/L Bishop, E. M.
J25281, F/L Blake, V. J.
R187809, W/O Botterill, M. A. R74651, F/S Bowles, W. H.
J86959, A/F/O Burns, R. G. J12030, F/L Cartmell, J. H.
J18469, F/L Charters, R. B. .J85854, F/O Clark, J.
*J13478, F/L Cochand, L. E.
-J22476, F/O Copp, L. R.
-J20642, F/L Cush, H. H. S.
-J28937, F/L Davidson, R. H. J90716, T/F/O Donovan, M.D. .128079, F/O Dutkowski, R.
J14324, S/L Fairey, W. M.
J11616, F/L Forman, G. W.
J8137, A/S/L Gardiner, W. G. J21406, F/L Gibson, G. L.
J87974, F/O Gingras, P. H.
C17521, F/L Godfrey, W. H. C24448, S/L Guillevin, F. E.
J28186, F/O Hannah, H. A.
C14356, F/L Harpur, G. A.
J27687, F/L Heron, G. L.
R133896 W/O Hill, J. E.
<J23461, F/L Hunter. E.
J88230 P/O Irwin, D. G.
J14555, F/L Isaacson, L. J.
J22941, F/L Licquorish, S. J. J88679, P/O Lippineott, R. T. J12893, F/O Lowndes, J. A.
J17615, F/L MacNeill. G. E. J90975, P/O Markey, W. J.
R57864, F/S McBean, R. P.
C60, A/V/M McEwen, C. M. R197908, F/S McGregor, E. W. J17195, F/O Mills, J. G.
J17866, A/F/L P-rescott, T. H. .T13712, F/O Robertson, D. R. R129052. W/O. 2 Scott, V. E. J90331, F/O Sheppard, F. G.
C823, S/L Stephen, W. M.
J88517, F/O Sterling, I. R.
C27788, F/L Stevenson, J. M. J14835, F/L Tyley, K.
J88228, P/O Watson, R. A.
J86101, F/L Weaver, <T. F.
J93890, P/O Weaver, W. S.
J21994, F/O Wharry, G. G.
J91039, P/O Whelpdale, G. M.
GREEK AWARDS Air Force Cross J17354, F/O Granda, J.
NETHERLANDS AWARDS Bronze Cross
R113044. W/O De Chaplaine, J. P. J86965, P/O Ellis, J. F.
J9464. F/L Ireland, E. G.
J16799, F/L Mitchener, J. D. J15101, S/L Prest, W. A.
J87361. P/O Selliars, D. S.
R105450, W/O Stewart, W. P.
Bronze Lion C89500, W/C Sproule, J. A.
IMr. C. W. G. Gibson.]
UNITED STATES AWARDS Silver Star C100 G/C Dunlap, C. R.
J22754, F/L Moore, K. O.
Distinguished Flying Cross
J25099, F/O Andrews, A. E. ,126705, F/O Brown, R. A.
J10113, F/L Cross, D. H.
J14035. F/L Davidson, J. B. .710113, A/F/L Gross, D. H. J7892, F/L Peglar, W. B.
C927, W/C Reid, J. W.
J5970, F/L Stephens, J. A.
J20110, A/F/L Wilkesman, B. W.
Air Medal
R87853, Sgt. Anderson, T. N. C1376, S/L Benell, R. J.
J4524, F/L Elliott, E. B. R77814, Sgt. Fraser, D. S. J4900, F/L Gill, R. F.
J9286, F/L Warren, B.
C9735, F/L Warren, D. J20446, F/L Warrington, G. R.
Purple Heart Medal R86267, F/S Brown, W. D.



CANADIANS IN THE R.A.F.

[Stage Direction]
Victoria Cross
118131, A/S/L Bazalgette, I. W.
Distinguished Service Order
3961, A/W/C Beall, II. R. M. 175715, A/F/L Cuthill, J.
39806, A/W/C Woodruff, P. H.
Bar to Distinguished Service Order 42216, A/W/C Grant, G. F.
Distinguished Flying Cross
174875, F/O Boulter, H. E. 189362, P/O Chalkley, D. E. J. 133101, F/L Graham, A. R.
62323, F/L Key, G. B. C.
156062, F/O Minnis, R. M.
61033, F/L O'Reilly, P. L. F.
37943, WyC Rodney, G. F.
Distinguished Flying Medal 1822281, F/S Robertson, J. S.

Demobilization-Air Services
Mr. PEARKES:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to be associated with the remarks which have just been made by the hon. the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Gibson) in appreciation of the work that has been done by the Royal Canadian Air Force, and the Women's Division of the Royal Canadian Air Force, during this war. I have been extremely fortunate to have been closely associated with that service, although, of course, I was not in it myself. But I count it a high privilege to have been in England during those early days when I saw our Canadian pilots sharing the dangers with their British comrades in breaking up those dense formations of enemy bombers which came over to attack London and the south of England during the years 1939 and 1940. And never was any "forlorn" led with more reckless gallantry in those romantic days of warfare when citadels and fortresses were stormed and breaches were entered than the reckless gallantry shown by that "forlorn" of 1939 and 1940, when they forced the breaches in those formations of enemy bombers which came toward London. Singly or in pairs these fighters went up, and we on the ground stood in amazement. We watched them accomplish the impossible. Those formations of enemy bombers turned and went back to seek their lairs on the continent. Then, as months went by, we saw the great squadrons sally forth from the shores of England and carry a just punishment and revenge to the cities and fortresses of Europe then held by the enemy.
I should also like to say something in appreciation of the work which was done here in Canada, because it has been my privilege to fly many thousands of miles with the Royal Canadian Air Force. I have always received the utmost courtesy and kindness from the aircrews, and I have been tremendously impressed by the skilful handling of the aircraft, the quick decisions made and the coolness of pilots and navigators under the trying weather conditions while flying over the Rocky mountains and in the northern areas of this country.
I also wish to say a word in appreciation of the women's division of the air force and of the magnificent work done by all those who were connected with the commonwealth training plan.
It is my intention to examine this evening the proposals and estimates which have been presented by the minister under four headings: the defence of Canada and our ability to live up to the commitments which we have to assume during this interim period by
reason of obligations derived from the united nations agreements; the question of efficiency; that of research, and that of the proposed continuation, in so far as types of organization and equipment are concerned, of following the British commonwealth of nations and United States of America air forces.
Dealing with the defence of Canada and such commitments as we may be called upon to assume during this interim period, I must express profound regret that the government has not seen fit to meet the request which was made in the house last Friday by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and which was repeated by me the day before yesterday, that before we went into a detailed examination of the various service estimates we should be presented with the general defence policy of the three services. At that time both the hon. member for Vancouver South and myself endeavoured to explain the difficulties under which hon. members would be working if they had to review piecemeal the various service estimates presented. I still maintain that it is impossible efficiently to review the separate service estimates without that over-all picture.
In the first place the strengths of the various services to carry out the roles of the defence of Canada and such commitments as they may be required to carry out under the united nations agreements are relative. For instance, to put it in the simplest possible terms, if we had a large air force and we had all the planes that we required for reconnaissance purposes over the sea approaches of our country we should not require as many surface craft to carry out the patrol work. On the other hand, if we had a very large number of surface reconnaissance craft, then we could reduce the number of our air force reconnaissance squadrons. Further than that, it is quite obvious to everybody, I think, that if we have ships afloat, then we must have bases from which those ships can operate, and those bases must be protected. It is the role of the army and of the air force to protect and to watch the approaches to those bases.	[DOT]
I feel that the three services are so correlated in these respects that we should have been given an over-all statement. Furthermore, when we come to the administrative services of the army, the navy and the air force is there not an opportunity whereby the services, perhaps the medical, dental, pay or commissariat services, might not in some respects be combined instead of there being a separate service for the army, the navy and the air force?	,
According to the press we have statements from senior naval officers who have told us
Demobilization-Air Services

that certain types of ships are 'to be in the Canadian navy. The question of carriers was mentioned. If we have aircraft carriers they have to carry aircraft. Who is to suppiv those aircraft? I have not heard any mention in the minister's remarks about any aircraft being made available to those carriers I do not know whether it is the intention of the government to provide a fleet air arm. How can we make considered comments upon the estimates if we do not have such details? I feel that we cannot expect progress to be made unless we are presented in parliament here with a well thought-out and coordinated plan. I do not mind in the least if people tell me that they have never done that before. There is no use in our trying to adhere to the methods of 1919 or the time-worn formula of twenty years ago. Those will not produce an adequate defence for this country. If I am to believe that the government departments have worked out these estimates in collaboration one with another, then I can only feel that they have shown disrespect, if not contempt, of this house, by refusing to produce statements. If, on the other hand, they have not worked in close collaboration, then a most terrible and fundamental mistake has been made at the very beginning.
I turn now to the question of efficiency. Efficiency must not be destroyed. That, I feel, is a fundamental principle to which we must adhere and upon which we must insist. Dealing with this first under ithe heading of personnel, let me say that we have been told of the interim force. A hint has been thrown out to-day-and that was the first time I had heard it-that there will be a permanent or regular air force of some 15,000, 20,000 or
25.000	personnel. I have forgotteD the exact number.


Colin William George Gibson: It is
15.000	to 20,000.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think the young men
who to-day are making the decision as to whether they will remain in the temporary interim force would like to have more information regarding their opportunities for seeking a career in that permanent force.
I have heard reports of, and I have seen individuals who -have been perplexed and who have wondered whether it is worth whale staying on in the interim force, on the off hope that perhaps they may be able to stay on afterwards in the regular air force. They are concerned, because in many cases they have entered, as it were, into a contract with their former employers before joining the services at the beginning of the war. They were promised that when the war was over they would have their civilian jobs back again.

If they sign on with the interim force they have the feeling that they are breaking that contract. And if at the end of two years they are not accepted, or the terms of service in the regular force are not acceptable to them, they will have no claim on the civilian jobs they left at the beginning of the war.
Therefore I say that they have waited long for the terms of service which will be announced regarding the regular air force, after the two-year period. I feel that we are wasting good material by not having come out before, and by not making it quite clear to-day as to what the opportunities for a career will be.
I understood the minister to say that the interim force was available for those who were in the Royal Canadian Air Force at the present time, or who had recently left that force and desired to go back. But no intimation was given that any new recruits were being taken into the force. If we are not taking in new recruits; if we are not taking in young men who are anxious to make the R.C.A.F. a career, young men of a type who might become commissioned officers and rise in the sendee, then we are going to have a gap, a hiatus, and in a few years time, if recruiting is not resumed before that period has elapsed, there will be a serious gap.
I believe I am correct when I say there has been no recruiting this year. If that is so, then the gap is getting wider and wider. We cannot have a Royal Canadian Air Force made up of old men. We must have a steady flow of young men coming in, if we are to keep efficiency to a maximum. I regret that no mention has been made of reopening recruiting for the service.
When I speak of efficiency, let it be understood that I do not want anyone to feel I am advocating extravagance or waste. If there has been any extravagance or waste in the past, there must be none in the future. I would urge all those who are thinking of remaining in the interim force or the permanent force as a future career to realize that they will be expected to do a full day's work. And if they are expected to do a full day's work, then this country must be prepared to pay wages and salaries which a full day's work in any particular craft or trade would command.
Before I leave the question of personnel, and while I am still talking about the possibilities of entering upon a career, may I say I should like to have heard the Minister of National Defence for Air give the committee some idea with respect to his policy in connection with enlisting those who would seek commissioned ranks in the air force.

Demobilization-Air Services
Within the last week or so the announcement was made that the Royal Military College at Kingston will be opening its doors next year. We know that Royal Roads, the naval cadet college, is in existence on Vancouver island. I should have liked to hear-perhaps the minister will tell us later-what opportunities are offered to those young men who are now leaving school or college and who would like to follow the air force as a career. Is it the intention of the force to establish a special college of its own, or does it intend to receive entries through the Royal Military College, or some other university? I believe the country would like to hear his proposals in that respect.
Passing on to equipment, I would say simply this, that it is our duty-and the minister intimated that it was the department's intention to do -this-to retain up-to-date equipment. We must cut our losses, and get rid of any obsolete or obsolescent -ty-pes.
Mention was made of air fields. The minister said, I believe, that five operational air fields would be retained. I suggest that we should be told where those operational air fields are located.


Colin William George Gibson: Operational stations, not air fields.


George Randolph Pearkes: Those are headquarters,
are they?


Colin William George Gibson: We have
other air fields as well, but I said that there were just five operational air stations.


George Randolph Pearkes: We should know where
those operational stations or air fields will be located. They are linked closely with the other services and there should be no mistake made in locating them. It is important that they should be located, not for political reasons, but purely for strategic considerations. No doubt there will be training stations in addition.
I come now to the detailed statement of figures just presented. I cannot help feeling that the country will be disappointed that there has not been a greater reduction with a further relief from taxation. We have heard about the expansion of the air force. From the financial point of view there has also been expansion. I believe that in 1940-41 the estimates submitted were for $54 million. This has grown and grown until last year the estimates were over one billion dollars. Then we find that there h-as been a reduction from that maximum figure of forty-four per cent, according to what the minister has told us.
That maximum amount was provided during a year when our armies were preparing to
launch an invasion of the coast of France. Maximum air effort and maximum air bombardment were required. It could be estimated that during the months which would follow D day there would have to be continual and prolonged bombing, as in fact there was. There was also the war against Japan which it was generally expected would have to be prosecuted to the best ability of this country as soon as Germany had been defeated. Therefore it was reasonable that a large amount of money had to be made available.
When the estimates were prepared for this year it was known that the war with Germany was nearing an end, but it was also thought that the war against Japan would be continuing for some months after the cessation of hostilities with Germany. Therefore it is reasonable to think that money was provided in order to take care of air operations in Asia. It would seem that these operations would be expensive because of the great distances which would have to be covered. These operations did not develop. So I say the people of the country as a whole will be disappointed when they hear that there has not been more of a reduction than that which has been shown to us to-day.
Within a month of the passing of the estimates last spring V-E day came, and only a few months after that V-J day came. It is not surprising that we find the major reduction in the estimates made in connection with the maintenance of squadrons overseas. I believe the reduction has been in the neighbourhood of $216 million, very nearly half the total reduction. I will go on to examine these various items.
In the figures placed on Hansard the other day we find the money which was voted for the first five months of the fiscal year and the money still required for the remaining seven months of the year. Talking only in terms of millions, without bothering with the odd dollars, I find under pay and allowances that $130 million were required for the first five months, while $139 million will be required for the last seven months. We have been told to-day that there has been a reduction of
54,000	officers and men since V-E day. We shall have to ask the minister to give us a more detailed explanation as to why there is not a further reductibn in pay and allowances when so many men have already been discharged from the air force.
The next item is travel, and $9 million was required for the first five months, while $14 million will be required for the last seven months of the year. Here again we know that personnel are being brought back, but I gained
Demobilization-Air Services

the impression that a large percentage of those who were overseas are already back in Canada. While there will have to be transportation provided for a certain number of personnel from the Burma front to England, it seems to me that this amount of $14 million is too large.
The next item is construction, purchase, repairs and operating expenses of properties. During the war years temporary buildings were constructed to house and quarter various units of the Royal Canadian Air Force throughout Canada. Those buildings were well constructed and they have been well maintained. I feel that there is now little necessity for capital expenditures on additional buildings. If it is found necessary to construct any more permanent barracks I suggest that such construction be left and dealt with as a post-war project. There are civilian requirements which should have prior claim to permanent construction for the Royal Canadian Air Force. We are not told in detail how this item is divided between construction and repairs.
The next item is personal supplies and services, including clothing. A total of $7,400,000 was required for the first five months, while $7,600,000 will be required for the last seven months. Again I say that if there has been a reduction of 54,000 men and discharges are going on, why is it necessary to have such a large sum for this item? It may be that the men are obtaining civilian suits with that money, but I was under the impression that that would come out of another department.
Then for communications, signal and wireless equipment; during the first five months $3,000,000. and during the next seven months $12,000,000. Surely there will not be an expansion in the communication services after we have heard of the reductions in the number of stations and in the number of squadrons and units of the forces; and unless it may be that some expenditures in connection with the northwest territories communications are included, I believe we must ask again for a detailed explanation why so much more money is required under that head.
The same remarks apply to ammunition and bombs-$2,000,000 during the first five months and $8,000,000 when for all practical purposes the war is over. Perhaps we are going to build up stocks of bombs and ammunition. Perhaps we require them for training purposes. But it does seem to me that that is a very considerable amount.
The same with fuel costs-for the first five months $6,000,000 and for the last seven months of this year $1S,000,000, when we

know that there is a large reduction in the number of units and that many aircraft have been destroyed or otherwise disposed of.
The same thing with regard to aircraft, engines and spares-$25,000,000 during the first five months of the year and $46,000,000 during the remaining seven months.
The same remarks apply regarding reduction in personnel and reduction in units.
Then we come to the maintenance of overseas squadrons. There, of course, a big saving has been made.
Finally we finish up with the amusing little item of sundries, printing and stationery, and we see that there is no doubt about it, that the paper war at least is not over.
I am glad that the minister mentioned that a research development division was to -be started, but I see no item here for expenditure on research. Is that expenditure to be in addition to the amount which is to be voted in these estimates? Is it to be included in some other estimate, or is it included as part of the various items I have mentioned? Perhaps the minister will be kind enough to explain that.
The minister referred to the atomic bomb, and of course everybody is tremendously interested in any developments along those lines. But there are many other fields in which experiment must be carried on, and I would recommend to the minister a careful study of jet-propelled aircraft and of radio-controlled aircraft. It is perhaps foolish to speculate, but while it -may be said that the atomic bomb is going to increase the importance of the air force there must also be taken into consideration the possibilities of radio-controlled aircraft, and it may be no more fantastic than other developments would have seemed a few years ago to suggest that the air forces of the future will be launched from subterranean runways and guided toward their objective without a single airman being on board or in the air.
I should like to compliment the minister upon having started investigations regarding flying and radio control in the northern latitudes. That is of importance and we have a grand opportunity to study conditions in the northern climate. May I also suggest that our own shores are frequently fog-bound, and investigations might well be carried on to see how we can eliminate fog and improve landing conditions when our coasts are fog-bound.
Dealing with the question of radar-and this is harking back to my first statement as to the need for coordination between the three services-I feel that there may be scope to reduce overlapping and duplication in the

Demobilization-Air Services
employment of radar. In the main, air forces are sending their beams into the air to locate approaching aircraft. But radar is also used for the detection of surface vessels, and perhaps if the navy and the air force would get together a big development might be made there.
My time is fast drawing to an end, but before I sit down I should like to ask a question, because we have had no statement regarding the matter. What is the present policy of the government as to following closely along the lines of either the Royal Air Force of Great Britain or the United States air force? There are two widely different views upon that question. There is a great difference between the organization and equipment of the British air force and the organization and equipment of the United States air force, and we may have to make a decision as to which we shall follow. No doubt the government has made a decision as to whether it will follow the Brtiish or the United States system.
In conclusion, I should like to feel that the remarks which will be made while discussing these service estimates will all be prompted by the highest motives, that we members of this house in all parties are determined to do all we can to preserve the peace. There is a feeling among those of us who have seen two world wars that we must make enormous sacrifices to prevent a world war III from coming in our time, because if a world war III does come it seems to me that the means of destruction are so developed that whole civilizations might be wiped out before those. means of destruction themselves can be destroyed, and it is one of the ironies of fate that perhaps the means of destruction would be the very last thing to be destroyed.
If by any chance we speak with intensity and perhaps with some emotion, advocating the steps which we consider should be taken in order to achieve the preservation of peace, and based upon such experience or previous study as we have had, I want all hon. members, including those whose experience or study has led them to quite different conclusions from those which I have reached, to feel that while they may have ideas violently opposed to my own, I shall never attribute to any one of them less high motives than I hold myself.


Mr. ALAN COCKERAM (York South):: Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of my remarks I should like to pay tribute to those gallant men who served in the Royal Canadian Air Force and those Canadians who served in the Royal Air Force. We in this country owe a great deal to the courage and
sacrifice which they showed on our behalf.
In discussing the estimates before this committee, I believe there are certain matters which we should take into account. We have to remember that, as the hon. member for Nanaimo has just said, within a few weeks of the estimates being presented to the house during the last session, V-E day came. Prior to V-E day many men were being transferred to the R.C.A.F. reserve, and there was therefore a paring down in that service at that time. I intend to analyse the figures which are to be presented to this committee in a greater degree than did the hon. member for Nanaimo, because I believe it is time that we in this chamber took account of how the people's money is being expended. We are voting money at the rate of millions and millions of dollars, and we owe it to the taxpayers of this country to see that there is rigid economy in government and in the services for which we provide the money.
Since we came here this evening we have been presented with a statement which paints a very rosy picture of this matter of airforce estimates. In my opinion this is a dextrous transposition of words and figures, having a semblance of face but lacking substance when one analyses it. I propose, taking the figures under the same numbers as the government allots to them, to analyze the monthly expenditures for the first five months of this year, and to show the committee what the government proposes to spend on this service in the remaining seven months. It will be found that in the majority of cases, in spite of the fact that our main war was in Europe, and that the fight we were to undertake in the future was to be a total war against Japan, the expenditures of this department are much greater than they should be. This statement was presented to us to show a very great reduction in expenditures, but we as a committee must remember that the last fiscal year was the greatest expenditure year in the war, and that there has been only one month of war in the estimates we are now to consider.
As to item No. 1, when I average the expenditures I find that we have saved a little on civil salaries and wages. The average monthly expenditure for the first five months was $1,258,924; for the last seven months the estimate is $828,530, or a saving of $430,394 a month.
No. 2, pay and allowances, shows an average for the first five months of $26,006,663, and for the last seven months, an average of $19,913,431, or a saving of $6,093,232 during the later months. I think the minister should tell us if it is the intention to cut down on that figure of pay and allowances as regards the
Demobilization-Air Services

high ranking officers. We know very well that many junior men are being put out of the services, and the same applies to all branches of the armed forces. Where a saving can and should be made is in cutting out the overhead which bogs the whole department down.
No. 3 deals with travel, transportation and freight. In the first five months there was an average expenditure of $1,815,272; it is estimated that the amount for the next seven months will be at the rate of $2,119,487, an increase of $304,215 a month. There may be some excuse for that, because men are coming home, but after all they are being let out of the service fairly rapidly. The minister has told us that 54.000 men have already been demobilized, and that a further 30,000 will be let out in the immediate future.
Item No. 4 is for construction. In spite of the idea Held by the people of this country that construction expenses and the cost of camps and military establishments throughout this country pretty well reached their peak a year or so ago, we find that in the first five months there is an expenditure averaging $2,035,892; in the last seven months the expenditure amounts to $2,378,995. Therefore, in spite of the fact that many camps should be empty at this time and that air stations have been closed down, it is proposed to spend another $343,000 of the taxpayers' money a month on that branch of the service.
Under item No. 5, personnel supplies and services, we find that for the first five months there was an average expenditure of $1,484,793 a month; in the last seven months it is estimated at $1,091,107 a month, or a decreased cost of $393,686.
Then there is item No. 6, communications, signal and wireless equipment. Why there should be this great increase I do not know, but certainly we have not been equipping planes to the extent that we did when we were actively engaged in war. We find that for the first five months the figure is $772,895 a month, and in the last seven months that increases to $1,837,120, or an increase in excess of $1,064,225 a month. At a time when all fighting has ceased, when there must have been a great deal of equipment on hand in all these stations, we find they will spend $1,000,000 a month more of the taxpayers' money during the remaining seven months of the year.
Item No. 7 deals with ammunition and bombs. I do not know why in the last seven months of the year our expenses on ammunition and bombs should go up so high, but we find that in the first five months we spent $457,626 a month, while it is estimated that for the last seven months our expendi-

tures will be $1,171,262. When the war will have been over with Germany for practically eleven months we propose to spend $1,000,000 a month more on bombs, and the taxpayers' money goes up in smoke.
We come now to item No. 8, which deals with mechanical transport and marine craft. There is a small decrease here. We spent $232,636 during the first five months, on an average, and it is to be the magnificent sum of $198,336 in the last seven months, a decrease of $34,300 a month.
Then we come to an amazing figure, item No. 9.
That deals with fuel costs for aircraft and marine transport and marine craft. In the first five months of the year we spent an average of $1,203,940 a month, and it is estimated that the expenditure for the last seven months will reach the colossal total of $2,618,239 a month, an increase of $1,414,299 a month.
It is generally known in this country, and certainly it is known to members of this house, that the air training scheme was cancelled many months ago, and that was the branch of the air force where great amounts of gasoline and fuel were used. We did not have that expenditure in the last part of this year, but at the same time costs are to go up for this one item for the remainder of the year, $1,413,299 a month. We talk of social services and wonder where we shall get the money, and still we spend money like this. This money, in my opinion, could be much better spent in providing social services.
We come now to item No. 10, aircraft engines. In the first five months we spent $5,040,827 a month, and in the last seven months we propose to spend $6,668,141, or an increase of $1,627,314 a month. When the aircraft is on the way out we propose to spend1 more money on maintenance of engines and such things, when we shall not have half the personnel. The whole thing does not add up.
We come now to item No. 11, miscellaneous stores and equipment. In the first five months we spent $481,626, and in the last seven months we propose to spend $565,269 a month, or an increase of $83,000 a month.
In items Nos. 12 and 13 there are substantial decreases. One deals with the suspension of training operations and flying contracts, and the second deals with maintenance of overseas squadrons.
Item No. 14, the sundries item, is the one about which the hon. member for Nanaimo spoke. We spent an average of $225,919 a month in the first five months, and we pro-

________ Demobilization-Air Services
pose to spend 8428,924 on these sundry items in the last seven months, or an increase of 8203,005. At a time when the force is rapidly disappearing our sundry expenses are doubled.
It is interesting to take the total war expenditures given on page 549 of Hansard, showing 8920,016,936 for the first five months, whereas for the last seven months it. is proposed to spend 81,063,167,252. Worked out, this would show that the whole of the government departments of defence will make a saving for the last seven months of the year at the rate of $32,122,351 a month. At a time when we have been spending billions, and when, with the end of the war in Europe, our expenses for shells and fuel, transportation, and to a large extent equipment, came practically to an end-because the government cancelled a lot of contracts-we find that for the last seven months of the year the savings to taxpayers will not exceed much more than $1 million a day.
How is the Minister of Finance to bring about a reduction in taxation? How will he bring in all these social services unless we as members of this house do our duty, the duty which the people expect us to do, namely, to scrutinize to the last dollar every cent we vote in this house.
I should like to give warning to the ministers, especially the defence ministers, that we intend to scrutinize these estimates down to the last dollar. We want to know month by month how many men were in the services at the first of the month and how many were out by the end of the month, how many planes were being flown at the beginning of the month and how many at the end of the month, so that we can see whether the expenditures are warranted or not.
The Minister of Finance in bringing down these figures the other day could not have studied them very well. At page 548 of Hansard the minister is reported to have said:
Moreover, it will be noted that the amount required for the latter half of this year is very much less than that required for the first half, even though many of the expenditures to be made in the latter half were really incurred during the period of fighting.
With the mass of figures that I have given the committee to-night, I ask whether that statement of the Minister of Finance is an honest one, because it certainly is not borne out by the figures as presented to the house. I have said it before, and I am going to repeat it, that I can see no evidence in this department of government of any attempt to try to improve the situation that faces the people of Canada to-day. The people are paying enormous taxes, and it is the duty of every government official, whether he be an
army officer, an airforce officer or a naval officer, or in whatever department of government he happens to be, to see to it that the people get value for the dollars that the government extracts from them. If we continue along the way we are going there will be no dollars to get. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance-he is not in his place at the moment-how7 he proposes to ease the burden of taxation, as he mentioned many times during the election? How does he propose to do that, unless he gets cooperation from the departments of government, and unless they give us good government with rigid economy so that the people will get value for the dollars spent? The people of Canada will put up money for victory bonds for just so long. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance is satisfied to go into the hole all the time and to keep on borrowing. If that is what he intends to do I think we should fight him. We cannot keep on borrowing, but it appears that is what we shall have to do.
I should like to close my remarks by reminding the minister again that we propose to examine his estimates as we propose to examine the estimates of every department of government. We are not going to vote millions of dollars in a few millutes just to please the government side of the house. This time we are going to have an explanation for the money we spend. Everybody knows that we must raise this money; everybody knows that since the war our national debt has increased enormously. Those of us who are business men-and it does not matter what the size of the business may be-know that there are only two ways in which the government can get this money, namely, by taxation or by borrowing. There must be a tax rate that the people are able to pay. If there is that tax rate there must be a pool from which those taxes can be extracted. I ask the government to have regard to the conditions of the pool where you and I and the average individual in Canada have our money to-day. If the government have regard to that they should see that they do not dry up that pool too quickly.
I am serious when I say this. I believe the Minister of National Defence for Air should stop this debate now, take his estimates back and have them rewritten, because I think they are an insensible bunch of figures to be produced in the house and to ask us to vote. I believe the minister should ask us to go on with some other business and should take these figures back to his high officials and have them reexamined.
Demobilization-Air Services


Colin William George Gibson: I think I had better say something on the point raised by the hon. member who has just taken his seat.


Mr. MARSHALL:: I should like, to make a few comments before the minister speaks. I believe that the two hon. members who have spoken at great length have been working on the wrong premise from start to finish. At page 551 of Hansard of September 28 are to be found the estimates and the amount already granted. That does not necessarily mean the amount already spent. Consequently I believe, as I have already stated, that the premise-upon which these hon. members have been spoken is incorrect. If I remember correctly, the government asked for two appropriations totaling somewhere in the neighbourhood of S2 billion, and the amount that was actually allotted or granted to the air service was S325 million. That amount has been broken down, but this first column does not mean that the amount was actually spent. Would the minister be good enough to break down for us at this time the amount that was actually spent during the first five months of the year out of the amount, that we granted as an allocation up to the present time?


John Bracken: I think the hon. member who has just sat down is referring to a table at page 551 of Hansard where there are three columns of figures. The first column is "amount already granted". The way I interpret that is that it covers the expenditures for five months and that the second column gives the extra amount which the minister expects will be required for the remaining seven months. Is that correct?


Colin William George Gibson: When the original estimate was put in for this year we were allotted funds for five months, based on the estimates of the previous year. The fact that the average monthly expenditures for the last seven months of the year would appear to be greater than those in the first five months is no indication that our expenditures are increasing, as the hon. member for York South has suggested. When the accounts are actually paid, whether it be early or late in the year, is no indication that a considerable saving is not being made in the department throughout the whole fiscal year.
I have placed on the table, although I do not know whether copies have been distributed or not, a comparative statement showing the cash requirements for the year 1944-45, and also the cash requirements for the year 194546 for the various items. This table indicates the over-all saving which is being made in the

whole fiscal year, and shows a reduction of some forty-six per cent in the requirements for this year. Of course in the early part of the year we had commitments for large expenditures; the war was by no means over. We had commitments which had to be paid. In many cases they were not paid for in the first five months of the year; consequently they are outstanding and will have to be paid in the second part. I think in dealing with these estimates by far the most satisfactory method is the one we have adopted in the past of dealing with them item by item, and getting an explanation on each item as we reach it, rather than for each hon. member to go through the whole list and deal with his criticism of the various items, without making any progress. If that meets with the approval of the committee I suggest that the Chairman call the items, one by one, and we can deal with them in rotation.


John Bracken: With all deference to the minister, may I say that the other day the Minister of Finance gave us this statement of figures. I think the house ought to understand what they are supposed to mean. If the minister will look at page 551 of Hansard he will see what is perplexing the hon. members over here who raised the question, and what is in my mind. Does the first column not mean what the minister thought his requirements would be for the first five months of this year when the amount asked for was $2,000 million? Hon. members are entitled to think that is still what is meant. When the second column is put in, showing the ddi-tional amount required to March 31, 1946, we are entitled to think that is what is required for the last seven months. That is what is the matter with the situation, and that is what these hon. gentleman have been discussing. Maybe the minister could make it clear; what do these columns mean? And if they do not mean anything, why were they given to us?


Mr. JACKMAN:: What were they five-twelfths of?


Colin William George Gibson: The first amount voted in the last session of the last parliament was five-twelfths of the requirements for the year, based on the estimates of the previous year. We had not got our estimates for this year ready at the time that that amount was voted.


James Alexander Marshall: Could the minister tell us, for example, how much money has been actually spent during the first five months of this year on civil salaries and wages? Is the minister in a position to give us that informa-

Demobilization-Air Services
tion to-night, so that we can compare his figure with the figure which is shown at page 551 of Hansard, namely, $6,294,610?


William Ross Macdonald: The minister has suggested that the committee might consider the statement item by item. In previous years, before going into the items, a certain latitude has been allowed for general discussion. I am wondering if the general discussion has been completed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Ross Macdonald: Then, would it be agreeable to hon. members to have the committee continue with the general discussion? This would not preclude the asking of questions of the minister. When the general discussion is over we could consider the items individually.


James Alexander Marshall: In order to guide the discussion along the proper lines I think it is necessary for us to clear up the point as to what the three columns on page 551 of Hansard actually mean.


Colin William George Gibson: I should like to give the committee that information. The amount required for the whole year for civil salaries and wages is $12,094,320. The amount voted for the first five months of the year was $6,522,000, and what was actually expended amounted to $6,294,610.


James Alexander Marshall: Then the figures at page 575 are not correct. The second set of figures the minister gave did not correspond with the figures found at page 575.


Colin William George Gibson: The
$6,522,000 was the money voted. The amount shown as being already granted is the amount that has been released by the treasury board from the amount voted.


James Alexander Marshall: That cannot be correct, because if hon. members will look at page 551 they will find that the total amount we voted for the air force was $325,985,039. We find those same figures at page 549. Under the heading "air services" we find those exact figures. Then, right at the bottom of page 573 is a figure of $2 billion, the amount of the apportionment for the first five months of the year.


John Bracken: If I might make a suggestion, I think the minister could clear this up. As I see it, the first column is the allocation of the portion of the $2 billion that was allowed the airforce for these special items. The minister has indicated that he has the actual expenditures for those five months under each of those headings. I suggest that the committee ought to have the actual expenditures
under each of these headings for the whole estimates-not only for the estimates that are here, but the actual expenditures from one end to the other in connection with all these estimates.


Colin William George Gibson: The actual expenditures are available for four months. The amount released by the treasury board is for five months. However, I can tell the committee the actual expenditures under each item for four months.


John Bracken: If the minister could do that it would help the committee.


Mr. MACDONNELL:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the time of the committee for only a very few moments, not to discuss figures, but to discuss a principle. I wish to refer to the request made the other day by the hon. member for Vancouver South, which was supported by the hon. member for Nanaimo, a request which I thought was a very reasonable one. It was simply this, that in discussing the items for any of the services we should, if possible, have before us a statement for all the services.
So far as I know that request has never been referred to. It struck me as reasonable, and I should have thought that the common courtesy which is usually practised in this chamber would result in some reference to it. If it is impossible to have that done we should have been told why it was impossible. The reason for it seems to me to be this, that in a consideration of two or three departments which are so closely inter-related it would be desirable to know how they are inter-related, and it would enable us better to scrutinize expenditures. What did we, in fact, get to-night from the Minister of National Defence for Air? We got a statement which made us all very proud of what had happened during the last war. Secondly, we got a statement of the strength of the air force in the future. But we did not get any statement of the strategic position. We did not get any statement, so far as I know, of our relations with our allies, either within the empire or outside it, or with the United States.
We got no statement of the strategic position at all. There was only some reference to our position in North America, up near the north pole, and a reference to certain physical difficulties which that caused in connection with radar. But I submit to the committee that when we look forward to the situation which we face, which in spite of our hopes from the united nations agreement, we all
Demobilization-Air Services

realize, is a very dangerous situation, I submit that we who are here now should not be left to think in a vacuum.
We are told that the airforce will be 10,000 in strength. But I have no way of knowing whether it should be 10,000, or whether it should be the 30,000, which the hon. gentleman who did not make the speech last night is reported to have said.
I should like to submit with great deference -to the Minister of Reconstruction that we who are in this chamber are being very much put into the position into which a group of business men are put if someone came to them and offered them a proposition whereby they are asked to subscribe a large sum of money to a company. Then they are told that this company has close associations with another company, but are not told anything about what those associations may be. In the same way we are told nothing about the business of our enterprise; we are not told what its operations cover; we are not told what its objectives are to be, but we are just asked to put up a large amount of money, and to put it up blindly.
The estimate we are now discussing runs into something like S600 million, and in Muskoka-Ontario we think that is a lot of money. I am sure the Minister of Reconstruction would not put any such proposition before any group of business men to whom he might be trying to sell business; and I submit it should not be put up to us in that way.
I remember hearing the hon. member for Macleod saying the other day-and I greatly regretted hearing him saying it-that we ordinary members were just ciphers, and counted for nothing. I hope that it is not going to be true. We are being asked to act and to vote large sums of money without the slightest idea of what we are doing. As has been already suggested, I suggest with great deference and respect that these figures should be taken back. I do not say this because I want to argue about S5 or $10 here or there, but because I feel that when I come to vote hundreds of millions of dollars I should be given some intelligible basis for why it is being done.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall we consider the
first item agreed to?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I waited until you rose, Mr. Chairman, hoping that the minister was going to reply to the many demands or requests that have been made in connection with this matter. I do not think the present situation is a new one. I believe it is connected with the situation raised during the last few days by the hon. member for Late

Centre and the hon. member for Kamloops. I think the present procedure is exactly in line with what they were complaining about. Like the hon. member for Macleod, I do not wish to be a cipher in this committee. I agree with what the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario said and I had the same thought before he voiced it. If this broad statement could not be given by one of the ministers of national defence, then I think it would be only a courtesy to this committee to tell us the reasons why a statement could not be made.
I do not believe the committee will be satisfied until the minister has considered that request. Everyone in the committee and everyone in the country knows it was a reasonable request. It is being commented upon from time to time by the press and I think it is time it was done. If the minister cannot make a statement he should explain why he could not give us a statement even in its more narrow aspects. This is a matter upon which the minister certainly can speak. I should like to refer briefly to some points upon which I have not been enlightened and upon which I think I should be enlightened if I am to vote sensibly upon these resolutions.
I have one short observation to make with regard to money. Along with other hon. members, I am concerned over the size of this vote, but I am concerned also about another fact. I want to know how much of this vote is for war purposes and how much will be used for a peace-time airforce. That is a very important matter. We are starting off with a great revolution in our airforce, and from the amount of money that is voted in the ensuing year we shall know what kind of airforce we shall have. The amount the government is providing this first year will give us a key to its intentions. We shall know from that what efficiency we may expect from our peace-time airforce.
Putting aside the question of money, I should like to refer to a few other things I expected to hear from the minister.	We
have been told that the airforce is going to be a force of 15,000 to 20,000 men. We got one little crumb out of his statement, that two of the eight Pacific heavy bomber squadrons are to be maintained. We are told that the remainder of the air force will be made up of bombers, fighters and transport planes. I do not suppose there is an hon. member who would not have knowm that even if the minister had not told it. Really all we know about this airforce, apart from the occupational force, is that we are going to have two heavy bomber squadrons. I hope

Demobilization-Air Services
we shall not leam of the specific size of our airforce from the newspapers to-morrow morning. We have not had it here to-night. So much for the specific size and the number of squadrons which give us some idea of what we may expect in the future.
There are many more matters to be considered. For instance, there is the question of policy. Is this force to be an operational force, plus a training force, or is it to be what it was before the war, a training force only? That is an important question and I am surprised that the minister did not tell us.
I go on again to mention a few other items. The minister mentioned the size of the regular force and told us there was to be an interim airforce for which people will be allowed to volunteer. This committee and the country want to know whether volunteers are coming forward for this interim airforce. We want to know the success he has had to date in getting recruits for this force, the name of which would drive away almost any recruit. It is a most unhappy name and I suggest to the minister that he change it.
Then we want to know if it is part of the policy to maintain a paratroop training field with the necessary aircraft suitable for that purpose. We have heard a great deal about the atomic bomb and we have heard about rocket and V weapons which are capable of shooting several thousands of miles. No one can say what the effect of that kind of thing will be. If I were charged with any responsibility in this matter I know that one of the things I would require would be paratroops who could be sent back to deal with the points from which these weapons are launched. That would be the best possible defence in the world against the atomic bomb or anything like that which might be in the hands of the enemy.
If we do not go on with paratroop training we shall be omitting one of the most vital things necessary in cooperation between the airforce and the army in any future war. I do not suggest that we have thousands of paratroops or that we have a large establishment, but I think the minister should give us some idea as to what arrangements are being made for th ecarrying on of this type of training. Perhaps he intends to discontinue it for a short time, and perhaps he can indicate to us that within ten months or a year it is the intention of the government to start again with this training.
The minister mentioned that the auxiliary airforce was to be set up again and I was pleased indeed that that is to be the case.
Many of us remember the auxiliary airforce that existed before this war. For_many years they used Tiger Moths, and it was only in the immediate months before the war that they had any operational type of aircraft. We should like to know from the minister how these auxiliary squadrons are to be equipped. Is preliminary training only to be given so that when war breaks out it will take months before they can become operational, or are aircraft to be supplied which are suited to their skills so that the force will be ready at once, as was the R.A.F. auxiliary during the Battle of Britain, to step right in and meet any threatened danger?
Before I sit down I would ask the minister to make a general statement upon this question, or if he would prefer it, although I do not want to do so, I would be prepared to ask him specific question after specific question until we obtain the information which I believe the committee is desirous of getting. I am not prepared to go on with any of these items until I hear from the minister as to the substance of this airforce and, as the hon. member for Muskoka^Ontario said, I am not prepared to go on in a complete and perfect vacuum. Here is a test of the charges that were laid at the door of the government the other day of legislating by order in council. Here is a request that they can easily grant, a request that commends itself to every member of the house. There are two ways of doing this business. One is to sit like an oyster and rely upon the majority to vote everything through. The other is the way which I am sure would commend itself more to all of us, namely, for the minister to stand before his peers in this house to whom he is directly responsible as the people's representatives and tell us what we wish to know, not because he must, but because he wants to take us into his confidence so that we may discharge our duties in an intelligent manner. I offer that alternative to the minister and I should be glad to hear from him upon the points I have raised.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman-


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I sat down expecting the minister to make a reply.


Colin William George Gibson: I would be very glad to reply now if lion, members would give me the opportunity.


Angus MacInnis: Before the minister replies, may I say that I think we are at cross-purposes. I do not see these estimates in the way that my hon. friends see them. I may be wrong, but, if so, I should like to be shown. That we are considering these estimates when the year is half-way through

Demobilization-Air Services
instead of at the beginning of the year is on account of the peculiar circumstances this year. If We were discussing these estimates last March or last April, we would have before us the estimates for a whole war year, and the government would give us-at least we would ask for it-all the material that was available to enable us to compare the expenditures this year with those of last year. When these estimates were prepared, if I understand aright, they were prepared for. a war year. But now the war is ended, and part of the estimates cover that part of the year when we were at war and the remainder are required for the demobilization period and for the maintenance of whatever forces may be retained after demobilization takes place.
What my hon. friends are asking for now is something that could be asked for with a great deal of force when the house meets at the next session, but it does not seem to me possible that they can reasonably ask for or get the information they have been asking for to-night, because I doubt very much whether in the United States or in the United Kingdom or in any other country governments have their plans completely prepared for the armed forces that will be required between now and the next war, which we hope will never happen, or that this government is in a position to know just what forces will be necessary to keep our share of the peace in the new international order that is to be set up. I think that is the situation.
I can see no great difficulty in dealing with these estimates. The minister can tell the committee what the expenditures were in the four months or so for which he has an accounting of the five or six months for which we granted an appropriation. As to the remainder of the year he can, in my opinion, give the committee only a fairly approximate estimate of what will be required for the demobilization of the forces that are to be demobilized and for the forces that will have to be maintained. I do not think we should play with this thing. It is too important. If we do play with it, we shall be kept here and be unable to carry on the work for which this parliament was brought together.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, there are two things to consider. There is the question of audit, and the question of the use of the airforce. In two days the session will have lasted a month. The discussion that has taken place to-night has been the most informative since the beginning of the session, and I congratulate all the members who have spoken. I congratulate the hon. member for Nanaimo upon his change of tone He is older in years than I am but younger

in parliamentary experience, and I may tell him that a speech like the one he made to-night will carry him much farther than his first speech in this house.
During the war I looked at the estimates and I was not satisfied with them. I spoke of that to some business men, who could not understand them. I had the support of my very dear friend the hon. member for Davenport, one of the pillars of the Conservative party before he became a Progressive Conservative.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I surely have not slipped since, have I?


Jean-François Pouliot: A pillar, a great man and a great explorer. Also my very dear friend the hon. member from Broadview, who has done more for the city of Toronto than any other living man. Those two hon. gentlemen supported my contention, and there were even editorials in the Ottawa Journal and in the Vancouver Sun to the effect that the views expressed by those hon. gentlemen were sound. What we suggested was that there should be a detailed account of the expenditures, and that simply because we were spending billions of dollars instead of hundreds of millions was no reason why we should not have vouchers. The point was, to build vaults if the ones which existed at the time were not large enough to contain all that stationery. The argument we made was that it was essential to the business of good government that everything should appear in the public accounts. Even though no one looked at them it was a protection, because those who handled the business would have known that anyone in this country, any man belonging to any party, could have found the details of expenditures in the public accounts. We carried on the fight; we were lone warriors- a Grit with two Conservatives-and we succeeded in getting something. I remember that one of the members for Lambton- Lambton-Kent, I think it was-asked the Minister of Finance if it was upon his suggestion that there had been a change in respect of the public accounts, and he said, "No; I am answering the member for Temiscouata." That is a long time ago. The hon. members for Davenport and Broadview and myself foresaw then what is happening to-day. During wartime very few members had the courage of their convictions about the public accounts. They forgot that the troubles we had in this country one hundred years ago about parliamentary government were on the question of dollars and cents; at that time it was pence and shillings. When it comes to public accounts there is not a citizen in Canada who has not the right to know how the money

Demobilization-Air Services
which comes from the taxes is spent. We fought that fight because we did not want parliamentary institutions to fall into disrepute; we wanted parliament to stand high in the minds of all Canadian citizens. That is the first point.
Of course the sound minds of so many gifted Canadians were blurred in time of war. Their conceptions of the true duties of a member of parliament were clouded, and they thought it was patriotism to vote money blindly. That is what happened. I do not blame the government for that; I blame the whole membership of the house, excepting a few, for having fallen so low through prejudice and passion as to forget the elementary duties of members of parliament. What the new members who were not parties to those debates and discussions are saying now is in fact an arraignment of the past. But they cannot blame the government for that. They may blame Arthur Meighen and R. B. Hanson and all the others who have been leaders of the Conservative party, just as they may blame the leaders of the Liberal party. But my hon. friends of the other groups cannot complain either, because they themselves fell in the trap. Was I not alone in denouncing from my place in the house a man who was connected with big business in Montreal, when he was running the Department of National Defence, and I said that he was a tool of international finance. My hon. friends of the Social Credit group, where were they? Discussing theories. They remind me of the fellow who drives his car and, seeing an obstacle in the way, instead of getting out to remove the obstacle and put it in the ditch, rises in his car and makes a speech to the obstacle: "O obstacle, disappear from my sight; let me proceed farther." They think their eloquence is so powerful that the log or stone will roll into the ditch. They are afraid to call a humbug by name.


Mr. FAIR:: The hon. member voted for the "obstacle", did he not?


Jean-François Pouliot: Pardon me. Oh, I will describe to my hon. friend the obstacle I had. He came from Montreal; he was a Social Crediter; he was running in Temiscouata county, and he spent half of his time in canvassing in a neighbouring county thinking he was in Temiscouata. His address is Holy Grace street, Ville Marie, Montreal. He went back to Montreal, and we have not seen him in Temiscouata county. But he lost his deposit five or perhaps ten times over; I do not know.
Well, now, hon. members see what it is My hon. friend who has just spoken is just as
gifted as are all the sons of Erin, the emerald of the sea, the island of the saints. But the question is not who is gifted. I concede that my hon. friend is more gifted than I am. But when I was carrying on that fight I was alone;
I was alone with two Tories.


Major James William Coldwell: That too is reminiscent of the emerald isle.


Jean-François Pouliot: We were fighting for responsible government, which dates back a long time before good Canadians were divided into Liberals and Conservatives. We were fighting for the principles for which my great-grandfather fought and voted, when he supported the ninety-two resolutions and afterwards helped Robert Baldwin after his fight in York to be elected in Rimouski. The principles for which my grandfather fought and my father fought are the principles for which I have been fighting. The question for me is not so much what happened in the past, but what is happening now and what will happen in the future. There is no use in crying over spilt milk. Everybody is responsible, and the important point is not to perpetuate the argument between those whom Swift-not Swift of the Canada Packers, but Swift the author- called the Big Endians and the Little Endians.
The minister now in charge of the department took it over after the conclusion of the war, and he inherited a very heavy legacy. I cannot understand why a greater tribute was not paid to Doctor Cyrus Macmillan, who was the back-bone of the department for air, for all the good which was done during the time that he was parliamentary assistant. A fine man, most unassuming and devoted to his task, he also honoured himself as chairman of most difficult committees like those on reconstruction and veterans affairs. He was making no noise but he was doing the work nevertheless. He was not alone, however, because there were others in the department, one of them in a swivel-chair, occupying the highest post, a group captain or a squadron leader. At any rate, he occupied the highest post although he was a man of no military training except for a Cook's tour of fifteen days in England. But he is the big bug of the department now, the nigger in the woodpile, an intriguer of the worst kind, a man of the old regime. I tell the committee, and the countiy will know to-morrow, that the big bug of the former regime is still the nigger in the woodpile in the air department, or one of them. There are eighteen million negroes in the Belgian Congo and I do not know how many there are in the woodpile of the department. But there they are and here we are, and they are flying everywhere, flying to files, flying to

Demobilization-Air Services
the doors, flying everywhere, but flying in Ottawa. And they are omnipotent. They decide about the length of the war.
It is my deep conviction that if the example of that great man who, although unknown in Canada, is well known in Europe, General Henri Guisan, the commanding officer of., Switzerland, has not been followed, there is a reason. What did General Henri Guisan do? In the month of August he decided to retire, because the war was over in Switzerland. But here it continued. It is impossible to get boys out of the airforce at the present time. There is one who was employed as a technician with the telephone company down home. He is sick; his health is bad. His family lives down there and he could be useful in the telephone company, but it is impossible to get him out of the airforce, where he does nothing, just on account of some commanding officer who wants to keep all his men around him to show how indispensable he is to the country. And we have to pay prebends to these parasites.


An hon. MEMBER:: Brass hats.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know whether he is a brass hat or not, but he is a parasite, and he is not alone. Here we see them in Ottawa, fellows with absolutely nothing to do, and girls who do nothing but who remain in the air force, because the number must be large enough to justify a continuance of the prebends to some big man, some big powerful man who has waged wars in Ottawa. They waged the war in Ottawa. Just before this war there were veterans of the South African war who were in office in Ottawa and who had waged also the first great war, and now they have been waging the second great war in Ottawa, not moving out of Ottawa. They do not travel on railways or in aeroplanes; they stick to their swivel-chairs. And they are heroes.
Well, sir, it is a serious matter, but there is a ridiculous side to it. Of course it is ridiculous to think of it. We are discussing two things at the same time. We are discussing the burden of taxation, but nobody uses the scissors in the right place to simplify our discussion. You know very well, Mr. Chairman, that so long as we have that large number of parasites in Ottawa and throughout the world-yes, I will say the world, because they are in Europe as well as in Canada-it will be impossible to reduce taxation. What struck me in the argument made by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario was this. Speaking as a business man, he said he did not understand the whole thing. I agree with him. I cannot understand it either.
[Mr. Pouliot.J
We are, all of us, complaining of the burden of taxation, and we have reached the point where the people will not be willing to suffer taxation as we did during the war, now that the war is supposed to be over. There is not the same incentive to continue paying taxes, although we shall have the same amount of taxes to pay on account of the expenditures, and that has no raison d'etre at all. The continuation of war expenditures for the sake of those who did not go to the war is incredible.
There are two classes of those who did not go to the war and there is one class that deserves less sympathy than all others. That is the class of those who did not go to any theatre of war but who thought it was their duty to send others there; and those fellows are heroes, mark you, because they remained here in Ottawa or Toronto or Montreal or Quebec city or Winnipeg or Vancouver. They were everywhere.


An hon. MEMBER:: And they got decorations.


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely, by sitting still in their swivel-chairs, and perhaps by turning a little. When they turned to the right they got a decoration and when they turned to the left they got another decoration, because they could not move, so that when they made the least move they deserved a decoration. At this stage of the discussion I challenge all my colleagues to defend the brass hats, but I do not think one will rise in their defence.
Now, sir, can it go on any longer like that? Is it possible for the Canadian people to continue paying taxes, the same amount of taxation, now that the war with Italy, Germany and Japan is over, just as when the war was going on? I cannot believe it. A very important thing was said to my hon. friend the member for Davenport, the hon. member for Broadview and myself, during the war when we were asking for more information, and that was, "Oh, it is a war secret." It was a war secret! Well, are there any more war secrets now in connection with these expenditures, now that the war is over? And these expenditures are the same, exactly the same as when the war was still on. No change was made in them because the brass hats made their calculations to stay as long as possible in office and to continue to be the hidden power behind the throne. That is all. It is no secret; everyone knows it. But does anyone dare to say it? It is the truth acknowledged by everybody, but nobody says anything about it because they may have a friend there or a cousin or an uncle or a brother-in-law; they may have a son; I do

Demobilization-Air Services
not know what, but they may have somebody close to them and they are afraid to condemn that silly practice, just to protect a few friends, or because they are afraid to speak. That is the point. The other day I was unfair to the hon. member for Royal; 1 was too quick. Sometimes it happens to me. I regret it very much, because I give him credit for being a faithful member of the house. Besides that I cannot forget that he helped me, along with the hon. member for Vancouver South, on the civil service committee. I do not wish to offend any hon. member. Sometimes when I use strong language it is because of the depth of my conviction.
But the time is coming in the very near future when there will be a readjustment of feeling and of mentality, not only throughout the country but perhaps in this house too. It will be the great divide. When I was sitting on the other side of the house I spoke of a union opposition composed of all the-elements who were opposed to some fellows who were intriguers of the worst kind and who have since been discarded. I give credit to the Prime Minister for having discarded them. But now, sir, conditions are very serious in this country. The people think a lot, and deeply so. They are worried; they are worried about the future; and they make a distinction between those who are Liberals at heart, whatever their label may be, and those who have not the same understanding of things. I will not say any more about it tonight, but if it is necessary, and in the very near future, something may happen to be the occasion of that adjustment. All party labels may be discarded, may be thrown into the wastepaper basket, and there may be a readjustment not on party lines but on beliefs, on beliefs in the future of this country.
What is the privilege of a member of parliament? It is to be free; it is to be free of all ocular powers in Canada as well as anywhere else. The freedom of parliament is the most essential thing in this country. I consider it so important that I am ready to pass over many things that may displease me so as to find some ways and means to cut down that nefarious bureaucracy to a nonentity. Will it be done? I do not know, but it is a hard task. No one who considers the future of this country may see it in pink. The future is not rose; it is not pink. It will be very hard. We shall have to have the spirit of pioneers to meet our task.
Each member of parliament who was elected on June 11 knew very well that the future would be hard, difficult and most strenuous,
and that the hills to climb toward prosperity in this country were very abrupt. It was done just the same. It showed that each member and each candidate-I pay the same tribute to the candidates who were running, except to the imports that came to Temiscouata from Montreal and Quebec city-most of those who were running, and each one of those who was elected faced the future. At the time of their nomination and at the time of their election they knew very well that we were pretty far away from some of the easy times we had known before the war and before the depression, the easy times that followed the first great war and until 1929; far from it. The future is hard, and it will require more courage on the part of hon. members to take the necessary steps to face the future for the benefit of this country than was required when they accepted the nomination sometime before June 11.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: It will take intelligence too.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend has it. I
give credit to the hon. member for Lethbridge. He is liked by all hon. members. It is not so much a question of intelligence as of character, of determination, and of patriotism. That will be understood only by those who will not be ashamed or afraid to call Canada their country, and to call it their own country in the first place, and who will be good enough citizens to be proud to be good Canadians.


Colin William George Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I may not be able to maintain the high level of debate that has been set by the previous speaker. There are some answers that I should like to give to points raised by various hon. members. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard asked me if I would give some indication as to what forces we were planning in the postwar period. I did not mention it before. It was not that I was trying not to put all my eggs in one basket when I made the report, but I do hesitate to make any definite pronouncement as to what our post-war forces will be, because obviously we cannot determine at the present time what we shall be required to provide. We do not know what international commitments we may have, and what those commitments may require from this country. But at the same time we are working on plans that are subject to change from time to time. In connection with the airforce we are planning at the present time on the basis of ten squadrons, of which four would be bomber reconnaissance, two fighter, three transport, and one photo. In addition
Demobilization-Air Services

to that, we would have communications flights and possibly some other small number of flights of other types of planes.
It may be said that that is not a balanced force. On the other hand we have the auxiliary squadrons that are being planned. That, too, is subject to change because it has been considered that any auxiliary squadron that is to function adequately must have a proportion of permanent force personnel attached to it in order to maintain and care for the aircraft which are on charge with that squadron.
I would hope to have at least in the neighbourhood of twenty auxiliary squadrons. They would probably be fighter squadrons, or equipped with fighter aircraft to a large extent, and, of course, trainer aircraft as well, which would mean that we would not need as many' fighter squadrons in our regular airforce in view of the fact that we would have fighter squadrons available from our auxiliary forces.
Then, of course, we have the reserve. I am not making any pronouncement as to what they will be called upon to do, or what we shall be able to do for them. I should like to see the reserve called up and given the opportunity for training each year. However, that is a matter to be decided in the future. I do not wish to be committed to any definite policy either as to auxiliaries or reserves until a considerably later day.
The hour is getting late, and I should like to mention again the question of figures, because it does not seem to me that some hon. members are clear as to what we have shown in the figures we have produced. As I said before, at the last session we got a supply vote of five-twelfths of the amount that had been voted in the previous year. All that money was not expended. While the five months supply that was voted amounted to 8453,876,000, the amount that was released by treasury board was 8325,985,039. All that amount was not actually paid out in cash, because a large amount of it is still on hand. But it was released by treasury board, and available to be paid out by the airforce.


Douglas King Hazen: Are the words "amount
already granted" as they appear in the first column of page 573 incorrect?


Colin William George Gibson: No. That has been granted by treasury board to the airforce; but that does not say that we have actually paid out that much money.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How much is on hand?


Colin William George Gibson: For the
four months the actual expenditure amounted to $196,965,237. But the point I wish to make clear is this, that there is no use in going on a month-to-month basis, and averaging out our expenditures according to the amount we have spent in five months of the year. I would suggest that hon. members, from the schedules I have placed on the table of the house, make a comparison of the expenditures or requirements for the year 1944-45 with the amount asked for this year.
In 1944-45 the actual amount was $1,090 million. This year we are asking for 8598 million, which is, roughly speaking, about fifty-four per cent of what was voted in the previous year. Consequently, that is the comparison which should be made, and not the comparison as to what we were authorized to spend in five months, or what we actually spent in five months; because it is the overall commitment for the year that gives the indication as to whether we are actually saving money or whether we are being extravagant.


John Bracken: What purpose is served
by the first column on page 551 of Hansard?


Colin William George Gibson: It just
shows the amount released by treasury board to the department.


John Bracken: It is no good to us.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: It just tangles us up.


John Bracken: I think every hon. member wishes to help the minister to get ahead with his estimates, to a point where he can give us whatever information he has concerning his expenditures. A short time ago some hon. member asked if the minister had the expenditures for five months in connection with the first item, and the minister answered. Then he said at a later time that he had the expenditures only for four months. I suggest that if the minister has the actual expenditures for four months he should give them to us to-morrow. Perhaps that is all he has and all he can give us.


Colin William George Gibson: Possibly
I can obtain them for five months. I have them with me for four months, and I shall try to-morrow to have them for five.


John Bracken: If the minister could give us that, perhaps that is all he could give us.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: 
Colin William George Gibson: The
increased fuel cost comes about solely because of methods which have been adopted for payment. During the time of the training agreements in Canada the fuel was being secured through lend-lease by Great Britain, and supplied by Great Britain as part of her contribution, so that we did not have to pay for it. Later on, there was a change in the method of providing fuel, and the cost of that item was consequently increased.
However, the actual consumption of gasoline in 1944-45 was 170,907,400 gallons. The estimated amount for 1945-46 is 66,278,800, showing a very great saving in the consumption of gasoline. The increase in that item is owing to the method adopted for payment.
That is why I should like to have the committee go through these items, one by one, so that explanations can be given in logical order. We would not have to go from one item to another and hop about without having full explanations of the various questions brought up. I should like to deal with each question fully when we come to each item.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: As I said before, items Nos 9 and 10 go together. That is why we should have extra information in a properly prepared statement. If the minister could prepare another statement for to-morrow it would help a great deal.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned,
without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, October, 5, 1945.