1945-11-01

[Stage Direction]
VANCOUVER, VICTORIA AND EASTERN RAILWAY AND NAVIGATION COMPANY; NELSON AND FORT
Sheppard and great northern

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved the first reading of bill No. 29 (from the senate) to amend the act respecting Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company, the Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Company and Great Northern Railway Company.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The first reading of senate bills is not debatable and there is no explanation to be given.


Mr. REID:: If they ask for it I am ready to give it.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Was a weather forecast bureau maintained in Halifax, Nova Scotia, during the years 1939-1945?	[DOT]
2.	If so, has bureau now been discontinued?
3.	Is such a bureau maintained at any point in the maritime provinces?
4.	From where are reports now completed and transmitted to the maritimes?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes, at the headquarters of the eastern air command, RjC.A.F., Halifax.
2.	No.
3.	Yes, at the commercial airport at Moncton, N.B.
4.	Reports are completed at the above centres and at Toronto and are transmitted twice daily.

Questions
Weather reports for shipping are broadcast twice daily from four Department of Transport ship to shore radio telephone stations located at Saint John, Yarmouth, Halifax and Canso, in the maritime provinces. This service will be increased in the immediate future by the inclusion of North Sydney, Magdalen Islands, and Cape Race, Nfld.


EXTRADITION TREATIES
Mr. JAENICKE:: 1.	What foreign states have extradition treaties or extradition arrangements with Canada?
2.	On rvhat dates were such extradition treaties or extradition arrangements laid before parliament?
3.	What extradition arrangements exist between Canada and any other part of the British common-wealth?
4.	As regards what foreign states has part II of the Extradition Act, chapter 37. R.S. Canada, come into force?
5.	What extradition arrangements existing between the United Kingdom and a foreign state extend to or are binding on Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	None.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	There are no extradition arrangements between Canada and other parts of the British commonwealth. The surrender of criminals as between parts of the British commonwealth is governed by the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881.
4.	Albania, Argentine Republic, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland France, France (Tunis), Genu any, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Rumania, Russia, Salvador, San Marino, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United States, Uruguay, Yugoslavia.
5.	Albania-July 22, 1926; ratified January 29, 1927; acceded to by Canada as from October 20, 1928.
Argentine Republic-May 22, 1889; ratified December 15, 1893.
Austria-December 3, 1873; ratified March 10, 1874; amended by declaration June 26, 1901; revived as from September 22, 1920 by Treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye of September 10, 1919. (This extradition arrangement cannot be said to be operative at present.)
Belgium-October 29, 1901, ratified December 6, 1901; supplemented by convention of March 5, 1907, amended by convention of March 3, 1911.
Bolivia

February 22, 1892; ratified March 7, 1898.	'	'
Chile-January 26, 1897; ratified April 14, 1898.
Colombia-October 27, 1888; ratified August 21, 1889.
Cuba-October 3, 1904; ratified January 10, 1905.
Czechoslovakia-November 11, 1924; ratified November 5, 1926; acceded to by Canada August 15, 1928; amended by protocol June 4, 1926.
Denmark-March 31, 1873; ratified April 26, 1873.
Ecuador-September 20, 1880; ratified February 19, 1886.
Estonia-November 18, 1925; ratified May 11, 192S; acceded to by Canada August 1, 1928. (This treaty cannot be said to be operative at present).
France-August 14, 1876; ratified April 8, 1878; effected by convention February 13, 1896, convention October 17, 1908, agreement re extradition (Tunis) December 31, 1889, agreement re extradition (Tunis) July 29, 1909, extended to Tunis by agreement December 31, 1889; amended by convention of October 17, 1908, applied to Tunis by agreement of November 26, 1909.
Greece-September 24, 1910; ratified December 30, 1911.
Guatemala-July 4, 1885; ratified September 6, 1886; amended by protocol May 30, 1914.
Haiti-December 7, 1874; ratified September 2, 1875.
Latvia-July 16, 1924; ratified July 7, 1925; acceded to by Canada September 18, 1928. (This treaty cannot be said to be operative at present.)
Liberia-December 16, 1892; ratified January 31, 1894.
Lithuania-May 18, 1926; ratified March 29, 1927; acceded to by Canada May 4, 1928. (This treaty cannot be said to be operative at present.)
Lyxemburg - November 24, 1880; ratified January 5, 1881.
Mexico-September 7, 1886; ratified January 22, 1889.
Monaco-December 17, 1891; ratified March 17, 1892.
Netherlands-September 26, 1898; ratified December 14, 1898.
Nicaragua-April 19, 1905; ratified February 13, 1906.
Norway-June 26, 1873; ratified August 28, 1873; supplementary agreement February 18, 1907.
Panama-August 25, 1906; ratified April 8 1907.
Questions

Paraguay - September 12,	1908; ratified
January 30, 1911.
Peru-January 26, 1904; ratified November 30, 1906.
Portugal-October 17, 1892; ratified November 13, 1893; amended January 20, 1932, ratified December 29, 1932.
Salvador-June 23, 1881; ratified November 8, 1882.
San Marino - October 16, 1889; ratified December S, 1889.
Siam-March 4, 1911; ratified August 1, 1911. (This treaty cannot be said to be operative at present.)
Spain-June 4, 1878; ratified November 21, 1878; amended February 19, 1889.
Sweden-June 26, 1873; ratified August 28, 1873; supplemented July 2, 1907.
Switzerland-November 26, 1880; ratified March 15, 1881; supplemented June 29, 1904.
United States-August 9,	1842; ratified
October 13, 1842; supplemented by conventions of July 12, 1889; December 13, 1900; April 12, 1905; January 15, 1917, as amended May 15, 1922; and January 8, 1925. (Ratified July 17, 1925; came into force January 5, 1926). To be superseded by extradition convention of April 29, 1942, (not yet ratified).
Uruguay-March 26, 1884; protocol March 20, 1891.
Yugoslavia (formerly Serbia)-December 6, 1900.


LIVERPOOL, N.S., PUBLIC BUILDING-FUEL
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Were tenders called and orders placed for fuel for the post office and customs building, Liverpool, Nova Scotia, for the fiscal years, (a) ending March 31, 1945; (b) the current fiscal year?
2.	If so, what prices were secured; were they by public tender or private purchase?
3.	With whom were orders placed, stating the quantity, grade, place of production, time of delivery, cost per ton delivered in building, and the total cost?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	(a) and (b) Yes.
2.	For each of the years referred to, tenders were invited by public advertisement for the supply of 40 tons of bituminous II" lump coal, the only tenders received being from the Inness Coal Company, Liverpool, N.S., at $11.17 a ton.
3.	Orders were placed with the Inness Coal Company for 40 tons of Bras d'Or bituminous II" lump coal, Little Bras d'Or Mine, Cape Breton, at $11.17 a ton, delivered and trimmed in bins, delivery to be made as promptly as possible. The total cost of coal supplied under order for each year was $446.80. An additional amount of 15 tons of coal required to complete the heating season of 1944-45 was purchased from the same firm at the same price.



VANDERHOOF-FOBT ST. JAMES MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	Was the contract for carrying the mail between Vanderhoof and Fort St. James given to the present holder after public tenders had been called?
2.	If so, when were tenders last called; were there applicants other than the present holder oi the contract; who were they, and what were the figures submitted by each?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Tenders due 6th November, 1936, for (a) semi-weekly service, (b) tri-weekly service.
The following tenders were received:
(a) For semi-weekly service-	Per Annum
Harold W. Smith, Fort St. James	
$520	($5 per	trip)Samuel Lee, Vanderhoof	
520	($5 per	trip)Warren Johnson, Vanderhoof	
550Harold M. Perisen, Fort St. James	
624Arnold Smedley, Vanderhoof	
624Albert Goglin, Prince George	
700Hudson's Bay Company, Fklmonton	
702(b)	For Tri-weekly service-Harold W. Smith, Fort St. James	
$780	($5 per	trip)Samuel Lee, Vanderhoof	
780	($5 per	trip)Hudson's Bay Company, Edmonton	
897Harold M. Perisen, Fort St. James	
936Arnold Smedley, Vanderhoof	
936Albert Goglin, Prince George	
950
Contract awarded to H. W. Smith for tri-weekly service at $780 per annum.
The frequency of service is at present six trips per week, for which payment is made on a pro rata basis.

Wartime Prices-Subsidies



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK-LOANS

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	How many loans have been made to date by the industrial development bank?
2.	How many of these loans are, (a) for $1,000 or less; (b) between $1,000 and $5,000; (c) between $5,000 and $10,000: (d) between $10,000 and $25,000; (e) over $25,000?
3.	How many of the above loans have been made to veterans of this war ?
4.	How many of the above loans have been made, (a) to individuals; (b) to companies?


Mr. MAYHEW:: The Industrial Development Bank is not a branch of the dominion government but a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada. [DOT]
Section 29 (1) of the Industrial Development Bank Act requires that "the bank shall, within twenty-one days following the end of each calendar month, make up and transmit to the Minister of Finance in such form as he may prescribe, a statement of its assets and liabilities at the close of business on the last day of the preceding month". This statement as at September 29, 1945, appeared in the Canada Gazette of October 27, 1945 and showed loans and investments, (excluding dominion government securities) at $871,752.60.
In addition, section 29 (2) provides that "The bank shall make up and transmit to the Minister of Finance at least once in its fiscal year or more frequently if so directed by the minister, in such form as he may prescribe, a classification of its loans and investments and of the loans guaranteed by it". Provision is made for the publication of this statement in the Canada Gazette following its receipt by the minister.



BOUCHARD AND CHERRIER PLANTS-EMPLOYMENT

Mr. LACOMBE:: 1. How many employees have ceased work since June 1, 1945. (a) at the war industries known as the Bouchard plant, in the district of Ste. Therese; (b) at the war industries known as the Cherrier plant, in the district of St. Paul l'Ermite?


Mr. McILRAITH:: Inspection D.I.L. Board
(a) to Nov. 1, 1945.... 2,768	590
(b) to Nov. 1, 1945.... 5.815	831



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On, the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: On Monday the Minister of Labour advised the house that he had forwarded certain proposals to the company and the union in the hope of achieving a settlement of the strike at the Ford Motor plant at Windsor. May I now ask if he is in a position to give the house a report on the situation in the light of his proposals, one of which was that the employees of the power plant return to their duties within forty-eight hours.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I have had no official or definite reply from either party to the dispute. I have been informed that the men's organization is meeting this evening to discuss and deal with the suggestions I made in this house last Monday.


John Bracken: Would the minister keep us informed as to the progress of the negotiations?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.



WARTIME PRICES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	,
Mr. KARL HOMUTH (Waterloo South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in view of the serious charges which appeared.in the press yesterday, made by Mr. C. C. Cardoza, relative to the administration of subsidies, and so on. These are very serious charges, and I should like to know if the minister is prepared to make some statement as to what is to be done. Is he prepared to refer these charges to the war expenditures committee or the public accounts committee? I think this is the time to make some statement.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I thought I would deal with those statements on the estimates of the wartime prices and trade board. If any hon. member wished to move that they be referred to the public accounts committee, the usual practice could be followed in that regard; or when the war expenditures committee is set up I presume that would be one of the matters that could be dealt with there. However, perhaps if I make a statement on the estimates the matter can be pretty well cleared up.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: This is a serious matter. These things roll on and on in the public mind, and they are too important to be allowed to go farther. I believe some statement should be made.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Never mind yelling "order" at me. I think the minister should make some statement.
Broadcasting


Mr. KNOWLES:: Will the minister consult with his colleagues as to the possibility of having the estimates of the Wartime Prices and Trade Board or those of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation called at an early date?
. Mr. ILSLEY: I think we had better follow the usual course with our wartime appropriation. If we start switching around I do not know that we will ever get through. We are making such slow progress on the war appropriation, now that I am very much discouraged, and I do not think we can advance items out of their usual order. I will look at those statements. I know something about the so-called charges that were made, and I did not think they were as serious as the hon. gentleman thinks they are. However, I will certainly be in a position to deal with them when I come to my estimates.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I desire to direct a question to the government relating to the business of the house. As you know. Mr. Speaker, for some years now, with the exception of a brief interlude, we have had a committee set up to review the affairs and consider the annual * report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We are now in the fortieth day of this session; under normal circumstances we would be perhaps half way through, at least.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Gordon Graydon: I am glad to hear those remarks from the government side.


Mr. CLAXTON:: What is holding us up?


Gordon Graydon: If you will bring down the right kind of legislation you will not be held up.
Mr. MACKENZIE. There is plenty of legislation on the order paper now.


Gordon Graydon: I was not directing anything to my hon. friend, but if he wants to get into this I am quite ready to take him on. During this session I have been surprised that the government has not made some move to set up this special committee on the C.B.C. There are matters of urgent and grave importance with respect to the affairs of that corporation which should be considered, and I suggest to the government that they do not lose a single moment in putting on the order paper a motion to set 
up this committee, because it has been delayed far too long already. I do not know how a committee of this kind can do justice to the work that will be involved by sitting in the fading days of a parliamentary session.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):	I would point out to my
hon. friend that we have now on the order paper a great deal of government business ready for consideration by this house. I would also remind him that the request to give precedence to the war appropriation came from his own party. We have on the order paper now resolutions setting up two committees, and it was in deference to the wishes expressed by my hon. friend's own party that we gave precedence to the defence estimates. I had that request made to me per-soaaliv by the official opposition. Now, sir, if it is the desire of the official opposition to alcer the programme I should be glad to consult with the acting Prime Minister and see if it is the wish of the house to stop wasting time as it has been wasted for the last two weeks with unnecessary questions. In my fifteen years of experience in this house I have never seen the government programme as far advanced as it is to-day on the order paper, but it has been held up by the loyal opposition.


Gordon Graydon: I did not direct my
remarks to the government with the object of having the temperature of the government benches raised to such a height as we have just witnessed, but. I say to the government we are surely entitled to at least have on the order paper a motion with respect to this committee. What may be done then is a different matter. My hon. friend, of course, is drawing a red herring across the trail as usual, but I should like him to remain in good humour while doing so.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: No, I am just drawing you.



ELDORADO MINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Financial Post contains an extensive article in connection with the investigation by special investigator Glassco into the affairs of the International Uranium Mining company, the Eldorada gold mines, and other firms. Will the Minister of Reconstruction say whether or not he will table in the house a transcript of the evidence taken by investigator Glassco, and also the findings, if any, in connection with that investigation?

Demobilization-Army


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: All I know about the investigation referred to is that certain questions arose as to past transactions between the- Eldorado Mining & Refining company, and other companies dealing in the products sold by that company. The relationship was not clear, and it was decided that full information should be obtained. Some three or four months ago Mr. Grant Glassco was appointed a special investigator to trace the relationship between Eldorado and the companies with which it was dealing. No report has been received from the investigator. In the meantime there have been a good many representations in the newspapers, most of which are wholly unwarranted. As soon as the report is received it will be considered by the government, and if public policy indicates that it should be tabled I can assure my hon. friend that it will be.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister did not answer my question with respect to the transcript of evidence, except that part of it the production of which may be contrary to public policy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Much of the investigation has no reference to evidence. However a few witnesses were heard in the early stages, and if it is of any interest I suppose I can get the transcript of evidence and table it. I have not seen it myself, but I shall be glad to ask if the transcript is available. If so I shall read it, and consider tabling it.



WAR CRIMES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. In view of the announcement made yesterday by the minister respecting the appointment by him of Colonel Peter Wright to act as defence counsel for Major-General Kurt Meyer, who is charged with guilt in connection with the killing of a number of Canadian soldiers in Normandy, I should like to ask the minister whether he would reconsider this matter and ask the authorities overseas if they will appoint a German counsel to defend this criminal.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: Oh, I don't think so.
That appointment was made after full consideration by Canadian military headquarters overseas, and unless some other reason is advanced for making a change, I think it
should stand. I am told that the British are following the same policy in the trials of which they have charge.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I think it is placing this
Canadian officer in a most invidious position.
I noticed recently that a German defence counsel was asked to act instead of a British counsel.


James Horace King: Order. The answer given to a question is not debatable.



WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, October 31, 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. Usley-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, a number of questions were asked yesterday to which I promised to give replies to-day. Perhaps I might first clean up those answers.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked me to advise him as to the number of sentences by courts martial . reversed on appeal by the governor in council or by superior military authorities. I .am au*i=eu by the judge advocate general that it would take a great deal of time to secure that information, and would necessitate going through all the records of the courts martial. It is pointed out to me that the preparation of this material would take a long time. I have no doubt it could be obtained, hut perhaps the hon. member would give some further consideration as to just how important it is for him to have it.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Coekeram) asked as to the number of men serving sentences in Canadian penitentiaries. At the end of October the number was 79.
The hon. member for Lake Centre also asked to have information broken down by provinces, showing the number of prosecutions of N.R.M.A. men for desertion. He asked how many of those men were tried by commanding officers, and how many by courts martial. I am advised again by the judge advocate general that it would involve a tremendous amount of work to get out the number tried by courts martial. It would be still more diffi-
Dernobiliza tion-A rmy

cult to get information respecting those tried by summary conviction, because that would necessitate going through part II orders for the whole country, from the first occasion upon which such prosecutions were initiated. Figures have been given as to the numbers of men in detention, but the work involved to supply the required answer would be so great that it could not be prepared before the committee rises.
While I am on the matter of sentences, the committee might be interested in having information as to what progress has been made by the board of review, which was discussed yesterday. My information is that up to the present time it has considered 436 cases. It has recommended the immediate remission of the balance of the sentences in 182 cases, remission at a later date in 216 cases, and that no remission be considered at the present time in 38 cases.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) or the hon. member for Lake Centre-perhaps both-asked for a statement as to the legality of confining soldiers in civilian prisons. I have a somewhat lengthy statement in this matter, and I am prepared to give it now. This is the opinion of the judge advocate general:
Under section 69 of the Militia Act, revised statutes of Canada, 1927, chapter 132, the Army Act for the time being in force in Great Britain and not inconsistent with the Militia Act, or the regulations made thereunder, applies to the Canadian army. Power of courts martial to award punishments for offences committed by persons subject to military law, is not restricted by the Militia Act or K.R.' (Can.) and section 44 of the Army Act therefore applies. By this section a general court martial or field general court martial or standing court martial may for certain offences under the Army Act award a sentence of penal servitude for not less than three years, imprisonment with hard labour or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years, or detention for a term not exceeding two years. A district court martial can award the above, except penal servitude.
By section 58 of the Army Act, where a sentence of penal servitude is passed by a court martial, the military convict shall as soon as practicable be committed to a penal servitude prison to undergo his sentence according to law.
By section 63 (1) of the Army Act, where a sentence of imprisonment is passed by a court martial, the military prisoner shall undergo the term of his imprisonment either in a military prison or in a detention barrack, or in other military custody or in a [Mr. Abbott.l
civil prison, or partly in one way and partly in another.
By order in council P.C. 4769, dated June 23, 1944, . where a sentence of detention is passed by a court martial in Canada upon a soldier or other person subject to military law as a soldier, the military prisoner may undergo the term of such sentence either in a military prison or detention barrack or in other military custody or in a civil prison, or partly in one way and partly in another; provided that no military prisoner so sentenced shall be required to undergo the whole or any part of such sentence in a civil prison unless an adjutant-general or a general or a district officer commanding or the commander of the camp under whose command the military prisoner is for the time being, so orders.
In so far as sentence of penal servitude, imprisonment or detention awarded by a court martial outside Canada are concerned, P.C. 1304 of March 4, 1944, provides that such military prisoner may be transferred or removed to Canada to undergo the sentence or the balance thereof in such place -or places to which he could have been committed to serve such sentence if he had been tried by a court martial and sentenced in any place in Canada. This same order authorizes such prisoner to be kept in military custody or in civil custody or partly in one and partly in the other, as the occasion may require, until he reaches the place in Canada in which he is to undergo his sentence or the balance (hereof.
An order of a competent military authority is under Army Act section 61 (1) sufficient authority for the committal of a military convict, so sentenced to a penal servitude prison.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that under an order in council?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, that is under section 61 (1) of the Army Act, Such an authority as defined by R.P. 126(f) may order the transfer of a military convict from military custody to civil custody, and vice versa, or order the release of such convict if his sentence is remitted. Similarly a competent military authority under Army Act section 66(1) may order the committal to prison or detention barrack, as the case may be, of a soldier sentenced to imprisonment or detention. It is to be noted, however, that a soldier sentenced to detention in Canada cannot be committed to civil prison except upon the order of the authorities set out in P.C. 4769 as referred to a moment ago.


Mr. BROOKS:: Are those for military
offences, or for both military and civil offences?

Demobilization-Army


Douglas Charles Abbott: For both.


The CHAIRMAN:: Before the committee proceeds I should like to make one or two observations.
When the committee commenced its deliberations it was agreed that we should have a general discussion on the army estimates, and that general discussion has been going on for three or four days. A number of hon. members have come to me and stated that they want to speak on particular items. They could discuss those items during the course of the general discussion but they preferred that we should get at the items as soon as possible.
The other observation I should like to make is that at times during the deliberations of the committee the discussion has evolved into a conversation between the minister and the member who has the floor. I would remind all hon. members that at all times they should address the Chair.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister one question on the information he gave us a moment ago. He gave us the* number of cases that were reviewed, but can he give the number of cases that are still pending?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot do it to-day. Where a sentence is over ninety days I am informed that it will be reviewed by this board. Perhaps the number of such cases is increasing from day to day. I shall get the figure and give it to my hon. friend.
While I am on my feet perhaps I can just clean up some of the other information that wnc acked for. A day or two ago the leader of the opposition asked for the cost of N.R.M.A. personnel. I indicated to him that it was being prepared, but it would have to be prepared on the basis of a per capita estimate. Here is the estimated figure for each fiscal year based" on per capita cost for personnel costs only:
1940- 41	 $ 7,234.465
1941-	42	
21,571,7561942-	43	
54.829.7531943-	44	
76.566.5061944-	45	
66.605,4181945-	46 (6 months)	
19,437,855
Finally. I think the hon. member for Mackenzie asked the other day as to the position of medical men in the army. The exact number is changing from day to day, but 252 doctors were released between V-E day and the end of September. During the latter part of September the average number going out each week was 26, and I have little doubt that average will be maintained or perhaps even increased during October. The information given me is that the ratio at the
present time is approximately 5-4 doctors per
1,000	overseas and 6-9 per 1,000 in Canada. That is varying from day to day.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with the statement of the minister, made in answer to my question, regarding sentences passed by courts martial, I was not in the chamber at the moment but I am informed that he said it would be impossible to secure that information, or difficult in any event.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Difficult, yes; it would take quite a while.


John George Diefenbaker: With the greatest deference, I find it difficult to understand that answer. There were some eleven or tw'elve thousand deserters, according to the figures given to the house, and the minister stated yesterday that there was uniformity of sentence but that no direction had been given that twenty-eight days should be ^sufficient punishment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I did not say that twenty-eight days should be sufficient punishment.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought the minister answered the hon. member for Bow River to the effect that no direction of that kind had been given.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not suggest that any direction had been given; I said that the minister stated that no direction had been given. Surely the records are available. They were available in 1944, and there was no difficulty in getting that information in 1943. The reason I ask for it is that I do not know how general the practice has become. The fact is that sentences of various lengths are imposed; then the man receives a medical examination, and he is found to be not physically fit, he is not sent to gaol at all. According to the deputy minister the reason is this: if the man's medical category was such that he should not serve a period of detention, his detention would only be an expense to the taxpai'er and therefore the best course to follow is immediate discharge, that being the most practical. Is that course being generally followed? I know it was followed in one case that I have in mind, where a man deserted in June or July, 1942, and was apprehended in May, 1945. He was given a sentence of six months. Then he got a medical examination and was immediately given an honourable discharge from the army and allowed to go back into civil life and do what the minister said yesterday should not be done-and I am not disagreeing with him-
Demobilization-Army

namely, take a position that should be available to the men who served in the armed forces and were discharged in the ordinary course. But this man is out in circulation. He has been discharged from the army; he committed a serious offence. Apparently this course is being followed in quite a number of cases, and the committee has a right to know how many. If it is being followed to any great extent it makes a mockery of all the regulations in connection with enforcement. It. amounts to an application of an official whitewash by the department, and has the effect of actually penalizing a man who has served overseas and is still kept over there, and who when he returns will find that positions have been taken up by men in the category I have mentioned. When the minister says he cannot give an answer-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not say I could not give an answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Or an answer such as was given on another matter, that it would *ake half a dozen stenographers so many lays-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I make this offer right now. If my hon. friend will put his question on the' order paper, or if it can be passed right now as an order for a return. I will give him the information as soon as we can, but I am' assured by the responsible officer that to secure some of the information my hon. friend asked for yesterday will mean going through every file. Perhaps we can give him in a more restricted form the information he wants, if that will satisfy him.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me restrict the information simply to this: How many men who were deserters since the month of January, 1945, have been apprehended? How many of these men have been tried by court martial and how many by the commanding officer, and in how many cases has the course been followed to which I have just referred-imposition of sentence, medical examination, the man found not physically fit. and discharged, because, as the deputy minister says, his detention in the army would be an expense to the taxpayer, and, as the army man-power requirements are not pressing, the man's discharge is the most practical action to take. That should simplify the matter.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Some of that information may be obtained very' quickly, but I am not sure about the rest.


John George Diefenbaker: This information is in Canada. The judge advocate general receives periodical reports, at the outside I believe once a week, from each military district, 
setting out the number of courts martial held during the week and the disposition made of the cases. In addition there is sent from each military district headquarters a summary of the orders for commitment signed by the officer mentioned1 by the minister as having power to sign such orders, and then the final dispostion of the case. That information should not be difficult to get.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But the record as to the disposition of the cases by the commanding officer is not in the records of the judge advocate general. The only place where the record of cases disposed of by the commanding officer is to be found is in part II orders, and my hon. friend knows that they would fill a room.


John George Diefenbaker: I will simplify it still further.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but I suggest, that if it can be done in accordance with the rules we could make his request an order for a return and produce the information as soon as we can. It cannot be produced within the time in which I hope these estimates will be passed.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not plead guilty to holding up these estimates. This is the first matter on which I have asked for information. I will make it simpler. So far as court-martial sentences are concerned they will be for a period beyond twenty-eight days.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not necessarily, but they probably will be.


John George Diefenbaker: Not necessarily, but surely you have some record of the number of men-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I meant that the sentence might be for less than twenty-eight days.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I see; but in the case of courts martial the sentence would probably be for more than twenty-eight days.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Probably. .


John George Diefenbaker: The number of cases in which the sentence would not be over twenty-eight days would be infinitesimal. If tried by the commanding officer the maximum sentence would be twenty-eight days. My question is this: How many courts martial have ta'ken place in each military district since January, 1945, in respect to absence without leave or desertion?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would have to get that
from the districts. I do not know whether they break the index of courts martial down.

Demobilizatio n-A rmy
I Could give pretty closely the number of courts martial in each district, but it would be a different matter to break them down between desertion, absence without leave and the one hundred and one other military offences.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think we should have any difficulty there. In a month there would not be on the average more than fifty courts martial, and it would not take very long to get the figures from January to October, so that we would have the information by military districts. Then we should know whether there is any truth in the suggestion that courts martial are not being convened.


William Ross Macdonald: It may take a day or two to get the information, but I take it that that will not prevent the committee from going on with the estimates item by item in the meantime.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Chairman, in view of
the ruling made yesterday by the Speaker, when on a question of privilege I referred to a statement made in this house by the hon. member for Temiscouata, I am bringing the matter up now in this committee. In order to make it clear what my complaint is, I shall have to read a few words from the speech made on October 30 by the hon. member for Temiscouata, in which he said, as reported in Hansard, page 1649:
I would remind my hon. friend of what an hon. member said one day from his place in the house. He said that a ship could not leave the port of Quebec because the whole crew was suffering from V.D. or some contagious disease like thaf Immediately the medical authorities of the port of Quebec wired to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services and stated that that was untrue. That is what was said right here in this house by the hon. member for Parkdale.
Why attack the province of Quebec like that? Why not give the people of Quebec a chance? We are not just French Canadians; there are some people in Quebec of British origin; there are Jews in Quebec, and there are people of various other races. It was a malicious and wicked attempt to deprecate the province of Quebec in the minds of the people of our sister provinces.
I assume that that statement was made because of a speech of mine in this house on February 17, 1944, reported in Hansard, page 593, in which I referred to a telegram I had received from one of my constituents expressing her anxiety because one of her sons was on his way to Halifax to jo-in the navy when she read a press report from Montreal to the effect that, venereal disease amongst the personnel had prevented the dispatch of a corvette from Quebec. As was discovered later,
she evidently made a mistake as to the port of dispatch, thinking it was Quebec when it should have been Halifax.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: You
did not advise her to verify it.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The hon. member has interfered with me before, and I ask him to keep quiet, please, until I have finished my statement. Later I looked up the report in the Montreal Star, and I found that it stated in its issue of February 15, 1944, that there had been a conference in Montreal on venereal disease which was attended by members of the various defence departments, including a member from naval defence, and amongst others Major-General Renaud, officer commanding military district No. 4, who made a statement in regard to the seriousness of venereal disease in and around Montreal for those who were passing through Montreal. Later in the day the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, Hon. Angus Macdonald, now Premier of Nova Scotia, made a statement, reported in Hansard, page 606:
The direct question was put to Doctor Kirk, the surgeon-lieutenant-commander, in these words: "Were any ships delayed at Quebec because of venereal disease?" To this question Doctor Kirk replied categorically, "No".
The minister continued:
I hope that this disposes of the suggestion, one which in a certain measure I regard as reflecting upon the navy personnel at Quebec. Jf.that was the suggestion, I hope it is disposed of'now. I wish to say that, so far as I know, neither at Quebec nor elsewhere has any ship at any time had to delay its sailing for the reason referred to in the telegram read to the house this afternoon by the hon. member for Parkdale.
When the then minister for naval services stated that neither at Quebec nor elsewhere has any ship at any time been prevented from sailing, for the reason referred to, he was in error, as I wag able to show by quoting an item from the Montreal Star of February 15, 1944-


Mr. POULIOT:: I rise to a point of order.
This is adding insult to injury.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: -which stated that on two occasions corvettes were held up at Halifax because of inability to sail as members of -the personnel were suffering from venereal disease contracted in Quebec.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I referred to [DOT]the question of venereal disease on another occasion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Come to the point.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I only wish to say this, that I made no reflection at all on the province
Demobilization-Army

of Quebec, but to a situation which was affecting all Canada, and referred to a report of Colonel Williams, the director of venereal control in Canada; and in that statement I complimented the province of Quebec on what they had done to deal with the situation, particularly in Quebec city, and expressed the hope that other parts of Canada would benefit from their example.
I therefore rise on a question of privilege, and I refer to standing order 41 of this house, which states that "No member shall . . . use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof." I say to the hon. member for Temiscouata that I take strong exception to the entire statement made by him on Tuesday last, and particularly to the words that-
It was a malicious and wicked attempt to deprecate the province in the minds of the people of our sister provinces.
I had no intent in any way to cast aspersions on the people of Quebec. I ask the hon. member to withdraw these offensive words, and I want them withdrawn unequivocally.


James Sinclair: I
should like to speak to this point of order if I may.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Parkdale rose on a question of privilege, and I think I was very generous in allowing him to state fully his question of privilege. Now he has asked an hon. member to withdraw certain statements which he made. I would remind the committee that the statements were made on Tuesday, October 30. Several days have intervened.


Mr. STIRLING:: One day.


William Ross Macdonald: It is now too late to ask to have the hon. member withdraw his statement. I would refer the committee to Beau-chesne, third edition, paragraph 261, page 107:
"The proper time for interference is when the offensive expressions are uttered, and not afterwards; and it may take place, either on the Speaker's voluntary motion, or on the call to order of the member assailed, or of some other member, or the general call of the house."
That is taken from Cushing, "Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, 1874."


Mr. FRASER:: That is long enough to go back.


William Ross Macdonald: That has been the rule all these years, and as chairman of the committee I would hesitate to change it at. this time. I think the rule has considerable merit.

The offence is supposed to have taken place upon the uttering of the words, from what the reaction was when the words were uttered, not what the reaction was after a person had had time to think them over. The fact that the hon. member was not in the house makes no difference. I must carry out the rules of the house, and say that I allowed the hon. member for Parkdale considerable time to set forth his question of privilege but I must rule that it is out of order for him now to ask the hon. member for Temiscouata to withdraw the statement.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: In view of the ruling of the Speaker of the house yesterday I was prevented from bringing this matter before the committee earlier.


William Ross Macdonald: I do not think the hon. member will gain anything from further argument; I have made my ruling.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Chairman, I appeal your ruling.


William Ross Macdonald: All right; I shall put the question. All in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair will please say "aye".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


William Ross Macdonald: All those opposed will please say "nay".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


William Ross Macdonald: In my opinion the ayes have it.


Mr. PEARKES:: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the minister and the committee will not feel that I am taking up too much time in making a few observations on matters which are referred to under several headings and therefore cannot be appropriately dealt with under any one of them. Furthermore, the points to which I shall refer were raised directly or indirectly in the minister's remarks of October 16, and were not fully covered then.
First I should like to refer to a series of signal stations which were established up in the Mackenzie River district immediately after the last war, and manned by officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Canadian Signal Corps. These wireless stations not only provided communication.between the northwest territories and the outside -that is, Canada-but offered a splendid opportunity to the men of the Royal Canadian Signal Corps to gain experience in handling a great deal of traffic.
During the early years of that operation I doubt whether it was at all self-sustaining, but as the settlers, miners and prospectors in

Demobilization-Army
the north became more accustomed to wireless, the revenue from those stations increased. But the point I am most anxious to emphasize is that excellent training was provided for the personnel of the Royal Canadian Signal Corps. To illustrate my point I have only to instance one or two officers who took part in those operations, and call attention to the success that they achieved during the war. I would refer to Captain Young, the first officer to establish a station at Aklavik, who remained in the arctic regions two years, has now risen to the rank of major general, and is the quartermaster general of- the Canadian forces. Other officers who were employed in that service were Major General Weeks, who has recently been recalled from England to do important work with the department here; Brigadier Genet, who was the chief army signal officer during the operations in England and in northwest Europe, and Brigadier Macklin, who is deputy chief of the general staff in England. Other men who were in the ranks in those days have been awarded their commissions during this war as the result of the experience they gained. I do not think anybody can deny that the experience which was gained by those men in the northwest territories was not only valuable to themselves but assisted this country during the war, and that the service provided a very useful means of intercommunication between the northwest territories and the central parts of Canada.
When this war came, further defence projects were undertaken in the northwest. We have the Canol project between Fort Norman and Edmonton, Fort Norman and Whitehorse. Then communication stations were established by the American signal service. Then there was the northwest staging route which ran from Edmonton through Canadian territories, Fort St. John, Whitehorse and on into Alaska. I pay tribute to a small detachment of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals who carried the load during the early days of the construction of the Alcan highway by sending all messages from Whitehorse to Canada.
As the defences were, increased on the Pacific coast it became necessary to enlarge the communications service in British Columbia, and the Pacific coast system of communications was established. There was a board appointed on which there were representatives of all the three services, and also of the various systems of communications then serving British Columbia, such as the British Columbia Telephones, the Canadian National Railways Telephones, the Canadian Pacific Railway Telephones and the government telephones. It was soon found that the
existing telephone lines were quite inadequate to carry the amount of traffic which was required. New lines had to be built into remote areas. I believe I am correct in saying that the sum of $12,500,000 was devoted to the purpose of improving those communications. Some of that money was spent in reconditioning such systems as the lines of the British Columbia Telephone company between Vancouver and Hope and between Victoria and Campbell River, and also a branch line running to Port Albemi. Other money was spent on improving, or one might almost say reconditioning, the lines of those other companies. In addition to the money which was spent directly by those companies, hundreds of soldiers were employed in clearing the right of way, digging telephone post holes, erecting the poles, and stringing the wires. The amount of money spent on material would have been only a very small fraction of the cost of reconditioning those lines and of building new lines into more remote areas.
I should like to ask the minister one or two questions with regard to this Pacific coast communication * system. Will he give to the men now in the Canadian corps of signals an opportunity to gain the same sort of experience by operating those lines which are now in the more remote areas that the men of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals gained when they were operating the Yukon northwest territory system? Can the minister tell us, perhaps not to-day, but when the item dealing with signals and wireless is brought down, the amount of money which was paid to the British Columbia Telephones in connection with this Pacific coast communication system, and which was spent in improving or reconditioning those lines belonging to British Columbia Telephones, which I have already mentioned, namely, Vancouver, Hope, Victoria, Campbell River, and the branch line to Alberni?
I should like to ask the minister also what arrangements have been made to dispose of the equipment following the cessation of hostilities. In this case it is not an arrangement which will be made by the War Assets Corporation, since I understand that an arrangement already has been made with the companies as to the manner in which the equipment will be disposed of within some period following the cessation of hostilities. Unless these companies are given some special consideration it is unlikely that they will be able to continue the service in the more remote areas. That service I know has been extended in northern British Columbia to such places as Prince George, Vanderhoof and Prince Rupert; from
Demobilization-Army

Williams Lake to Bella Coola, and in the northern section of Vancouver island running from Campbell River to the very northern point of the island. In addition wireless links have been established between the Queen Charlotte islands and Prince Rupert. If those services could be placed at the disposal of the settlers in the areas concerned I think we might look forward to the same development there that we have seen in the northwest. The fact that there is no communication in a remote area discourages new settlers from going in. These facilities have been provided, and I am very anxious to find out whether they will remain and whether they will be operated by the Royal Canadian corps of signals, thus giving the personnel of that corps the opportunities which proved so valuable when they were operating the chain of communications down the Mackenzie river. Although I cannot speak from any first-hand knowledge I believe there are similar lines in eastern Canada, at least one running along the north shore of the St. Lawrence river. Perhaps I could put these questions in definite form, as follows:
L Will the wireless stations in the Northwest Territories be manned in future by the Royal Canadian corps of signals, thus rendering a useful service to the nation and affording valuable experience as to conditions in the north to the personnel thus employed?
2.	Will these opportunities be extended to the northwest staging route, which is also an important communication line from a defence point of view?
3.	For what amounts were contracts let for the reconstruction of the British Columbia Telephone' line between Vancouver and Hope and between Victoria and Campbell river, and also to Port Alberni?
4.	What arrangements have been made for the disposal of equipment obtained by the Pacific coast communications board, now that hostilities have ceased?
5.	What arrangements are being made to continue the service in the more remote parts of British Columbia through which telephone lines were constructed for defence purposes? Can these systems be made available to the settlers in those areas? Will they be operated by army personnel if they are not taken over by civilian companies?
6.	Will the wireless link between the Queen Charlotte islands and Prince Rupert be maintained by the army, and will this service be made available for civilian uses?
This is an example of what I referred to in my remarks on October 16, when I urged that the post-war army should have an opportunity of being closely linked with industrial life so that the men of the permanent force would 
have a broader outlook on life than the majority of those in the permanent force had before the war started. I believe it is of the utmost importance that the personnel of the permanent force should be closely linked with the industrial and professional life of the country, particularly in view of the fact that in his remarks the Minister of National Defence referred to .the importance he attached to the reserve arm3r, which, though he did not actually say so, I understood would be the backbone of the army of Canada in the future.
Referring to the permanent force of the future, the minister intimated that it would consist of some 20,000 to 25,000 personnel. Would the minister explain what formations or units will make up that force? I do not mind whether he actually names the regiments which will be included, if he will give us an indication of how he arrived at the figure of
20,000	to 25,000, so that the country may have some idea as to the type of standing army it is intended should be maintained in the future. I think it may be extremely unwise at the present time to commit ourselves too definitely for the future, because we are entering into a new era, one which has been sometimes described as the atomic era. As was suggested the other day, it might be more advisable to spend money on scientists rather than on units, and it is important that we should know the pattern of this force which is to consist of some 20,000 to 25,000 men. Will the minister give consideration to the proposal I made that now is the time when we should set up an advisory board to consist of members of all the different services, and representatives of industry, the professions and science, to work out calmly and without haste the type of future army we should have, instead of committing ourselves at this particular time to any definite formations or types of units?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have taken a note of the questions my hon. friend has asked about the signal system and so on, and will endeavour to answer them when we are discussing item 6, which deals with signals and wireless.
I am asked to give a more definite outline as to how this permanent force will be made up. In my initial statement, as the committee knows, I stated it would number about 20,000 or 25,000. I am glad the hon. member agrees that it is a mistake to be too definite these days as to just how a force will be composed, or what type of formations we shall have. Present plans contemplate the formation of immediately available field forces which, pending a clearer definition of our future military obligations under any world security organization, will consist essentially of a brigade group

Demobilization-Army
augmented by two armoured regiments, one medium artillery battery, together of course with the usual administrative and training elements to assist the reserve army, including a coastal artillery battery on each coast, and a composite anti-aircraft battery. In addition there would be staffs, services and personnel for scientific development.
As some hon. members will probably know, the main element of that proposed brigade group would consist of headquarters, three infantry battalions, a field artillery regiment of three field batteries, an anti-tank battery and a field company of engineers, together with signals, medical and staff units, maintenance workshops and other essential elements.
Broadly speaking, that is the composition of the proposed permanent force element of our post-war army. As I said in my preliminary statement, that army will divide into two parts, a full-time permanently employed active force, and a part-time reserve organization which will reflect the military potential of the country and on present plans, as I said, will consist of a force of six divisions.
As the committee knows, this so-called permanent force will supply full-time personnel for training of the reserve army, including administrative personnel, adjutants, instructors and the like.
I am using the term "permanent force", although I believe I should like to get away from that term. I do not know that the names can as yet be accepted as settled. My preference would be the use of the terms "Canadian army, active force" and "Canadian army, reserve force." However that is a matter which could ut; uicscusstiLi in a. special committee on military affairs, if such committee were set up at the next session. I do not know that the names are particularly important. At the present time what I have set out might be accepted as a satisfactory description of our post-war army. It is one army-a Canadian army with an active force and a reserve force. I have said that I should like to get away from the term "permanent force"; there may be others who would like the use of that term continued.
Mr. PEARIvES: Will what the minister has set out be in addition to the occupational force?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, yes. AVhat I have been discussing is what might be called our proposed peace-time military establishment in Canada. Naturally in subsequent years that may be varied, but that is the plan as it stands to-day.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would the minister be in a position to name the units of that brigade group?	,


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I am not in a position to name the units, although I have indicated what those units would be. That is as far as I can go to-day.


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall not press the point. Would the minister be prepared to set up a commission such as I suggested, in order to review, in the light of modern developments, the type of defence force we would require- and not only as it would affect the army, because I do not believe we can separate the army from the navy and the air force in this connection.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be very glad to give consideration to the hon. member's suggestion. As the hon. member knows, the primary responsibility in a matter of this kind rests with the chiefs of staff. I shall be glad, however, to consider his suggestion.


Mr. CASE:: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe I could ask the questions I have in mind under any of the items which will be placed before the committee. Since coming to the house I have learned one thing, and that is that if one wishes to get answers to questions he will find that a committee is the best place to obtain them.
I was sorry to hear the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) speak as though we were wasting time, and when I look at the estimates before us totalling SI.068.170,527. I am more than ever convinced that his observations were ill chosen. Perhaps in the last few years this amount would not be considered very large, but as we appreciate more and more the fact, that we are supposed to be at peace we shall be more inclined to scrutinize more carefully the money the taxpayers must provide for the affairs of government. It will be noted that I said we are supposed to be at peace. I say that because I understand Canada is the only country in the world still at war. With whom, I do not know'. However, that may not be the minister's fault.
I think of Canada as a young country, which, in her short history, has enjoyed many great days. There have been some gloomy days-and I shall not refer to them as "dark days". But those gloomy days .have detracted from our country's glorious record.
I hold in my hand a copy of the Owen Sound Daily Sun-Times of January 23, 1945. What I am about to present to the committee, as I shall presently' indicate, could be taken as almost official, because it is closely related to a statement which I presume must have been released by the Department of National Defence.
Demobilizei lion-A rmy

In order to give the statement some official status there was included in this advertisement the portrait of the then minister of national defence, General McNaughton. The advertisement is headed in this way: "Now it can be told"-and I would assume that the inclusion of the portrait with the statement indicated an appreciation of or a pride in the results which had been obtained. It will be noted that the statement informs us that 8,300 draft troops were at sea, on the way to the fighting fronts, and that another 6,300 draftees were in the bush, and that they were going to be rounded up and sent overseas.
This brings me to an important question- because after all, I have always been anxious to know how those troops got along in the bush. I know the winter is said to be a good time for bush-whacking, while in the summer the black flies will drive a person out. How many of the 6,300 are still at Grge? I should like to relate the answer to this advertisement which was published upon the authority of the North Grey Liberal association. Further, how many have been apprehended, and what type of punishment was meted out to those who were apprehended? How many in this group of 6,300 have been charged with desertion, or listed as deserters?
I should hope I might be able to have an answer to these questions. I do not think they are too involved, because it would seem that the draft to which this advertisement referred was being kept pretty closely in check. *


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think it is evident that I have not those figures at my fingertips. A considerable amount of information was given last April. I can give the total figures for absentees and deserters by months right now, and perhaps that would give my hon. friend a large part of the information he is asking for. As to the punishment meted out, I shall have to reply to Him in the same way as I did to the hon. member for Lake Centre.
I have undertaken to give him what information can be given, and I imagine that that will cover the question of the hon. member for Grey North as well.
I shall give the total number of absentees and deserters at stated intervals during the years 1944 and 1945. They are:
January 1	 12.194
February 5	 12*427


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Are those the number of deserters per month?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, this is the cumulative total. If he will follow it along he will see that jumps occur in certain months.

1944-March 4 April 1 May 6 . June 3 . J uly 8 .
11.374
11,180
10,773
10.644
10,779
The committee will note that the low point was in June, 1944, when there were 10,644.
August 5 .. September 2 October 7 . . November 4 December 2 December 30
11,113
11.361
11,591
11.678
11,843
12,650
January 27	 20,506
February 28	 18.943
March 31	 18,606
April 28	 18,898
May 26	 18,813
June 30	 18,621
July 28	 18.769
August 31	 18,579
During the period from January 1, 1944 until August 31, 1945, some 47,999 absentees and deserters respecting whom MFB 483's have been issued were apprehended. That is the statistical information I have as to absentees and deserters, with the exception of the information as to those under N.R.M.A. who are serving sentences. I could put that on the record if the committee wants it.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: It would appear from the figures given that the two-army system, particularly when they were called upon to serve outside Canada, is responsible for the sharp increase in the number of absentees and deserters.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, that is a pretty fair assumption, that the notification to proceed overseas was the cause of the sharp increase in December 1944 and January 1945.


Mr. AVHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: I am sure the members of the committee have been interested in the information just given as to the units and formations of the future permanent force or the future Canadian army. When the minister made his statement, as reported on page 1136 of Hansard, he referred briefly to the proposed future organization of the reserve army. I was very glad indeed to hear the minister say to-day, in reply to a suggestion of the hon. member for Nanaimo, that a review would be made by members of the various branches of the armed services and other persons. That suggestion is set out in more detail by the hon. member, as reported on page 1181 of Hansard.
I hope when the minister does make an announcement as to the future -reserve army he will assure the house of one thing, that our

Demobilization-Army
future reserve army will be maintained and conducted on a most efficient basis. We are all familiar with the methods that were adopted in the past, and we all know of the training, equipment and other matters in connection with reserve army that obtained between 1919 and 1939. I think it is safe to say that during those years all military forces *were starved. During that time in this very chamber various attempts were made by pacifists and others to have our military expenditures reduced to a dollar. Perhaps it was political expediency and the necessity to search for votes, but during those years apparently there were some who had little regard or consideration for the future defence of this country.


Mr. PROBE:: How did the Tories vote on that?


George Stanley White: The hon. member can make his speech after I have finished.


An hon. MEMBER:: There were no pacifists among the Conservatives, anyway.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I again remind members of the committee that they must address the Chair.


George Stanley White: If the hon. member who has just asked a question would care to look up the records for those years he will have no difficulty in finding to what party the members who made those motions to reduce the estimates belonged.
The officers and men who had the interests of the militia at heart during the years 1919 to 1939 received very little encouragement, either from the public or from National Defence headquarters. I think it is only fair to pay a tribute to those men, because great credit is due them for holding their units together, even on a skeleton basis. The pay was very small, and any officer who maintained his connection with his unit had to pay many of the expenses out of his own pocket. ^The equipment supplied was often quite poor, and there w'as little assistance from the public. It was often quite difficult to get recruits. For example, the tendency in those years was to have the grants for cadet training reduced. All this hindered and hampered the non-permanent active militia. In many cases the unit was scattered over one or two counties, and no consideration was given to the payment of travelling expenses incurred by the men and officers who had to travel some distance to take their training. In short, it appeared during those years that every possible hindrance and obstruction was
being placed in the way of Canada's having an active and efficient non-permanent active force.
In 1939 war broke out. The number of men in the permanent force was quite small, and practically all of them were engaged in administrative or instructional duties. All that Canada had was a non-permanent active militia, and yet in record time the units that were ordered to mobilize were able to recruit up to strength. The officers used their skeleton staffs and were able to achieve this result. Officers, N.C.O.'s and men who had obtained some training or had attended courses under the non-permanent set-up proved to be the backbone of our army m the early days of 1939.
We all recall the great lack of qualified instructors in the early days of the war, and I think that due credit has never been given to those officers, N.C.O.'s and men of the nonpermanent active militia who did so much in the early days of the war to start building up our magnificent Canadian army. The nonpermanent active militia units which were instructed to mobilize and form various Canadian divisions were able through their second battalions to keep a steady stream of partly-trained reinforcements enlisting for the active arm}'.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that most of this is past history, but it is important to learn at least one small lesson from our neglect of the reserve army between the two wars, and to point out how easy it will be in the years that lie ahead again to slip back into the same inefficient conditions that existed after the last war. For Canada to maintain a permanent force and a reserve army along the lines outlined by the minister will cost considerable money, and I venture to say that in time there will be attempts made to pare and chisel down the estimates for both the permanent and the reserve army.
When the minister considers the set-up for the reserve army I hope he will keep in mind one matter which is of great importance to the soldier, and that is the question of pay. In the reserve army, in between the two wars, when a man went to camp with his unit he received very small pay. In many cases he was making a financial sacrifice which he could ill afford. I suggest to the minister that there be some extension of the time spent in camp each year. Under the old system of two weeks' training in camp, one day was spent going to camp, another day returning home, one day in getting settled, a day of sports, a day for general inspection, and at least one or two days when wet weather
Demobilization-Army

interfered with training plans. Thus few days were left for training. As the minister well knows, outside of the larger centres, the men in these rural units have their platoons and companies scattered throughout the smaller towns and villages.
As to equipment, I was very glad to hear the minister say that there would be no shortage of the finest and best equipment for the reserve army in the future. I am sure that the minister realizes that one of the best and easiest ways of interesting young men in the reserve army of the future is by assuring them of proper training with the finest and most up to date equipment that is available.
I suggest further to the minister that much could be done in the various armouries in the way of sports and recreation and club activities during the winter months, all of which have a tendency to hold the unit together and prove of interest to the men. If the reserve army is made attractive, the minister will have no difficulty in attracting to the various units many officers, N.C.O.'s and men who have served in this war, officers and men who will be a credit to the unit and who by their interest and their experience will be the means of bringing our reserve army up to a very high standard of efficiency.
I suggest to the minister that he give most serious consideration to the matter of promotions for both officers and men in the reserve army. In the past, promotion has often been very slow, and as a result the unit often lost many capable men. I do not know what the present educational standard of the department is before a man can be recommended for a commission. I know that it used to be that the candidate had to have at least junior matriculation. If that is still the standard, I hope the minister will consider whether, there should not be some lowering of that standard. I should like to cite to him the case of two N.C.O.'s who belonged to the Hastings and Prince Edward regiment prior to 1939. Both enlisted in September, 1939, and proceeded overseas in December, 1939. At the date of their enlistment neither of these two men had attended school beyond the fourth book; yet both were recommended for commissions after they had been overseas for some time, and both qualified and both went through long periods of heavy fighting. Both gained for themselves a very enviable record. One has recently returned home with the rank of major and a decoration, and the other is now a captain serving in the army of occupation. It seems to me that men who show the ability to handle men and have initiative and a keen interest in military affairs should not be penal-fMr. G. S. White.]
ized and deprived of promotion and the advantage of taking an officers' course simply because during their school days they were not fortunate enough to have obtained a certain educational certificate.
In making his statement the minister said at page 1136 of Hansard:
It is intended to assist commanding officers of reserve army units in the training and administration of their personnel by providing for each unit full time (active force) officers and other ranks on an adequate scale.
I take it from this that each reserve unit will have a permanent full-time administrative and training staff. If that is the correct interpretation, I wish to congratulate the minister, because, as he probably realizes, the administrative side of the unit is most important, and in many cases it has been found almost too much for an officer on part time to handle.
I think the minister will agree that there are many features about the reserve army as it has been constituted in the past and is now constituted that could be improved upon. I hope that he will not altogether follow the present pattern of organization of the reserve army, for, after all, the methods and the organization that we had in 1939 are hardly suitable for 1945 and the future, because science and mechanization have changed the whole picture.
I suggest to the minister that our whole future defence policy be very carefully planned before he adopts any plan for our future reserve army. I hope the minister will not miss this opportunity to reorganize our reserve army on a basis that will provide properly for our future defence and that in the reorganization he will make the reserve army attractive to thousands of men who have served in the armed forces during this war.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thank my hon. friend for his very valuable contribution. He has made a number of most useful suggestions, and I can assure him that they .will receive careful consideration. The question of the reserve army and the changes which will be made is still one that is very much open. As I indicated in my statement, it is proposed to consult the various defence associations with respect to it. I agree that there is plenty of room for improvement in the reserve army, as in most other things, and we welcome suggestions from any source, particularly from one who, like my hon. friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough, had extensive experience in the reserve army before the war.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Mr. Chairman, one of the very first things that we have to decide in this house on all sides is whether or not we

Demobilization-Army
are prepared to back plans for the defence of Canada. It becomes almost unbearable to sit and listen to a number of Progressive Conservative members such as one of .their financial experts who in a speech on the floor of the house this year indicated the most dismal outlook with respect to financing the future defence of Canada. There is not the slightest idea or concept of any new way of financing the expenditures necessary to maintain an adequate armed force in Canada. I believe it would be a very fine thing if our Progressive Conservative friends would, devote their attention to this matter of where the money would come from. If once they will settle that, I do not think there will be any doubt at all about the minister bringing in a programme to build up as fine a defence force as we all desire. Canada has proved herself beyond peradven-ture able to produce all the goods and services and all the men and women necessary to provide the kind of fighting force which this country needs to discharge her responsibility in the dangerous times which lie ahead in the next few years. But Canada's leadership has not shown that it knows how to find the money with which to use those resources and those men and women. There is where the difficulty lies.
I .wish to ask the minister one or two questions about another matter. If we are to have a permanent force-as we are-it becomes necessary that we make conditions just as good for that force as possible. It was conveyed to me in a letter the other day that in the permanent force which was in Canada before the war the number of men permitted to marry was limited. I wonder if that is true. I am told that no more than about fifteen per cent of the permanent men were permitted to marry. Is that true?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I believe that is correct. I believe there was a married establishment; I do not know just what it was.


John Horne Blackmore: Then I think the minister will be the first to recognize that the condition which obtained was unsound. If there is anything we want in Canada, and want desperately, it is babies, and we want them right away. At the present rate of falling off of the birth rate in the Anglo-Saxon world it is going to be under an exceedingly difficult handicap in twenty-five years to meet its potential foes. We may just as well face that fact; and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if hon. members are not prepared to face that fact and take whatever measures are necessary to meet the situation, they will be in large measure betraying their trust. Certainly if, when we take a considerable number of our young men and put them
in our permanent force, we impose such conditions that they are unable to marry, we shall be defeating one of the objectives we ought to have. May I suggest to the minister that measures be taken to permit those who desire to marry so to do, notwithstanding that they are in the permanent force, and furthermore, that adequate measures be taken to enable them to support a family while they are in the permanent force.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister reply?


Gordon Graydon: 
Douglas Charles Abbott: I will look into that matter. It came up last session, and at that time I gave some information about it, but the matter has left my memory at the moment so that I shall have to find out what the situation is and give my hon. friend an answer later.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: I should like to add just one word in support of the plea advanced by the hon. member for Peel in behalf of Canadian nurses who served in South Africa. I am not certain on one point, as to whether or not they were in Canadian uniform at the time the advertisement appeared asking for nurses for South Africa. I recall the debate of last session, introduced, I believe, by the then hon. member for Kootenay West, who was supported by the hon. member for Westmorland. I took part in that debate and gave my support at that time, so that I do not desire to take the time of the committee in repeating what was said then. I simply wish to support the hon. member for Peel on this occasion.


John Oliver Probe: I wish to ask a very short question. On June 11 of this year an order in council was published, P.C. 262/3859, certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of treasury board approved by His Excellency the Governor General in council on May 30, 1944. In this order in council the treasury 47696-109
board, under and by virtue of the War Measures Act, recommended increases in mileage allowance rates which might be paid for the use by government employees of their personally owned motor cars on public business, effective June 1, 1945. I have been trying in my small way to get to the actual meat of these military estimates, and I should like to lead off with a question in regard to this order in council which increased the mileage allowance paid to government employees for the use of their personally owned motor cars, under the first item dealing with civil salaries and wages.
In this order in council it is stated that there is to be an increase of two cents a mile throughout the entire schedule, which is in three parts. The first is for frequent or constant use in the foothills of Alberta and the mountainous area of British Columbia, where the increase is from nine to eleven cents a mile for the first four thousand miles and from eight to ten cents a mile over four thousand miles. The second is frequent or constant use elsewhere in Canada, where the increase is from seven to nine cents a mile for the first four thousand miles and from six to eight cents a mile over four thousand miles. The third is for use within the area of the official station where such use has been specifically authorized by council, where the increase is from five to seven cents a mile.
As far as I am aware there has been no excessive increase in the cost of petrol or in the usual running expenses of automobiles. This order, which was dated June 11 of this year, came at an inopportune time from the point of view of increasing the allowances paid to civil servants. I wish to ask specifically with respect to the military or civil employees of the Department of National Defence: how many employees in each of the three groups mentioned above have received this rate of allowance since June 1?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can answer that question quickly. The deputy minister advises me that the order in council to which my hon. friend refers is not applicable to the Department of National Defence (Army).


John Oliver Probe: No employees of the Department of National Defence, civil or military, have received this increase?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There may possibly be a few civil employees, but the deputy minister tells me he had not heard of that particular order. It is for the ordinary civil departments of government.

Demobilization-Army


John Oliver Probe: Then may I have the names, the appointments, the places of employment and the mileage allowances paid to any employees of the Department of National Defence (Army) from June 1 to October 1 of the current year ?


Douglas Charles Abbott: <If there are any we will give that information.


William Ross Macdonald: Can we now proceed with the discussion of the estimates according to the items; and shall we consider that the committee is now on item 1, civil salaries and wages?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pay and allowances, $474,976,990.
Mr. COCKERAM:: In the minister's statement to the house some days ago he said that
100,000	men had been demobilized and that in this regard there was a saving of approximately $12,000,000 a month. Six months of the period still remain, which would mean a saving of $72,000,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year. The reduction in this item amounts to only approximately $35,000,000. Will the minister explain that, because when we are voting these sums 1 believe they should be cut down if that can be done.	'


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be very glad to give an explanation of this item. The estimate for this year as compared with the estimate for last year shows a net decrease of $72,279,071.


Alan Cockeram: But it is only $35,000,000 under the actual expenditure.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That may be; I have not checked that figure. The net decreases in pay and allowances in this year's estimates total $119,508,072. Those decreases are offset by certain estimated increases totalling $47,229,001, making a total estimated net decrease of $72,279,071, the figure I mentioned a moment ago. This is the way in which those increases and decreases are estimated. First, the reduction in the over-all strength of the army, including active army establishment personnel, casualties, N.S., C.W.A.C., reserve army and C.O.T.C. personnel totalling 66,030 man years for whom pay, trades pay and interest on deferred pay are estimated at $83,029,384. The committee will appreciate that the estimates must be based on average man years served during the period, for the men are not all demobilized at once and it is an average over the twelve months period. The second decrease is the reduction of 44,325 active army male personnel drawing dependents' allowances, totalling $33,288,183. The third reduction is in miscellaneous other allowances, totalling

$3,1^0,505, making up the total net decrease I mentioned, $119,508,072. The increases which are offset against that total net decrease are as follows. An increase of 2,246 in the estimated total number of army personnel on subsistence, based on present actual strength on subsistence, for whom no provision is made for food and accommodation but for whom subsistence allowance is estimated at $1,588,201.


Alan Cockeram: What is the reason for that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We are vacating a considerable amount of accommodation, where we have personnel in barracks. Where we are able to accommodate them we house them and feed them. For instance, in Toronto we have had to move a number of personnel, chiefly C.W.A.C. personnel, out of buildings to make those buildings available for civilian use, and we have had to put such personnel out on subsistence.


Alan Cockeram: Why I asked that question was-


Douglas Charles Abbott: If iny hon. friend would just let me finish-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. May I remind the hon. member for York South that questions ipust be addressed to the Chair, rather than to the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If I might just give a summary of the decrease, perhaps supplementary questions could be asked. The first item is one for about $1,500,000 which we estimate will be needed for increased subsistence allowances.
The second is paid to officers for civilian clothing allowance on discharge, under the terms of P.C. 2007093, dated September 13, 1944, estimated in respect of 21,250 officers discharged; the amount is $2,125,000.
The third item-and this is the big one- is for the increase from $65 to $100 in the civilian clothing allowance paid to other ranks on discharge, under P.C. 2007093, dated September 13, 1944. There is an estimated increase of 193,734 in the total number of other ranks discharged. That item comes to $27,974,650. This figure gives the committee an illustration of what it has cost to increase the civilian clothing allowance from $65 to $100.


Alan Cockeram: What is the number of men referred to?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The estimated increase of 193,734 is purely an estimate. But we estimate that that is the increased amount which will be paid during the year because of the increase in the civilian clothing allowance.

Demobilization-Army


Alan Cockeram: That is the number of men.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is based on the number of men, yes. It is estimated that there will be 193,734, and one multiplies that by $35.
Then there is an estimated total increase of 200,699 army personnel discharged, for whom the increased rehabilitation grant is estimated at. $15,101,412, and there is provision for miscellaneous allowances, grants to bands, libraries and the like, to officers messes, entertainment allowances, compensation for loss of kit, and the like. There are a number of incidental matters of that kind for which the amount of $439,738 is set, making a total of $47,229,001 in estimated increases. Deduct that amount from the estimated decreases which I have mentioned, and we find the total net decrease in the estimate is $72,279,071.


Alan Cockeram: I was wondering why the C.W.A.C. cannot be accommodated in camps.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I just mentioned that
example. These personnel happened to be doing work at headquarters in Toronto. Perhaps they could be accommodated at camps up at Camp Borden, but they have to be reasonably close to the buildings in which they are working. That type of personnel are performing clerical work in the depots in district headquarters at Toronto, at the demobilization centre. I used that only as an example, but the same applies elsewhere. They must. be housed reasonably near the places in which they have to work.	[DOT]
In most instances in the past we have heen able to accommodate them in barracks. Might I add that I had a long discussion with the mayor of Toronto only a few days ago with respect to vacating a number of premises occupied by C.W.A.C., to make them available. To do this necessitates putting them out on subsistence. I can assure the committee, however, that this is not done unless it is felt it is in the general interest to make the accommodation available for more urgent needs. Of course they will be demobilized as quickly as their services can be spared. That is the explanation as to the first item.


Alan Cockeram: I could not reconcile the figures the minister gave in respect of the estimate for 1945, and the expenditures for that period. In the statement we have here the estimates for 1944-45 were $547,256,061. The actual expenditures were $509,642,530. The minister gave a figure much higher than that, but he gave his figures so rapidly I was not able to write them down. I think the actual expenditures do not agree with the figures I have before me. '
47696-109J


Douglas Charles Abbott: The actual expenditures for 1944-45, as shown on the sheet which has been distributed to the members, were $509,642,530, as against estimates of some $37 million or $38 million higher than that. The estimate for the present year, as shown on the sheet, stands at $474,976,990, or a reduction from last year's estimate of $72,279,071, and a reduction from the actual expenditures of-


Alan Cockeram: Of $35 million.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, if someone will do the subtraction he will get a figure of about $35 million, yes.


Alan Cockeram: This number of 193,734 for which the minister is allowing $35 each is, I understand, the estimated number of men who will be out of the service by the end of the fiscal year. Is that so, or is it the number of men actually out of the service for the fiscal year, up to date?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the estimated
increase in the number we will discharge during the year.


Alan Cockeram: The actual number discharged now is in excess of 100,000?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think that is correct, yes.


Alan Cockeram: That means the department will not be demobilizing men in the next six months at the same rate as it has demobilized them in the last six months.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would not say that, no. I hope we may be able to do better than those figures. This estimate was prepared in September. It depends upon how rapidly we can bring them back from overseas and upon many other factors. We are not held to this estimate, so far as the rate of discharge is concerned. If we do better, then the estimate will be just that much more.


Alan Cockeram: How many men are actually employed in defence headquarters and in local district headquarters; and is there any reduction in the strength of those headquarters at the present time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; I cannot give my hon. friend the information offhand. However, it was given in an answer made a week or ten days ago, and I believe the answer was quoted the other night by the hon. member for Regina City (Air. Probe). Of course the hon. member will realize that I cannot carry these figures in my head.


Alan Cockeram: I understand that, of course. My point is that there is a great reduction in army strength, and it is estimated that before the end of the fiscal year there will be a reduction of approximately 200,000. or about fifty per cent of the force will be demobilized.
Demobilization-Army


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should say rather more than that-either out, or on their way out.


Alan Cockeram: Therefore I suggest there should 'be some reduction in headquarters staff throughout the whole dominion. One thing that has struck me since I have been in Ottawa is that I have seen more lieutenant-generals, major-generals, full colonels and lieutenant-colonels than I have seen in the eight years in which I have actually worn a uniform. I suggest that there should be a cutting down of the higher ranks, if we are to demobilize many in the lower ranks.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I agree with my hon. friend. I admit we have gone pretty strong on generals in this war. There was the very old and personal friend who opposed me in the last ' election; another, also a friend, who opposed the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George; a third opposed my friend and colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, and the fourth-I am glad he was successful-is now a member of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We defeated one in
Qu'Appelle.


Mr. FULTON:: I have one or two matters which I should like the minister to consider, the first being in connection with an organization known as the Pacific coast militia rangers. As hon. members will remember, this organization was formed shortly' after the outbreak of the war with Japan and it served in British Columbia. It was entirely a volunteer organization of men who gave of their time and talents without any remuneration. They received some assistance in the way of clothing, but they were given no boots or any of the major items which they required to carry out their duties.
The work performed by these men has been strongly commended by the general staff of the regular army in national defence headquarters. This organization has recently been stood dlown, the ceremony having taken place on October 14, at Kelowna, British Columbia. Since that time I and other members from British Columbia have been in receipt of requests that this organization be continued in future years on some permanent basis. Another request has been made that it be continued in the form of rifle clubs. I have written to the minister and I am sure he has had this matter up for consideration. However, in view of the number of requests that I have received since that time I feel justified in bringing up the matter on this occasion and asking whether he will give consideration to that request. Is he in position to give information now, or will he be in position to make a statement?
[Mr Cockeram.J
If this organization is continued in the form of rifle clubs it would not cut across the formation of the reserve army to which the minister has referred. It would be composed of men who, because of their occupation or the distances they live from urban centres, would probably not be able to take advantage of training in the reserve army. It is generally felt that the training they would receive in the proper use of fire arms, in the building up of self-reliance and so on would be of great value to the country as a whole. I would ask the minister to make a statement now with regard to the matter. If he cannot do that, I ask him to give consideration to it.
Before I sit down I should like to ask another question in connection with the P.C.M.R. This has to do with the request that has been made that they be permitted to retain the rifles which were issued to them when the organization was formed. In reply to a question asked on September 12 by the hon. member for Nanaimo the minister made the statement that the members of the P.C.M.R. would be allowed to retain the 30-30 carbine that had been issued. He stated that this matter had been taken up with the Department of Munitions and Supply and that instructions would be issued by the War Assets Corporation allowing these men to retain these rifles perhaps on the payment of a nominal sum. That statement created general satisfaction on the part of those who had 30-30 rifles.
However, it created some dissatisfaction on the part of those who had been issued with the other form of rifle, the 30-06. I and other members from British Columbia have had requests from these men or on behalf of these men that they be allowed to keep their 30-06 rifles on the payment of a nominal sum. Objection may be raised that the 30-06 is not a purely sporting rifle, such as the 30-30, but I would point out that it is not a regular Canadian army issue. It was an obselete United States army rifle which was brought into Canada at the time this organization was formed. The new pattern of the Enfield rifle has since been produced in a standardized form for the Canadian army, and I think there is some justification for the case put forward by these men. They would not be keeping army equipment if they were allowed to retain their 30-06 rifle.
One other objection that might be raised is that considerable feeling has been created against the indiscriminate possession of firearms. I should like to point out that the Pacific coast militia rangers, who were all volunteers, have been in possession of their rifles for some years, and they have not been

Demobilization-Army
guilty of any of the offences which have caused this feeling to spring up in recent months. If they were to be trusted with their rifles in times of war, when they were giving their services without any remuneration, it is difficult to understand why they should have them taken away now.
In view of the excellent volunteer service without pay that these men rendered, in view of the widespread requests which have been made, I would appreciate it very much if the minister could make a statement in reply to these two questions. First, can they be continued in some voluntary form? Second, will he give further consideration to allowing them to retain their rifles on the payment of a nominal sum?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In reply to the first question, the suggestion has been received, as my hon. friend indicated, that the Pacific coast rangers be continued* as a rifle association. That will be given consideration. I am not in a position to make any statement on the matter to-day.	[DOT]
As to the question of rifles, as I indicated some time ago, authorization has been given for them to retain the 30-30 carbines on the payment of a nominal price of $5. The other rifle was' a United States service rifle which was authorized for use by the reserve army, and it was felt that they should not be allowed to retain them at this time. Arrangements have been made that if they turn those rifles in they will be allowed to obtain a 30-30 carbine on the payment of this nominal charge of $5 as long as the supply lasts. The army has been ajUtnuiizeo lo conduct this sale or exchange, as the case may be.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I do not want to repeat what the hon. member for Kamloops has said, but I suggest that the minister reconsider this matter. As I understand it, the rifle known as the 30-06 is being sold in every hardware store in the state of Washington. The answer given before by the minister was that this was a military rifle and could not be sold, but I think-that answer is inconsistent when they are available so easily in hardware stores.
Before the minister took charge of this department-I am sorry he did not- take charge before-the people on the Pacific coast and in eastern Canada were afraid at one time that the Japs might invade the Pacific coast. We depended upon these people who served in this organization. There were farmers' sons, farmers themselves, and people in every class of life on the coast who served in this organization. They had no hope of reward; they
were given no uniforms; they had no rifles and they provided their own* equipment. No such action was ever taken in the interior of Canada, and particularly in* eastern Canada.
These men made that effort, and I think a grateful government and a grateful people should at least allow them to retain these rifles. I understand this is the United States rifle with the red band and it is regarded as being useless for anything. These rifles should be made available to these people through War Assets Corporation. When I read in the coast newspaper that what is known* as the Fairmile, a small boat costing $195,000, can be sold for $3,000 to a few sporting gentlemen who came here from England, do not tell me that we cannot afford to sell these rifles for $5.
There is one other matter that I wish to mention. I do not class myself as a spokesman for the army, but I am very proud to have been an army representative, and I want to tell the army through you, Mr. Chairman, and this committee, that they are very fortunate in not having as minister of national defence a major-general or a brass hat of any kind. Instead they have a gunner; in other words, what is commonly called a private, as Minister of National Defence.
I wish to ask the minister a question because of some information I received which I assume is correct because it was contained in a return that was brought down in the house, sessional paper No. 172, with respect to leave in the armed sendees. My first question had to do with air force leave. I want to make myself ptaueciiy dear; i do not want to detract in any way from the service that the air force has given to this country, nor do I want to curtail in any shape or form any leave or pass or allowance that may now be allowed to them. But I do want to insist that anything that is given to the air force must also be given to the men of the army, the men who actually won this war. You can talk about your atomic bomb, but all the atomic bombs in the world will not win a war without the infantry. This was my question, appearing in sessional paper No. 172, and I want this on Hansard because the idea apparently of bringing down the information in a return is so that nobody will know anything about it. I asked:
1.	Do our R.C.A.F. personnel receive thirty days special retirement leave for more than three years' service?
2.	Do (a) naval and (b) army personnel receive the same leave for equivalent service?
3. If not, what is the reason for the difference?	[DOT]	.
Demobilization-Army

I want this answer to go on Hansard and to go out to the soldiers of Canada. Here is the reply I received:
1.	To be answered by the R.C.A.F.
2.	(a) To be answered by the navy.
I want hon. members particularly to notice the answer to 2(b). I am talking on behalf of the infantry, the P.B.I., the men who won the war. Here is the answer to 2(b):
(b) Pre-discharge leave of seven days is now authorized to all personnel serving in Canada except
(i)	those whose discharge is by reason of misconduct;
(ii)	those who have returned from overseas and who are eligible for disembarkation leave and who at the conclusion of such leave or prior to such leave, or prior to the termination of such leave, have reported to a district depot for discharge and thereupon are posted to the-rehabilitation wing of such district depot for discharge.
Then comes the answer to 3, and I want hon. members to mark this, particularly hon. gentlemen who represent the soldiers of Canada:
3.	This matter has been under consideration by an inter-service committee.
An inter-service committee of brass hats, ninety per cent of whom never got any farther than Ottawa in their lives and did not intend ;o. The answer goes on:
It was thought that any discrimination between the navy, army and air force procedures was more apparent than real because:
(a) The conditions of service as between the three services differ so substantially that the basis of leave must also differ-
I want hon. members to take that answer back to the fathers and mothers of Canadian soldiers. Differ? Nonsense. It goes on:
V.b) The circumstances and procedures affecting demobilization were different in the three services.
(e) The terms under which each form of leave is granted must be considered in the light of the conditions pertaining in each service and all other forms of leave for which personnel are eligible.
Owing to the heavy repatriation programme, the fact that in many cases the soldier arrived at his depot before his documents had arrived-
I want everybody to read that last sentence over again. In other words, because of the stupidity of a bunch of brass hjts in England or in Canada the soldier must suffer.
-with consequent delay in discharge, the time required for preparation of discharge documents and-
Mark this:
-the desirability of giving the soldier an opportunity to give unhurried consideration to his repatriation problems, it was decided in September of this year that the army should modify its policy and the provision mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof was brought into force, with effect, 13th September, 1945. fMr. Oruiekshank.]
I want to make it perfectly clear that I have every respect for the air force and for the navy; but I have no respect-I shall have to modify that and say that I have no confidence in any department that will do something for the air force which they will not do for the fighting men of the army. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, and, through you, the members of the legion across Canada, that the reason the air force got away with so much in the past was that the member for Quebec South fought for his department when he was minister for air, and I insist that the minister must see to it that if the air force gets twenty-eight days leave the army must have it too, in the future.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have to look into this leave question. I will agree that there should not be any distinction between the three services. It may be more apparent than real, as the answer in the return says. The distinction only lies between the army in Canada and the other services, not as regards the men who served overseas. The men who serve at N.D.H.Q., for instance, have a pretty good chance to get forty-eight hour leaves, and the same applies to men serving all over Canada. There is a proper distinction in the matter of leave to be made between those serving in Canada and the men returning from overseas. I will look into the question so far as the navy is concerned. I can only say at the moment that the leave procedure in the navy is a bit different. Most of the navy personnel are on one coast or the other serving in ships, and they cannot get forty-eight hours leave or whatever other leaves the men in the army can get. For that reason it may be they get a bit longer leave on discharge or its equivalent in pay. But I will look into the whole leave situation and see if I can give a more specific answer before these estimates are passed. .
Mr. MATTHEWS Kootenay East):	I
wisih to support the appeal that has been made by the hon. member for Kamloops on behalf of the men serving on the Pacific coast. It seems -to me -that the distinction which is being made between a service rifle and a sporting rifle is hardly sufficient to warrant the department in refusing this simple application. It has been said this afternoon, and many -times, -that -these men served, and served splendidly, without any remuneration whatever. N-ow, at the close of hostilities, all -they ask for -the service -they have rendered is the rifles which they had- issued to -them. If these rifles which are -bo be called in are to be stored away in some magazine or warehouse for some future war, or d-umped in -the -ocean, let us

Demobilization-Army
know that; but if otherwise, I cannot see why the government cannot recognize the splendid services whicsh these men have rendered and give them the rifles they mow hold, and not ask them to turn them in and take the chance of getting a 30-30 from the War Assets Corporation.


Mr. McMASTER:: Does this item include
pay and allowances of prisoners of war? If so, how much is paid to them, and what is the possibility of reimbursement of sums already paid? How long will the prisoners remain in camp?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend means Canadian prisoners of war?


William Alexander McMaster: No; German prisoners
of war who are here.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This item does not include
German prisoners of war.


Mr. GILLIS:: I should like to ask a question of the minister. Apparently there are a number of discrepancies in the administration of the minister's department, under different classifications, within the army itsel(. I have a new problem. I took it up first with the army in July. It relates to the classification of a man called up under the regular N.R.M.A. regulations, who was later, under the provisions of order in council P.C. 4974, transferred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Men under that classification had no option where they would serve; they served where they were sent; and, coming out to-day, the man to whom I refer is not entitled to any clothing allowance, gratuity, or any other consideration received by the regular service personnel. The army authorities referred me to the Department of Justice, because they felt that the responsibility was upon that department.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Are these men soldiers? .


Clarence Gillis: They were called up as such.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is done by the Department of Labour, not by the army.


Clarence Gillis: The fact of the matter is
that all the soldiers were called up in the same way.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right. And they
were either taken into the army or they were not.


Clarence Gillis: That is right. When this
particular man was examined it was thought that he would make a good member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Accordingly they automatically transferred him to that particular branch. They put him in battle-dress uniform; he carried a rifle and did guard
duty, and to all intents and purposes he was a soldier. He looks like one; he acts like one, has the same clothes, and is called up by the same people. I wrote the Department of National Defence, who sent my letter to the Minister of Justice. I am going to read the letter I received from the private secretary of the Minister of Justice, because I think it throws a light on a lot of the sins which the minister is attempting to apologize for in connection with this matter of allowances:
Your fetter of the 30th of June, 1945, addressed to the private secretary of the Minister of National Defence, concerning . . .
I am not going to put on record the name or address of this man.
-has been forwarded to this office for attention.
The commissioner of the R.C.M. Police points out that . . .
The man to whom I refer.
-a draftee who served as a special constable guard, was called up under order in council P.C. 4974, dated the 15th of June, 1942. He -was paid at the rate of $2.85 per diem, which is more than a private drafted into, the army would receive. He served from April, 1943, to June, 1945, a little over two years.
The commissioner of the R.C.M. Police recommended that these guards be given certain allowances, somewhat similar to those granted to members of the active services who served in Canada, but the treasury board was unable to see its way clear to approve the recommendation.
I regret I am unable to give you a more favourable report.
I think an injustice has been done in respect of this particular classification. Tire man is married, with a wifd and four children, and is over thirty years of age. At the time he was called up he was earning approximately SB a day as a coal miner. Despite the fact that he was paid a little more than an ordinary private soldier, he lost considerable money as compared with what he was making when called up. Under the regulations he served in the capacity I have mentioned; he did what he was told. Now, coming out of the service, he is in the same position as any other serviceman; he has to buy a new outfit of clothes, but he gets no clothing allowance. The $2 a day which he received did not enable him to save any money; nevertheless he gets none of the allowances-clothing or anything else-ordinarily paid to servicemen. The Department of Justice tried to do something about the matter, but the treasury board rejected the recommendation of the R.C.M.P. in that connection. I am bringing the matter to the attention of the Minister of National Defence because I believe that is where the responsibility rests, because the man was called up-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not by the Department of National Defence, though.

Demobilization-Army


Clarence Gillis: That is only an alibi. That
is only an excuse.
Mr. LAPOINTEHe never was in the army.


Clarence Gillis: He was called up in the same way as any serviceman in the army was called up.	-


Douglas Charles Abbott: He was never in the army. If he had been an N.R.M.A. man he would not have got gratuities.


Clarence Gillis: You mean that the N.R.M.A. man who served in Canada gets no gratuities?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No gratuities.


Clarence Gillis: The N.R.M.A. man the minister is talking about is the man who decided to stay in Canada. This man did not do that; he was requisitioned for this service and put there. He was given no option as to whether he would go in the army or go overseas or go anywhere else. To begin with, his age was against him; he should not have been called up. He was more essential in the employment in which he was engaged, for a great many men are not physically capable of that kind of employment. The minister must remember that, later, coal miners were frozen to their jobs, they were not allowed to enlist; and this man was called from an . essential job, where he was earning fairly good money, and dealt with under government regulations. Regardless of how you quibble about departments or where the responsibility lies, in the final analysis it was under government regulations that he was called up; he served two years and did what he was told; he did not refuse to go anywhere; and I think the least that can be done for that man when he goes out is to give him a clothing allowance to enable him to get a new outfit for himself. The rehabilitation regulations as applied to a man who served in Canada but would have gone overseas had they wanted him to go over should be applicable to that particular classification. I think a great injustice has been done to people in this category. The Minister of National Defence, as an old soldier and as one who, as the hon. member for Eraser Valley has pointed out, served in a low classification, should certainly appreciate the position in which that man finds himself in going back to his family and trying to .reestablish himself. Something should be done for him. I trust the Minister of National Defence will join with the Minister of Justice in urging the treasury board to relax the purse-strings and do something for the very small group who are in this position. The cost would not amount to very much.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have two questions I should like to put to the minister. The first has to do with the officers and men of the technical units which were sent to the Pacific early this year. Will they be in receipt of the Pacific pay as announced for the Pacific force, which did not go to the far east owing to the cessation of hostilities with Japan? The personnel of the unit to which I refer have been in the southern Pacific since the beginning of this year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That Vias not yet been decided; it is under consideration at the moment. The only personnel who have received Pacific pay were a relatively small number who -were sent to the United States for training as part of the Pacific force. The question of the personnel to whom the hon. gentleman refers is under consideration at the present time. It affects the air force as well.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am pleased to hear that it is under consideration. I hope that the minister will give it favourable consideration.
My other question has to do with the veterans' guard. Certain companies of the veterans' guard have been disbanded, while other personnel of that guard have been demobilized; but there are still a fairly large number, I think two or three thousand, veterans of the great war of 1914-18 who are still serving the country in the veterans' guard.
As is generally known, the veterans' guard was called into existence partly to act as guards over German prisoners of war in this country, and partly to guard vulnerable points. I should like to point out to the committee that the duty was well done and that those old soldiers of the first great war carried on under sometimes quite trying and difficult circumstances in guarding the various vulnerable points, magazine areas and prisoners of war camps. There is some concern amongst some of the personnel of the veterans' guard who still remain as to whether they are suddenly to be turned out on to the street. They would like to have an opportunity of finishing the job they started, namely, the guarding of prisoners of war. Their concern results from the fact that some of the companies have already .been disbanded. They have the fear that they might be turned out on to the street just as winter is beginning. Very few of those old veterans have any great value in the labour market. Will the guard be retained as part of the interim army? Is consideration being given to its further perpetuation as, perhaps one might describe it, the guard of army commissionaires. There are a great many tasks to be performed in a peace-time army, such as

Demobilization-Army
guards on camps, on rifle ranges, caretakers at armouries, and so forth. Would the minister give consideration to perpetuating the name of this corps composed of soldiers of the two wars, the majority of whom are now getting well up in years, and have them perform the tasks to which I refer?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course I cannot make any definite statement as to just how many we - shall retain from the companies of the veterans' guard. As my hon. friend has said, they performed exceedingly valuable services during this war and they are still continuing to perform them. There are still some of them here at National Defence headquarters; others are guarding German prisoners of war, and others are guarding other types of government property. They are performing very useful work. There is no immediate prospect of there being a substantial reduction, at any rate, in the number of the veterans' guard during the next few months, certainly not during the winter months to which my hon. friend has referred. As a matter of fact we are actually taking into the guard some veterans of this war, not a great many, and it is expected that we shall continue to use ' them for some little time to come. I do not know that I would say that they would form part of the so-called interim force. I use that term more in describing the type of man who enlists for our permanent post-war army, and there are considerations of age and all that sort of thing, with the pension entitlement that goes with it, that have to be taken into account. But we shall certainly continue to utilize the services of the veterans' guard sc long as they can be usefully employed.


Alan Cockeram: There are two or three questions that I should like to put to the minister. This afternoon he talked about members of the services being on subsistence and various other allowances. Can the minister inform the committee how many men- when I say "men" I mean the women's branches as well-of his department are on subsistence allowance at the present time?
There is another question which bothers me. We are passing estimates for the Department of National Defence (Army). I believe every hon. member is aware that since the war the system has developed whereby officers, noncommissioned officers and men have been seconded to other departments for duty. My personal opinion is that there should be no seconding of officers and men to other branches of the government; that once those officers are seconded to another branch of the government they should be struck off the army strength. To-night we are voting money for pay and allowances for the army, some of which money is to go to officers and men 47696-110
serving other departments of the government. I would ask the minister how many officers and other ranks are seconded from his department to other government departments. I would ask also why these officers should not be struck off the strength of the army and transferred to the departments to which they have been seconded. I would offer the suggestion that the reason they are not struck off the strength of the army is that through their army pay and allowances they are getting a great deal more than they would receive in the branch to which they have been seconded.


Douglas Charles Abbott: To answer the latter part of the question first, according to the latest reports there is a total of 161 seconded in Canada, as follows: to the Department of Munitions and Supply, sixteen; to the joint inspection board of the United Kingdom and Canada, forty; to other boards, eighteen; to various other government departments, forty-two. Then there are medical officers seconded for civilian purposes. My hon. friend may recall that we sometimes lend some medical officers either to other government departments, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, or temporarily to districts which are badly in need of medical assistance. There are thirty-two medical officers seconded in this way; and miscellaneous, thirteen. We are trying to get that number down as quickly as possible. A good many of the departments to which these officers are seconded require them in a military capacity, and the work they are performing is primarily military. Another reason which is oerhaps more a practical reason than anything else, is that these officers would not be prepared to serve in these other departments except as officers. If they are to be employed as civilians they will go back to their own civilian jobs. I can assure the committee that every effort is being made to reduce as much as possible the number of officers seconded to other departments. Under present regulations they are required to wear civilian clothes when serving in such departments.
Then my hon. friend asked a question in regard to subsistence allowance. I have not here the number actually on subsistence allowance to-day; of course it would vary from day to day, but no doubt that information could be obtained. In the estimates now before the committee provision is made for 5,420 officers and 21,328 other ranks as being the average number on subsistence during the period under review. Perhaps that would give my hon. friend a fair indication of what is considered to be the probable number. I can get the actual number, but he will appreciate that it

Demobiliza tion-Army

varies from day to day. I .will get the latest figure and put it on the record.


Alan Cockeram: That is close enough. The number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men who are on subsistence staggers me, in view of the fact that this country has spent such tremendous sums on barracks throughout the dominion. I believe that in order to get a little economy into these estimates the minister should direct the attention of the officers of his department to the number of officers and men drawing subsistence allowance, with a view to having that number cut down, because we are abandoning camps all over Canada. I had no idea there would be
26,000	officers, non-commisisoned officers and men drawing subsistence allowance.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps it will help my hon. friend and alleviate the shock if I tell him that figure includes all men on leave, at fifty cents a day.


Alan Cockeram: I also wanted to say a word about, the veterans' guard, to which I was very glad to hear the minister pay, tribute. These men have done a magnificent job for this country. Most of them are elderly men who will find it very difficult to reestablish themselves in industry. We have in Canada many camps which will be closed or partly closed down but which will have to be looked after, and I would suggest to the minister that in a camp like Camp Borden, for instance, which can never be used one hundred per cent in peace time except for summer training, two or three companies of the veterans' guard could be employed in maintenance. These men served us well in war time. Many of them presumably will be discharged in a few months. I believe we should try to do something to retain their services, and I suggest to the minister that wherever he may need caretakers, if you care to call them that, or engineer companies or employment companies in the maintenance of these camps, which will be used in future as militia camps, he employ the services of the veterans' guard. I believe this is a sound suggestion and it would be fair to, these men, because in my opinion they cannot get reestablished in the labour market. Unless the government is prepared to pay these men a pension on which they can live for the rest of their lives, they will have to be looked after in some other way, and this might be a good way for the government to do it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall take that suggestion into consideration. Of course my hon. friend will realize that we are being pressed to be as efficient as possible and to reduce expendi-	i
tures as much as possible; and for a good many caretaking jobs the use of the veterans guard would not be the least expensive method.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I understand that under this item would come allowances to wives of exservice men. Is that right?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That, is right; dependents' allowances.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: To the wives and families of ex-service men, when those wives and families are in Britain. I have had a number of cases brought to my attention where these wives and families have not received their allowances. I do not know the reason, because the men have told me they applied1 for the allowances before they left Britain and before they were discharged. Many of these women do not know whom to see in Britain to apply for the allowance, nor do they know whom to see to apply for transportation to Canada. The men also want to know for how long after their wives and families arrive in Canada the allowance continues. , Does it cease immediately upon their arrival here, or does it continue until they arrive at their destination in Canada?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It continues until they arrive at their destination. The allowance, of course, would automatically cease with the discharge of the service man, but under an order in council put through in September the dependents' allowance continues to be paid with respect to dependents in England who are kept there because of lack of shipping to bring them to Canada; and the allowance continues until they reach their destination in Canada.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then I should like to ask a question in regard to the husbands of women in the service. If by any chance they have married nationals of Holland or other European countries, are those men allowed in with their wives or are they treated like other immigrants coming to Canada?


George Alexander Cruickshank: We will send them to Peterborough.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I did not catch that remark mumbled by the hon. gentleman.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Is my hon. friend referring to the husbands of C.W.A.C.'s, who marry in Holland?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, C.W.A.C.'s.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have not run into that
question yet; it has not come up.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I heard that there were a
few cases.

Demobilization-Army


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a new one. I shall have to make inquiries, and see what will be done.


Angus MacInnis: I think the committee
should make a better recommendation for the veterans guard than mereljr trying to find jobs, especially in an economy where jobs are going to be pretty hard to find, even for the young veterans who are coming back.
,1 became acquainted with many of the men who were in the veterans guard in the last four years. I knew some of these men before war broke out in 1939, and I found that, so far as their economic life was Qoncerned, the war to them was in a certain sense a blessing, because it gave them an income. They came back from one war, after helping to make the world a place fit for heroes to live in, and at that time they found it very difficult to rehabilitate themselves. Then, when this war came along they were not of an age which would permit their giving service in the active-army, with the result that, as we all agree, they performed a great service to Canada in other ways. We should not ask them to rehabilitate themselves once again, at a time when it will be even harder, I am convinced, than it was following the last war. If we rehabilitate the young men who were in this war, and the young men who were in the war industries-and the young women-I am quite satisfied the country can produce enough wealth to retire all the veterans of the last war on a satisfactory living income. The committee should consider nothing less than that. Anything less would do honour neither to ourselves nor to the veterans guard.
Mr. COCKERAIvI: I have one further question in connection with pay and allowances. At the present time many permanent force officers are being returned to this country, and I know that a number of them hold senior rank. Why does the department consider it necessary to give those officers extended leave, and why - do they not employ them to the extent to which they should be employed? I believe that -to-day, with the permanent force men coming back, all military districts should be placed in command of such officers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That policy is in fact being carried out as quickly as possible. My hon. friend will realize, however, that we are still in a stage of transition, and that demobilization is quite active. There may be in a certain district a district officer commanding who is particularly suitable to carry on for a short time. But the policy the hon. member suggests is, of course, the one which will be carried out. I think he may rest assured that within a very few months district officers commanding the various districts will be permanent force men.
47696-110J


Wilfrid Garfield Case: 
Mr. CROLL:: Louder.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and also to that of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) two matters which have been brought to my attention from a soldier overseas whose name, in accordance with custom, I shall not divulge. While I shall not read the letter, I shall bring to the minister's attention the points contained therein.
The first deals with khaki college. Thus far I do not think any statement has been made by the minister respecting the set-up of khaki college, and the situation in connection with teachers in that organization. My information is that there is a shortage of teachers in that college. My informant holds the view that army men will not volunteer their services to teach. He asks why a private, corporal or other N.C.O. who is at present awaiting repatriation, and doing relatively nothing, should teach at the college
Demobilization-Army

for his usual rate of pay, plus a lot of hard work and plus postponement of his repatriation. Perhaps the minister would make a statement on this matter.
The other suggestion made by my correspondent has to do with the matter of recognizing those men and women in various parts of Europe who risked their lives and liberty to aid Canadian nationals to escape from the Germans during the period of war. As the minister knows, there are thousands of our airmen who were sfiot down but who subsequently were passed back to England, through underground channels. The United Kingdom does give some recognition to those, men and women of the underground, and I would ask the minister to consider whether or not this country might follow suit. Most hon. members have had friends who have received the benefit of this special help in their escape from enemy territory. I would ask the minister at the appropriate time to indicate the government's policy in that regard.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no shortage of teaching staff for this session of the khaki college, but it is anticipated we may have some difficulty in the next one. The point my hon. friend makes is a good one, and it is receiving constant attention.
I agree it would be a very fine thing if we could give some sort of recognition to those who have helped our men out of enemy territory. We have not yet in Canada any special order of chivalry which would seem appropriate. However, the time may come when we would have, and I take it that that is what the hon. member has in mind when he refers to recognition. I would assume the services to which he has referred are not the kind which might properly be recognized in a monetary way.


John Oliver Probe: Several days ago I directed a question to the Minister of National Defence with respect to the treatment being given to men and women of the three services who had returned from overseas but who had not received disembarkation leave because they had been called, either by the Department of Veterans Affairs or by some industry holding priority rights, to take civil employment. At that time the minister informed me that effective April 19 of this year all persons who had been discharged on this basis would receive thirty days pay in lieu of leave. The minister also said at that time that the reason why April 19 was set as the cut-off day was that prior to that time no requests had been received in connection with this matter of pay in lieu of leave. In the event of its being found that requests had been received prior

to April 19, will the minister take action in this connection, the various orders in council and regulations notwithstanding? *


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not remember using the phrase that no requests had been received. W'hat I had in mind was that there had been no substantial number of these cases. I would be reluctant to reconsider the decision that April 19 is the date from which the new regulation would be effective. We have never made these regulations retroactive. When the clothing allowances were increased they became effective after the date the new regulation came into effect. I would not be prepared to say now that we would go back of April 19 and make the regulation retroactive for those few who might have been discharged prior to that time without getting thirty days leave.


John Oliver Probe: To my knowledge there was certain correspondence before April 19 on behalf of men in the service Who had come back to take posts with the Department of Veterans Affairs. The deputy assistant adjutants general of the districts wrote to the Department of National Defence on their behalf. It seems to me the minister was remiss in not considering those cases before he set the cut-off date of April 19. He told me that that was set because of some urgency in connection with a person who had received a United States appointment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was not because of any particular case; I simply used that case as an illustration of the desirability of putting it into effect.


John Oliver Probe: I misunderstood the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There was a number of these cases coming up and I cited that case as an illustration; that is all.


John Oliver Probe: Then it is a closed case?


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend has any particular case in mind which he feels was pending at that time and about which representations have been made, if he will give me the particulars I will look into it. The point I am making is that I am not prepared to recommend that as a general rule applicable to all cases we will go back of the effective date of the order in council and give thirty days pay in lieu of leave.


John Oliver Probe: For the information of the minister I may say that the Department of Veterans Affairs brought back a block of overseas veterans, and as far as I am aware none of them received thirty days pay in lieu of discharge leave.

Demobilization-Army


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They all received fine positions in the service.


Alan Cockeram: The minister made a reply to me just no.w about the district officers commanding. Personally I do not think that reply was satisfactory, because there are a great number of senior permanent force officers who are surplus to the establishment at the present time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Some of them are being retired.


Alan Cockeram: It seems to me that there could be a reduction in the expense to the country at this time.
There is another question I should like to ask the minister in regard to the expenditure of money. The minister stated yesterday that 1,778 N.R.M.A. troops had been returned from overseas.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The figure was 1,200 and some odd.


Alan Cockeram: My figure is 1,778, but whatever the figure is, it is immaterial. My point is that these men are being retained in the army after having been returned to Canada when a similar number of men might have been returned to Canada and discharged with a saving to the taxpayer. I should like the committee to realize that in attacking these estimates I am not attacking them from the point of view of doing harm to the service. I have been a militia officer for a good many years; I served in the active army both in the last war and in this war and my sympathies are all with the armed1 forces. I want them to get the requisite amount of money in order that they may do a good job. But I believe that there should be a cut-off somewhere so that money may be saved to the taxpayer. I point these things out to the minister, because I feel that when there are surplus senior officers available they should be placed in charge of the districts so that men who volunteered for overseas and who have since become district officers commanding may be retired. Presumably ani officer of that rank would have an opportunity to earn his living in a civilian capacity.


An hon. MEMBER:: We hope.


Alan Cockeram: We hope, yes.
There is another series of questions I want to ask the minister. Those of us who were connected with the militia in peace time know that service in the militia is very onerous. I asked the minister to make a statement to the committee as to just what would be the functions of the militia in the days to come.
The minister did make a statement this afternoon but I do not think it went far enough. At the present time the reserve army, as we have learned to call it since the war started, i3 in a state of flux. Certain instructions have gone out that only men who were overseas can command the units. Men who have, commanded units during the strenuous days' of the war are to a lai-ge degree willing and anxious to, turn over command to .the new officers.
The minister should be able to tell the committee what the functions of the reserve army are to be. Is my unit, for instance, to be an infantry unit as it was before the war, or is it to be part of an armoured division? If these units are to reorganize they should have some idea of what their functions will be. The minister should be able to tell the men serving in the reserve army what money he will allow them next year and whether they will have two weeks at camp with twenty days at local headquarters, and so on. The minister should also tell those units that wear kilts whether he will give us some money to replace them. As far as my unit is concerned, I know the question of kilts


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They were Irish kilts.


Alan Cockeram: They were Irish. There are a lot of things the minister should tell us about the reserve arm. He should be able to tell us that N.R.M.A. troops will not be sent back to Canada to be kept on the sti'ength when other men might be brought back and released from the army.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have done my best to
outline in broad fashion the function of the reserve army, which is pretty well known as a matter of fact to every member of the committee who has had experience in military affairs. Broadly speaking, the reserve portion of the army will perform the same function it performed before of being the basis upon which to build up military forces in the event of another war. As to going into detail 'of what units will be set up and what functions they Will perform, it is too early to do that. I indicated in my opening remarks that before any definite step was taken we would consult the various defence associations. The hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough in an excellent address that he made on the reserve army this afternoon suggested that steps of that kind be taken, and that an advisory committee be set up to go into the question of the best structure for the reserve army. I am not prepared now to go into details of how the reserve army will work. I do not think the suggestion is feasible. After all, it is only a
Demobilization-Army

couple of months since we finished the Japanese war; we have to demobilize our active army and make plans for our post-war army, and as to the reserve army I can only say at the moment that we shall consult the various defence associations on that matter.


Alan Cockeram: What defence associations?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are various ones.


William Ross Macdonald: ' May I remind the committee that this afternoon we had a general discussion on the resrve army, and we are now on an item for pay and allowances. I think it would be in order to discuss pay and allowances of the reserve army at this stage, but it is hardly in order to raise again the whole question of the reserve army, and I would ask hon. members to try to make their remarks as far as possible apply to the item under discussion.


Alan Cockeram: With all due deference, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the great item of expense of the reserve army is pay and allowances, which is covered by this item.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just on the point you made, Mr. Chairman, if we did not confine ourselves to the item before the chair we could discuss virtually any aspect of the armed forces, because pay and allowances runs right through the army. I do not want to hurry the committee at all, but I just picked up the British Hansard of the 16th of October last. The British house was putting through a vote of credit for two billion pounds, a vote similar in a general way to the one now before us and the debate, judging by the number of pages, lasted only one and a half hours. I should like to quote what Mr. Dalton, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said. Here are his words:
Perhaps I might, at this stage, say that, as from the beginning of the next financial year, we shall have reverted to the system of estimates, which will be subject of parliamentary control and will be Subject to'stricter treasury control than my predecessor was able in time of* war to enforce and which I cannot, as yet, enforce. The estimate system will be reintroduced as from April next.
We sincerely hope that we shall be able to do the same thing. I am not saying this in any critical spirit at all, but we are following the system that we have followed for the last five years. We have had two or three days of general discussion of these estimates and I do beg the committee to stick to the estimates now, item by item.


Mr. KIDD:: I should like to mention the case of a man in the permanent force who comes directly under the Minister of National Defence. I want to ask him what arrange-

ments he is making to provide an adequate living allowance for this man and others like him returning from overseas. He is a senior N.C.O., at present doing guard duty. He originally served for five years in the permanent force and has had five years and nine months to his credit in this war. He is married and has nine children. He is living in two rooms and has two of his children boarding in the country. On' September 26 last I asked the Minister of Reconstruction a question that has a bearing on this matter. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is in his seat at the moment and probably he and the Minister of Reconstruction should get together on this matter. At page 546 of Hansard of September 28 I asked the Minister of Reconstruction this question:
Will the minister kindly inform the house whether immediate steps can be taken to release building materials to discharged soldiers in order to enable them to build or remodel houses or places of business for themselves and their families?


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I must draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that he cannot refer to remarks made in a previous debate this session on a question not now under discussion.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I will bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but the point I make is this. When I directed my question to the Minister of Reconstruction he said that building permits could be obtained.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not like to be technical and to interrupt my hon. friend, but building permits and building materials have nothing to do with pay and allowances in the army estimates.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is accommodation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That has nothing to do with this item. If my hon. friend objects to the building permit system he should direct his question to the Minister of Reconstruction when his estimates come up.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: Here is a married man with nine children employed by the Minister of National Defence, and living with his family in two rooms. If the minister will give me a moment I can tell him how to provide for this case. Any large employer looks after his employees. I do not want to charge the minister with not looking after them, but here is a man with nine children living in two rooms and wanting accommodation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must ask you, Mr. Chairman, to enforce the rules of order. We are dealing with pay and allowances under

Demobilization-Army
National Defence. Rehabilitation, reconstruction and reestablishment will come up under another department.


William Ross Macdonald: I must ask the hon. member for Kingston City to confine his remarks to pay and allowances.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: All right, Mr. Chairman. This has to do with rehabilitation of the men in [DOT]the armed forces.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Rehabilitation of men in the armed forces comes under my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I will bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and postpone my remarks until I have an opportunity to raise the question later.


William Ross Macdonald: That is right, and I would remind all hon. members of what the hon. member for Kingston City has just said, that there will be an opportunity to discuss almost any matter when the appropriate estimates of the various departments come before the committee.


Mr. GREEN:: I would direct a question to the minister having to do with pensions payable to members of the permanent force. Is there any provision whereby a young man who wishes now to join the permanent force can have his gratuity and his reestablishment credit applied to a pension fund, so that the result will be as though he had been paying into that fund over the whole period of his service during the war?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I announced, I referred to the conditions of the interim force and the new permanent force. The question of pensions in the interim force and the new force has been under review for some time by an interdepartmental committee, and I understand that their recommendations are pretty well formulated. I announced that service in this war and in the interim force would avail as pensionable service to a man who joins the permanent force. I think that answers my hon. friend's question. No decision has been taken as to whether a man could use his gratuity or rehabilitation grant as a portion of his contribution; with that financial detail I am not familiar; but his service during this war counts as pensionable service.


Howard Charles Green: That could be considered by the committee, could it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I announced that as definite government policy.


Howard Charles Green: But I mean, the application of the gratuity.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The method of making the contribution could be considered by the committee.


Alan Cockeram: I should like to ask the minister whether the Atlantic and Pacific commands are still in existence, what the strengths of those commands are, and what is the necessity of carrying them on, at this time, at great expense to the country.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The Atlantic command, as my hon. friend should know, has been closed for some time. The Pacific command is still in operation.


Alan Cockeram: Is it the intention to carry on the Pacific command, with a major-general in command?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The Pacific command pretty well coincides with the military district. Whether we shall continue it with a major-general or not will depend on circumstances.


Alan Cockeram: I want to know whether you are going to continue the Pacific command or whether you are going to have a district command.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I answer my hon. friend with my usual courtesy that we shall announce that in due course.


Alan Cockeram: "Government policy" 1


Douglas Charles Abbott: Government policy; precisely.


Clarence Gillis: Before we leave pay and allowances I will ask the minister one more question. I do not like to pester him and drag him back over the trail, but a great deal of this discussion has ranged' around the position of men discharged, perhaps for misconduct, and serving one, two or three years. The dependents of that particular classification of soldier lose their pay and allowances. A man who is discharged from the service, particularly back in Canada, and incarcerated in a civilian penitentiary, and who, as many of them are, is married and has a family, is in a bad position, much worse than that of the ordinary civilian prisoner. If he were a civilian prisoner the municipal authorities would accept responsibility, but in a matter of this kind the municipal authorities, at least in the sections *with which I am acquainted, take the stand that this is a military matter; the Canadian government requisitioned the man for service; he got in difficulties; he was sentenced by a military court martial; he is in gaol as a military prisoner, and the government should accept some responsibility. I think the municipal authorities are justified in taking that stand.
Demobilization-Army

iYhat I have in mind is this. There is a branch of the pay and allowances organization known as the supplementary grants branch. Where there are extenuating circumstances and the soldier's pay does not cover any abnormal expenditure his dependents may run into, the allowance can be supplemented. The machinery is there; the supplementary grants branch is set up, and there is a board of administration. I am, wondering if there is not a possibility of having a wife and children in this categoiy brought within the sphere of these supplementary grants and given some allowance until such time as the courts martial have reviewed the case and a final disposition is made of it. Certainly we have.some responsibility to that family. The reason I am raising the matter now is that it has been up for a week or so and the minister should have had some opportunity of consulting his departmental officials. The matter is one of immediacy, because there are women and children who have been waiting months. Some of them are writing to me, and it is a tough business to have to reply saying that nothing is being done about the matter. This is some-. thing which we could remedy, and very quickly. It is merely a matter of the department making the decision. No new machinery will have to be set up; there is an appropriation of money for allowances, and the purposes for which the grants were originally intended are becoming fewer, as men are discharged from the service. Could the minister give us an assurance that some immediate relief will be given to families in this categoiy?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The present provisions are that so long as a man is in the service, even if he is detained, the dependents' allowances are continued by the dependents' allowances board for six months. Thereafter the dependents' board of trustees has authority to continue allowances in needy cases. If a man is discharged from the service for misconduct he and his family are in the same position as any other civilians, and if the family are in need they must be taken care of by the local municipal or provincial authorities. Frankly, though, I suppose the matter is arguable. I find it hard to see why a fund which is set up to care for the dependents of well-behaved soldiers should be availed of indefinitely to care for the dependents of others. That charge should properly be placed on the shoulders of perhaps another group of taxpayers. In the final analysis it has to be borne; and of course should be borne by some body of taxpayers. Whether'it should be the federal taxpayer, or whether it should be the local municipal or provincial taxpayer is, of course, a question.
(Mr. Gillis.J
I will give the matter consideration, but up to the present I have always felt that that was a perfectly fair and equitable way of treating these cases. However, I am willing to reconsider it.


Clarence Gillis: I am depending to a large extent on the minister to do something about this matter, but the answer he just gave me does not leave me very much hope. He has. said as head of the department that he thinks the matter as handled at present is fair and equitable. That is not so. Remember that in the first place you requisitioned this man for service.	[DOT]


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not necessarily; he may have volunteered.


Clarence Gillis: It is true in a large percentage of cases. If you had left that man with his family the chances are that the wife, exercising her authority, would still have him working and behaving as a responsible citizen. You took him into the service and handed him over to a sergeant-major who did not do a very good job with him. You threw him into abnormal circumstances. The fact of the matter is that the military authorities, because of incompetent leadership, messed up a good citizen.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Or it may have been his fault.


Clarence Gillis: You took him from his family and- threw him into the war; in the result you are not giving him back to his wife and family in the condition you got him, and you certainly should compensate that wife and family for the tangle in which he has become involved. I am glad that the minister has said something definite about the matter, because the municipal authorities have now at least some kind of a "decision, that so far as the government is concerned there is not much hope, and that the wife and two children are thrown back on an allowance of $12 a month. It is quite a lot of money, an indication of that brand new world we were fighting for! The husband is in gaol; he is a criminal with little chances of employment when he comes out; he has a wife and a couple of small children; and this brand new world we were to create by virtue of fighting this war and beating aggression proves to be the same old rotten world we had when we started back in 1940.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Because, perhaps, the same old rotten people, or some of them, are in that world.


An hon. MEMBER:: Somewhere in it; yes.

Demobilization-Army


William Ross Macdonald: Order. Hon. members must remember that we are on the item, "pay and allowances", not on the condition of the world generally.


Clarence Gillis: That is exactly what I am talking about, pay and allowances. The soldier who was confined in an institution, because of laxity on the part of the military authorities lost his pay and allowances.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He is no longer a soldier.


Clarence Gillis: I am trying to prove to the minister that the wife should get the allowance back. The minister is not very hopeful about it. We are largely creatures of our environment, and we have lived in a pretty mean environment in the last twenty-five or thirty years. In my opinion no one is fundamentally bad or rotten. We are expected to give leadership here. This woman and two little children -who are obliged to seek charity, are in no position to revolutionize and reform the world; we are. We make regulations. If we do something for her we prove to her that it will be a little better for her than it was in 1940. We say to her, "We are going to give you more than $12 a month and you do not have to declare yourself a pauper to get it." The government recognizes some responsibility, and we start out with a new principle. That a person has a right to eat is not a bad one, and he does not have to get down on his knees for it. If we are to make a start in that direction this might not be a bad place to start. If I could write to several of these women who are w-riting to me about payment of those allowances and say: "In the house last evening the Minister of National Defence, being a very humanitarian person, recognized your problem and intends to fight as hard as he can with the treasury board to have your allowance straightened out," it would be some indication to them that the world is getting a little better when the Minister of National Defence is putting up a struggle with his departmental officers to see that this matter is cleared up.


Mr. TUSTIN:: I should like to bring a certain case to the attention of the Minister of National Defence. I now refer to the matter of gratuities. Two or three cases have come to my attention and no doubt in the. future we shall have many more of them. I am going to quote one specific ease. I know of a young man wTho served five years in the Royal Canadian Air Force. He was discharged from that force last April. Under the call-up system he was immediately called into the army. He was taken into the army, served five days and was then discharged as being medically unfit.
He applied for his gratuity. The air force refused to accept the responsibility, and the Department of National Defence (Army) could not see that they were liable for that gratuity since he had spent only five days in the army. By the way, this young man is a married man with a small family, has started himself up in business since that time, and is dependent upon that gratuity to finance himself in business.
Ever since that time, he has endeavoured to get his gratuity. About a month ago he got in touch with me and I took his case up with the Department of Veterans Affairs. I want to give credit to a certain young lady in the office of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. She immediately got busy and I am advised that this young man has now received a cheque for part of his gratuity. - In the circumstances I have urged that the gratuity should be paid in full and not in monthly instalments. The minister would be doing a service to that young man if he used his influence to see that this is done. After all, this young man has waited since April last for the gratuity payment. Having started himself up in business, he cannot, as I understand it, get his reestablishment credit until the gratuity is paid. I therefore ask the minister to give every consideration to the case and to make arrangements so that it will be known in the future that the force which the man was with in the last instance -is the one that is responsible for the gratuity, which, as I have been advised, is the case.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Veterans Affairs looks after the gratuity.


George James Tustin: Well, Veterans Affairs claim it is not their responsibility to -look after these cases; that it is the responsibility of the Department of National Defence.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We make the estimate; the policy is Veterans Affairs.


George James Tustin: That may be so; maybe I
am out of order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is not charged to this
vote.


George James Tustin: If I am out of order, I am
sorry.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The responsibility is that
of National Defence.


George James Tustin: I had practically finished what I had to say, and I may as well finish it now, because there is no doubt that many of those cases will be coming up when more of the boys get home. I wish the minister would use his influence in these cases.


Mr. McIVOR:: I was going to venture a
suggestion, namely, that this would be a fine
Demobilization-Army

time to do some tall forgiving. I think the Minister of Justice would agree with me that no man who is not a criminal should be confined very long. I consider the soldiers who gave their best-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I think we
should wait until the hon. member has made a. sufficiently complete statement to determine whether or not he is in order.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I will try to make myself
heard. I consider that the men who got into difficulties at Aldershot and the men who over-cplebrated on the eastern coast at Halifax, were not criminals-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I think it is a good time for the Department of National Defence and the Minister of Justice to do some tall forgiving, because these men were willing to give of their best, and most of those who got into difficulties certainly covered their country with glory. This is a good time to give the soldier more than the benefit of the doubt, and quite a little more than fifty per cent. I would advise that some tall forgiving be practised from now on.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. May I remind
the committee again that we are on the item "pay and allowances." I would ask the committee to discuss the item which is before it. I do not think we shall make very much progress if We stray too far from the items. The last two speakers were hardly in order, although I hesitated to interrupt them. I do not want to interrupt hon. members of the committee unless it is absolutely necessary; on the other hand, I would ask all hon. members of the committee to try to stay with the item under discussion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the members
of the armed services, men amd women of the army, get every consideration as to leave, bonus and grathity, that is given every other branch of the services?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Thank you.


George James Tustin: If I was out of order before I wish to apologize to the minister. The point I was trying to get across was that each branch of the service is responsible for making the recommendation's that these gratuities be paid. In the case I quoted I said that the man was first in the air force and then in the army. The way I understood it was that the

army recommended that the gratuities be paid. That was the point I was trying to make clear. If I was wrong I apologize.


William Ross Macdonald: I might say to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox that he was not entirely out of order. He wanted certain information as to which- department was responsible for payment. I think he received the information which he sought.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He did not, because I believe the minister will say that it is not his responsibility.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps we can clear up this confused question. We do the work in the army, that is the clerical work to determine how much gratuity he is entitled to; but the method of payment of the-gratuity is determined as a matter of policy by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and when I say it is determined by him it is determined by the government as a whole. But it is the responsibility of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his advisers to decide as to the manner in which gratuities should be paid. Since, however, the army has the records, in the case of a soldier, and the air force has the records in the case of an airman, they make the computation and tell the Department of Veterans Affairs how much the gratuity is. From then on it is the job of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and it is charged not to the vote of the army or of the air force but to the vote of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Have I made that clear?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Take the case of a man who has been in the air force and who afterwards joined the army. I had such a case brought to my attention the other day. When the man was discharged from the army he was not given the credit to which he was entitled from the air force. In applying for his gratuity he was given credit only for the five months he had been in the army. There does not seem to be the coordination there should be.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is possible; I will accept that. It may well be that there is a certain lack of coordination, and I will see that it is looked into. Obviously the man is entitled to his gratuity for service both in the air force and in the army. It may be that the staff work is poor in the army or in the air force, but if at the outset he does not. get all he is entitled to he will get it on appeal. I may say we are having some difficulty getting trained staff to get out these cheques as quickly as we would like. My parliamentary assistant tells me that he has not received his gratuity cheque yet, and he has been out of the army for some time. However, we are

Demobilization-Army
doing the best we can and gradually we are catching up. The main difficulty is the question of records and getting sufficient good staff to get out the cheques promptly.


Alan Cockeram: A few minutes ago the minister, in replying to a question I asked, made a statement to which I took exception, when he said I asked the question in my usual courteous manner. I do not know whether or not he was being sarcastic, but certainly I have tried to ask questions in the way they should be asked.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I assure my hon. friend that his questions are always couched in the most courteous and friendly tone. We have known each other for a long time and I would not for a moment suggest anything else.


Alan Cockeram: There was one thing in which I thought the minister was a little precipitous just now; that was when the hon. member for Kingston City brought up the question of the housing of permanent force people. That is a question which is concerned with pay and allowances, because housing is definitely part of the pay and allowances of men who serve in the army.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Alan Cockeram: Lodging, fuel and light are part of the perquisites of the army.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We pay him, but he has to find them.


Alan Cockeram: That may be so;
but actually if you -have a government-owned house which is rented by an officer, non-commissioned officer or man in the army, you charge him in accordance with the pay he receives for his rank, which is the right way to do it. But the onus is upon the department to see that the members of the permanent force are quartered and housed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In peace time; but in war time we cannot make any distinction.


Alan Cockeram: We are in peace time.
' Mr. ABBOTT: In theory, yes; but in effect we are still under war conditions.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to ask one further question, because I am afraid I did not make my point quite clear. That is my fault rather than that of the minister. I asked for consideration, and that is not the word I should have used. During the war, whether we liked it or not, the impression got around that the air force and certain other services received preferential treatment as compared with the army. The direct question I am asking is not whether consideration will be given, but whether the army will be
given exactly the same treatment as to leave, pay and any other allowances that is given any other branch of the service.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Leave conditions vary in all the services, and I cannot say that the army will be given exactly the same treatment. But I do say that they should receive substantially comparable treatment, and that is what they are receiving now, or so I am advised.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If I may ask the minister another question, does he consider seven days leave given since September 17, not before, comparable treatment with thirty days leave given in the air force? I am asking the minister again, will he give the army the same treatment that is given any other branch of the service in connection with leave or otherwise?	.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The leave we are discussing is a complicated question. We are fighting the battle of the boys who fought in Canada, as far as the army is concerned. None of these personnel to whom my hon. friend is referring served overseas. They are the men to whom he has referred on previous occasions as men who perhaps should not be treated on the same basis as the men who have served abroad, and I think we agree on that. These men have had other opportunities for leave. I understand-and I have seen it myself- that leave regulations have been fairly generous in Canada as far as personnel at National Defence headquarters or district headquarters or anywhere else are concerned. I do not know whether the air force has been a little more generous. In a sense the operations of the air force in Canada are more of an operational character than is the case in connection with the army, because they are flying personnel, and so on. In any event the regulations, as they now stand, provide that men from overseas get this thirty days disembarkation leave when they return. In the navy special leave regulations apply. They get an annual leave; they get certain weekend leaves and twenty-eight days once a year, which they have to take. In the army there is a regular series of leaves: annual leave, week-end leave, and so on, but there is no additional leave on discharge for men who have served in Canada only. Under a recent provision seven days leave may be given. That is not a leave as of right; it is given in order to facilitate discharge procedure, where men are coming back to the depot in large numbers; their documents may not be ready or something like that, and they can be put out on seven days leave. That is the way it- stands, and I do not believe it will be changed.
Demobilization-Army


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to follow that a little farther. According to the information contained in that return the minister has been misinformed. Am I to understand from the minister that a member of the groundcrew of the air force who served in England, Belgium or anywhere else, or a man from air force headquarters is to be given preferential treatment to a man in the army who served at Arnhem or somewhere else? Will the man in the army who carried on in the front line be given exactly the same treatment as any other branch of the service?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, yes. He is given exactly the same treatment; there is no difference whatever.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: Before the Minister of Veterans Affairs interrupted a few moments ago I had direoted a straight question to the Minister of National Defence, which he did not answer. Would he answer that question now?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sorry; would the hon. member mind repeating the question?


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: Is the minister's department taking any steps to provide adequate living quarters for the wives and families of members of the permanent force; and, if so, what is being done?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I answered that question by saying that it has nothing whatever to do with the item under consideration.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: It is pay and allowances.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, it has nothing to do with it. We do not provide living quarters for any service personnel. The question of providing housing comes under another department of government; it is primarily a civil responsibility. The hon. member for Kingston City said that the member of the permanent force to whom he had referred had nine children. Well, he seems to be following the precepts of the hon. member for Lethbridge; but he gets the family allowance; he gets the dependents' allowance; he gets subsistence if he is not living' in barracks; he gets his pay and all the rest of it at active force rates, and out of that he is supposed to provide his living accommodation. If there is not living accommodation available he takes his chance the same as every other soldier in Canada, permanent force or whatever he may be.


Alan Cockeram: Presumably the permanent force will get back to permanent force rates of pay. '


Douglas Charles Abbott: Probably they will.


Alan Cockeram: If they do, they have
a lodgings, fuel and light allowance. I suggest that this is a case which should come under-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am going to answer that. The whole question of pay and allowances for the permanent force is now under consideration. There were rates in force before the war. The same rates will not continue after the war. Whether there will be a lodgings, fuel and light allowance is, I think, extremely doubtful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On October 1, through
the medium of the order paper I asked certain questions relating to certain enlisted men from M.D. No. 10 who were detailed to do work for the Canadian National Railways near Armstrong, Ontario. My questions at that time had to do with the pay these men were given. I have two reasons for the inquiry I am now making. First I would like to know whether the policy of detailing enlisted men to do this kind of work had definitely been changed, and my second question arises out of the understanding the men had that they would benefit by the higher wages paid by the railway for the work they were doing. On October 1 I asked the minister what these men were paid for their work, and his reply was that during the period they did this work for the Canadian National Railways they received full pay and allowances, including dependents' allowances. I also asked what the railway company paid for the work, and I was told that they paid fifty-three cents for each working hour per soldier, less $5.75 a week per soldier charged for board and lodging. Then I asked to whom the railway company paid the money, and the answer was that it was paid to the receiver general of Canada.
I would remind the minister that I have asked two questions. The first is this: Has the detailing of enlisted men for this kind of work been abolished?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My second question is:
Do the men themselves benefit in any way from the larger amount of money paid for their work by the railway than the amount they received in pay and allowances?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, the policy was
changed. We do not detail men any more. If in essential industries, they are put on extended leave and, under those circumstances, they are paid the regular pay for the work they are doing.
As to whether the men receive any benefit or not, under the conditions outlined by the hon. member the man would get his army

D e mobiliza lion-A rmy
pay, plus full allowances, whether he worked or not. If weather conditions are such that under normal conditions he would not be paid, nevertheless if as h soldier he is detailed, he would continue to receive his daily rate of pay and his allowance. But that policy has now been discontinued, and for work such as that in logging camps, packing plants or construction industries we will put men on extended leave, and they are then hired by the employers at regular rates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In this instance no part
of the money paid, to the receiver general of Canada was, in turn, given to the mem or to a regimental or canteen fund?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Alan Cockeram: In reply to a question
asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) on October 25, it was stated that 276 men of the forestry corps were working on the limits or constructing camps for A. D. McGibbon and Sons and C. G. Turner, Esquire. What is the justification at this time for having men wearing uniforms working in civilian camps, especially in view of the fact that the soldiers are working for the defeated member who ran in that riding. This is a serious matter, and the minister should give some consideration to it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is a question on the order paper on this point. The answer is about ready, and the information is being prepared. It will probably be put on Hansard to-morrow or, if I have the information to-morrow, I will give it to the committee.


Alan Cockeram: Is it the intention to keep men in uniform working for-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, no. I think, generally speaking, it is just in operations which are being wound up. I announced the policy only a moment ago.


Mr. SKEY:: I should like to ask a question on the subject of allowances to servicemen's wives who are still overseas. The minister has told us to-night that about a month ago the government passed an order in council which will take care of the allowances for a discharged man's wife who is still overseas. Is that order in council retroactive, and will wives of servicemen who were discharged b'efore it was passed also receive their allowances until they reach their destination in Canada?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is not retroactive, but applies from the date it was passed which, I believe, was some time in September.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Is the government considering taking care of the wives of the many servicemen who have already been discharged from the service, and whose wives in England, France, Holland or Belgium were receiving no allowance prior to the passage of that order in council?


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are all receiving it now, automatically; they do not have to make ajjplication for it. There may be the odd case where they have not been traced, but there is no doubt as to their entitlement. If there is any wife still in Europe whose husband has returned to Canada and has been discharged from the army, and who is just kept there because of a lack of shipping, she is entitled to receive dependents' allowances for herself and her children. That is automatic. That is for discharge subsequently to some date in September. I forget the date upon which the order in council was passed.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: 
Douglas Charles Abbott: .She is entitled to it from the date in September, I believe it was, when the order in council was passed, but she would not get it for the period from May to September.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: To whom would wives make application in England or Scotland for that allowance, if they were not receiving it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They should not have to make application. But if they are not receiving it they should apply to the Canadian wives bureau in London, and elsewhere. But from the records here the cheque should go forward automatically.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is no wives bureau in Scotland; it is just in England is it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just in London.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is it contemplated to date it back earlier than September?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That will not be done?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Alan Cockeram: Is that the ordinary dependents' allowance?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The regular dependents' allowance, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Travel, transportation and freight, $65,939,968.
Demobilization-Army
Gordon Knapman Fraser: What priorities are given to wives of ex-servicemen in connection with transportation from Great Britain to Canada? There are priorities; what are they?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, priorities are pretty low at the present, tifaie. We are not bringing very many of them back. But the hon. member meant, no doubt, in what way would priorities be given as between applicants'in Great Britain and others?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised there are five orders of priority. The first, of course, is for compassionate cases. I believe the next is where the husband is discharged. But before giving a complete answer I had better get the order of priority. I have not that information with me.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Practically all the husbands of these wives have been discharged.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not necessarily.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But. there are a great many. I wonder what priority they have?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In that case the priority would be the date on which she makes her application to the Canadian wives bureau.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Do officers' wives have any priority?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I ask that in order to clear up what I consider to be a misunderstanding.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They have no priority.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is all I wanted to know.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Following the question
asked by the hon. member for Peterborough West, I realize that this may not be a popular question, but it is an important one. There are a great many soldiers' wives overseas and there is considerable hardship, not only for those wives who are overseas but for wives who have returned to Canada. In the case of wives on this side, the husbands are on the other side; in the case of wives in England, the husbands are here. It. would seem to me that the department could do something without affecting the return of the soldiers themselves. I know the minister takes the attitude that his department has the responsibility of seeing that the men get back, and that is correct. However, I do not think it would affect the return of the soldiers very much if he tried to make some special arrangements to have the wives returned, perhaps at the same time as their husbands. There are quite a numbei* of ships bringing

men back to Canada, and I suggest that the minister could take possibly one of the smaller ships and set it aside to bring back the wives and husbands at the same time. These men have to set up housekeeping and establish their homes in Canada. Many of the wives who have come back are living with their in-laws and others. I know from letters I get from the Red Cross, the I.O.D.E. and other women's organizations that there is considerable hardship in this connection.
Will the minister give consideration to an attempt to relieve the situation and bring back these wives and their husbands as close together as possible? This should be part of our reestablishment programme and we should give it serious consideration.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We are giving it consideration. It is a most difficult problem, as the committee will appreciate. I do not want to make any public announcement and hold out any false hopes. It may be that with additions to our shipping-some smaller ships as my hon. friend suggests-we shall be able to bring back more wives and dependents than we are able to do at the moment. I do not know that it would be desirable to bring the wives and the husbands back in the same vessel. We have had the troopships fitted out with a large number of bunks to a cabin, and we can bring back men under conditions under which women and children could not very well be carried. I think in the interests of efficiency and economy it would be better to bring back the wives and dependents-small children require special diet and so on-in ships fitted up for that purpose.
I do not wish to hold out false hopes, but I want to assure the committee, the people of the country and those who are interested in this problem, the men who are waiting for their wives to come out, that every consideration is being given and every effort being made to bring them back as soon as we can. Speaking generally, where there is still a shortage of shipping, I still feel that the men who have been away from their wives in Canada for a long time should have first priority.
While I am discussing this question of wives I should like to correct some figures that I gave with respect to the number of wives and dependents who have been returned. The figures had been given to me and I was perhaps a little optimistic. I said that the total of the services that had been returned to date was approximately 20,000. I am sorry to say that it is not quite as large as that. The total of army wives and children is 11,890, and I think the figures for the other two services would run to something like another, 4,000. The total is something over 15,000. There is

Demobilization-Army
a question on the order paper and I shall give the exact figure. I was about 4,000 out in my total when I gave it the other day.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How many are still in
the old country?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are about 21,017 wives and 8,273 children, according to the last report, but I think those figures are still increasing. I will give the order of repatriation of wives which my hon. friend asked for a moment ago. It is as follows:
Husband discharged from service.
Husband in hospital in Canada.
Dependent pregnant.	_
Husband repatriated ex-prisoner of war.
Husband repatriated to Canada and still in service.
Compassionate eases including widows.
Normal repatriation.


Mr. LOCKHART:: I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Royal has said and also to ask the minister a brief question. Is he aware that the Canadian wives bureau in England has been assuring the wives of soldiers who have been returned that to all intents and purposes they would be on the way themselves within thirty days? That information has been given to me quite recently by members of the armed forces who have been returned but whose wives are still in the old country.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is clearly unauthorized and I doubt very much if it was given by anyone in the wives bureau. I had hoped that the statement I made some time ago would have been given fairly wide publicity. I know it resulted in a delegation of husbands coming from Toronto to see me. In any event any such information is completely unauthorized.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: There is one other point I wish to clear up. The minister intimated to me privately that no wives were being brought to this country, except on extremely compassionate grounds, whose husbands are still in the army of occupation or in other services in Europe. If people tell me that that is so, shall I be correct in trying to convince them that they are wrong?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I wanted to make sure because I have two more letters on that point. I am not trying to make it difficult for the minister; I simply want to be able to tell these people exactly what is being done. It may be just rumours that they have heard.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is only a rumour. But I shall be glad to have the names.


Mr. HARKNESS:: Does this item for travel, transportation and freight cover the transportation back to Canada of the wives and1 children of all the armed services, or do the other two services and perhaps the Department of Immigration bear a share of the cost? Also who pays the cost of the Canadian wives bureau? I was subjected to a conducted tour through the Canadian wives bureau last January, and personally I thought it was the most overstaffed branch of C.M.H.Q. Every department of C.M.H.Q. is tremendously- overstaffed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The cost of transportation of all wives from whatever service is charged to the army vote. We are responsible for repatriating the dependents of all three services. The cost of the Canadian wives bureau is also charged to this vote, but whether it comes under this item, I am not sure.


Alan Cockeram: I have been trying to study these figures which the minister has presented to the committee and, while I believe that the minister is asking for more money than he should have voted to him in many cases, here is one case in which I believe his departmental officials must have underestimated the amount that will ibe required. During 1944-45 $60,490,401 was spent under this item, and the estimate for 1915-46 is $65,939,968. It seems to me that with the tremendous increase in the number of our troops being returned to Canada, the amount required for this year should be much greater than it was last year, and an explanation is due from the minister in that regard. He should also tell us the cost of the transportation of troops from Europe, to England and from England to Canada, say to Halifax or Montreal, so that we may have some idea of the number of troops that will be included in this estimate.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The decrease of $27,000,000 odd is attributable to three factors. First, a capitation rate has been set for the transportation of all personnel, vehicles and stores in continental Europe and the United Kingdom, with a considerable reduction in cost from last year's estimate. . These matters are handled on a capitation basis. Second, vehicle and personnel shipments overseas are greatly reduced. Third, there are no initial charges for hospital ships. The cost of railway transportation in Canada for personnel proceeding to embarkation points and other repatriates returning to the home depot have been shifted to activity No. 1, with which I shall deal in a moment. That accounts in part for the reduction in expenditure in activity No. 2.
Before describing the two branches, I might outline what this item provides for. It- provides for all expenses incurred in connection with the movement of personnel, supplies and

Demobilization-Army
equipment, and the costs are set out under two heads. The first includes travel and transportation in the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States. Second, ocean transportation and freight, Canada to the United Kingdom, and the reverse. Third, railway transportation of repatriates from disembarkation point to home depot or hospital. Next, railway transportation to embarkation point of reinforcements and personnel returning to Europe from rotation leave in Canada. Next, railway freight from depot or factory to take on vehicles shipped overseas, and finally railway and ocean freight on stores and equipment returned from the United' Kingdom to Canada.
Activity No. 2 I need not review in detail. It covers transportation items in Canada. Activity No. 3 covers miscellaneous transportation costs for the reserve army, but mainly transportation to the annual training camps.	-
Under activity No. 1, that is the overseas disbursements, the estimates this year are $44,475,737, or a-reduction of $23,374,514.
Under activity No. 2, that is the Canadian end, the total is $20,318,453, which includes a carryover of some two million dollars from the previous fiscal period. That represents a reduction of $2,943,226.
For the third category, that is the reserve army in annual training camps and for miscellaneous transportation costs, the estimate is $1,145,778, or a reduction of $700,158. The over-all reduction in the estimates is $27,017,898.


Alan Cockeram: Once again I would draw the minister's attention to the actual expenditures. I do not think it is right for the minister to give the committee just the estimates. I think we should know what the actual expenditures were.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They have been given.


Alan Cockeram: The expenditures for 1944-45 were $60,000,000 odd and the minister is asking for 1945-46 S65,000,000 odd. I asked the minister to inform the committee what the transportation costs were for the individual crossing the Atlantic.


Douglas Charles Abbott: For activity No. 1, which includes personnel, equipment and so on, the per capita rate last year was $66.75 for an adult.


Alan Cockeram: Both east and west?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Either way. For children over five and under twelve, fifty per cent of

the adult rate; for children over one and under five, twenty-five per cent of the adult rate; for children under one year, $3.35.


Alan Cockeram: I want a comparison of the actual expenditures.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps that could be
obtained.


Alan Cockeram: It does not matter'on this item, but I would like the minister to give it on future items.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It would be easy to get that. Of course it is pretty hard to foresee just how members of the committee will want the break-down presented. If we cannot get it before we finish with these estimates I will undertake to bring this information down with information that was to be given on the navy estimates and answer a number of queries at the same time, possibly to-morrow or when the committee next sits.


Alan Cockeram: What I am trying to get is a comparison of the actual expenditures of last year with the estimates for the present year, I think the minister could make some kind of comparison.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The expenditures for 194445 were $60,490,401 and the estimates for 1945-46 are $65,939,968, but my hon. friend, I understand, wants the actual expenditures for 1944-45 further broken down.


Alan Cockeram: Yes, for other items. It does not matter about this item.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have had distributed
among the members a sheet showing the army estimates and expenditures for 1944-45 and the estimates for 1945-46.


Alan Cockeram: I have that. But what I was interested in was the actual expenditures, to compare them with the estimates.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We can break down the expenditures under the same three heads. But the estimate book -which I have before me deals with this year's estimates, not last. The figures are readily available. Every one of these actual expenditures for 1944-45 can probably be broken down in the same way as the estimates are broken down here. But the estimate book which I had in giving this information has never been prepared in that way. We give the totals, and then, if any member of the committee is interested in any particular item, the break-down has always been made readily available. In some, the committee may not be interested.


John Bracken: Perhaps the committee
need not take much more time on this matter in order to have clearly understood the point

Demobilization-Army
that the hon. member for York South was trying to make. The minister in explaining these items compared, the estimates for this year with the estimates for last year. What the hon. member for York South wants is a comparison of the estimates of this year with the actual expenditures for last year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That has been given.


John Bracken: But in the minister's
explanation he did not give what the hon. member wanted. He tied his explanation of this year's estimates to the estimates for last year rather than to the expenditures of last year. I do not think there is any misunderstanding of what he wants. If we compare the estimates of this year with the estimates of last year, look what we get. The estimates of this year compared with the estimates, for last year are $27 million less, but the estimates of this year compared with the expenditures of last year are $5 million more. The only point the hon. member for York South was trying to make was that if the minister will compare the estimates of this year with the actual expenditures of last year the figures will mean something, while comparing this year's estimates with the estimates of last year means little or nothing.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In some cases they are up; in some eases they are down. As I have explained so often before, particularly with respect to war expenditures, estimating is a very difficult task. You cannot tell how many vehicles will be used. It is hard to tell how much your pay and allowances will be. Your estimates vary a great deal. I used a very unfortunate phrase in the navy estimates, which I am not going to repeat because it got me into hot water. But my hon. friend is quite right, that it is probably more useful to compare estimates with actual expenditures, and it was for that reason I had these sheets prepared for distribution, showing the three items of last year's estimates, last year's actual, and this year's estimates; and the second sheet was added to give the operating results for the first six months of this year, to indicate h-ow this year's estimates were working out.


Mr. HLYNKA:: I should like to know
whether a soldier on compassionate leave who is called to report at the nearest military district for his discharge is entitled to refund of his fare if, on arrival at the military district, he is told that a mistake has been made and that he is to return home to continue on compassionate leave.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Cases of that kind have
to be looked into individually. Certain cases
of that kind have come to my attention and refunds have been made. But each case has to be considered on its merits.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like the minister
to explain how the expenditure is proportioned between the three services in respect of transportation from overseas. When the boats come back from the old country they have on board airmen, navy men and army men. How is the expense allocated to the three different services?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The army pays them, and
then the other two services for accounting purposes are charged on the capitation rate that I mentioned.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: A per capita basis?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right-on a per
capita. That is the way we settle for our transportation overseas. We have an arrangement with the British which is based on a capitation rate. It has been worked out over the period of the war and I think in some cases was finally settled only during the last few months.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Which department arranges for the chartering of the ships?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The army.


Mr. FERGUSON:: I should like to ask the minister regarding the use of Camp Borden, Barrie has been known for some time as a military town. The merchants there rely a good deal on the money spent by soldiers residing at Camp Borden. There will no doubt be a reduction in the personnel of soldiers and air force men at Camp Borden, and the purchasing power of these men will be greatly missed by the merchants of Barrie. There is and has been for years an establishment at Stanley barracks of the permanent force with, I believe, inadequate, grounds for proper training. Would the minister bear in mind, when cutting expense and increasing efficiency in the army, that the vacant barracks should be used at Camp Borden by the permanent soldiers * from Stanley, by the removal of these soldiers from the Stanley barracks, from a large centre such as Toronto, to provide great benefits to a small community like Barrie, Ontario? I would ask the minister to consider that in the interest of the reduction of costs and the increase of efficiency of the army.


William Ross Macdonald: May I point out that we are on item 3, travel, transportation and freight. I do not see how the statement made by the hon. member for Simcoe North comes
Demobilization-Army

within that item, and I wonder whether we could leave the discussion of it until we come to the item in which it is included.


Mr. DIEFENB AKER:: One matter in connection with the repatriation. There has been strong criticism of the fact that in a recent voyage of the Queen Elizabeth five per cent of those on board were civilians. The criticism is that a number of civilians, unnecessary in Canada, travelled on that ship. I have received letters from men overseas who complain about that. They point out that 600 civilians, not including wives and dependents of soldiers, are altogether too great a number of civilians to be permitted to travel on ships designated for the return of servicemen. Is the minister in a position to answer that question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, I can answer that. The Queen Elizabeth, as well as other boats, has been obtained from the British ministry of shipping, and it is obtained on condition that a certain limited amount of space is reserved for civilian passengers engaged in necessary travel. Members of the committee will realize that certain civilians have to travel. We have no control over those who oecupy that limited amount of space. That must be obtained from the British ministry of shipping.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Did the minister in an earlier statement to-night say that we have a special ship equipped to carry from England to this country the wives of our Canadian servicemen?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not yet.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: May I ask if we intend to have one?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We hope we may have.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: If we have one, will it be under the control of the Canadian army?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Construction, purchase, repairs and operating expenses of properties: (a) capital expenditure. $11,031,465; (b) repairs, operating expenses and rentals, $29,745,798.
Mr. FLEMING:: I take it that this is the item to which the remark of the hon. member for Simcoe North pertained. I have not heard any intimation that there was a thought on the part of the minister to close up Stanley barracks in Toronto.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not heard of it myself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I trust there is no thought of removing the permanent force unit, which Toronto has been glad to accommodate, from that great city.	.
[The Chairman.]


Douglas Charles Abbott: No decision in the matter has yet been made.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: My suggestion was made purely to save the country an immense sum of money. It was not that I wanted to derive any benefit that Toronto may be receiving. In order to save the public's money and to benefit the army generally I made the suggestion to the minister to move the force from Stanley barracks to the town of Barrie.


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister has intimated that there will be a permanent force of from twenty to twenty-five thousand men. It is hoped that the permanent force will^be modern in every sense of the word. In order to attract the right sort of young men into the permanent force it is essential that they be housed in up-to-date and modern buildings. I do not care where they are, anywhere across the dominion. For the past twenty years there have been very few permanent barracks constructed. There was a small barracks constructed outside Calgary, the Currie barracks, and the Vimy Ridge barracks constructed near Kingston. During the war a large number of camps were built, but the huts in those camps are of an essentially temporary nature. There have been very few, if any, permanent barracks constructed. I realize that the bulk of that construction will no doubt be carried out under the Department of Public Works, but it is essential, if we are to have a first-class regular or active army, or whatever it is called, that the personnel be housed in up-to-date barracks. I see no indication here that adequate funds are being provided for the maintenance of such buildings. Could the minister give some idea of what construction work is planned in connection with the future force?


Douglas Charles Abbott: A plan has been prepared for the sort of thing to which my hon. friend has been referring, and it has been referred to the Department of Reconstruction, the idea being, of course, that the time at which projects of that kind should be initiated should be decided by the Department of Reconstruction. Our plans have been prepared and turned .over to the Department of Reconstruction for decision by that department as to when and if the work should be gone ahead with.


George Randolph Pearkes: If we are going to recruit that force now we must have some place to put them in.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Quite.


George Randolph Pearkes: Temporary buildings are of a very poor nature. If the construction

D emobilization-Army
programme is not going to come off for perhaps a number of years there will be difficulty in holding that force.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I appreciate that, but I think the committee will realize that other forms of ouilding are a little more urgent just at the moment, including housing, to which refer-3nce was made.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does this item refer to buildings or rentals in Britain?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Included in the item is an amount of approximately 89,667,000, which represents the capitation rate for the accommodation of our army overseas. It is between ten pence and eleven pence a day. That, as well as feeding and other charges, is settled on the basis of a capitation rate, so much per man. The British provide the accommodation, pay whatever rental there is, and so on, and we pay them the capitation rate for it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does that include officers?


Douglas Charles Abbott: 
Mr. ISNOR:: I should like to ask the minister a question in connection with that particular item of new construction, $2,424,546. His officials would be able to advise him that for many years plans were under consideration for a new military headquarters in M.D. No. 6. Included in that new military headquarters was an extension through a street known as Brunswick street. The idea was to transfer a certain portion from the department of defence to the city of Halifax, and to erect a new military headquarters on a new site. Is this $2,424,546, the item that has been set aside for this particular work?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that there is
no large single item of construction included in the figure I have mentioned. It includes a large variety of comparatively small projects. I think the one to which my hon. friend has referred must be held over for a subsequent year.


Mr. HAZEN:: May we be given some more particulars about the construction? What construction has been done?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have a mass of detail
here. I find there is an item of a fairly substantial amount included here for Halifax, new Wellington barracks for Royal Canadian Army Service Corps, motor transport garage, and so on. There is an item here of some $210,000.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I thank the minister; I
thought there must be something there.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is subject, of course,
to the approval of the Department of Reconstruction in the same way as the others to which I referred. We put it in the estimates; what will happen to it I do not know.


Douglas King Hazen: What construction has been
done this year? Where has it been done? AVho did it, and what did it cost in each instance? What further construction is to be done this year; where will it be done, and what is the estimated cost? What properties were purchased this year; where were they located; from whom were they purchased; what was paid for them? Is it the intention to purchase any further properties this year? If so, where are those properties located, and what is the estimated price? Perhaps the minister cannot answer all these questions just now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend asked
similar questions when the navy estimates were before the committee. I almost felt like asking the chairman if he had made them an order for return. The information will be available; I shall get it and furnish it as soon as possible. '


Mr. STEPHENSON:: I have two questions I should like to ask. They refer to the boys training school at Bowmanville. I believe there was an agreement entered into by the government of Ontario and the dominion government in connection with it. As a result this school was turned over in 1941 for use as a prison camp for German officers. I understand1 it was to be returned to the province and restored for use as a boys training school just as soon as there was mo further need for it as a prison camp. I believe 'the German prisoners were moved in April, and I am wondering if anything is being done to restore this property.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, it is all being taken care of. I believe the Department of Munitions and Supply has let the contract to put the school back in shape, and that work is now under way.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Could the minister say whether the work has started as yet?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I could not be sure as to that, but I will inquire and find out. If not, it will start very shortly.

Demobilization-Army


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Is anything being done or will anything be done in regard to building a new armouries in Port Hope? The old armouries there were condemned years agio, and all we have at the present time is an old church building, which has been used as m armouries all during the war.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have to give my hon. friend the answer I have given a number of others who have asked the same question. This is a matter for consideration by the Department of Reconstruction. Projects of that kind are decided upon by that department.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I notice that the estimate for this year is $40,776,000, while the amount expended last year was $43,000,000, so that there is a reduction of only $3,000,000. The expenditure so far this year has been $12,500,000. Is it expected that the amount to be expended this year will be very much reduced below the estimate of $40,000,000? Has any further estimate been made in that connection?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Any reduction will depend largely upon whether or not we do any new construction. As I showed in the break-down I gave, the estimates include some considerable 'amount for new construction. Whether or not that is proceeded with will depend upon the decision taken by the Department of Reconstruction. Any substantial reduction would result from failure to proceed with the construction programme which has been provided for in the estimates.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I suppose it is istimated that this amount of $29,700,000 will be materially reduced as time goes on; that is in connection with rentals and repairs?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. Actually, of course, operating expenses for the first six months have amounted to twenty-eight per cent of the estimates. If that ratio should be maintained in the latter half of the year the estimates would be cut substantially. It is hard to say just how it will work out in the end, but we have the operating results for six months now.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: How many arsenals have we under the control of the Department of National Defence, and where are they located?


Douglas Charles Abbott: At the moment there are none under the Department of National Defence. During the war they were all administered by the Department of Munitions and Supply, and that condition still exists. That

question came up in connection with another matter, I believe under the navy estimates, and I suggested to the hon. member who asked it that probably more detailed and accurate information could be obtained when the Minister of Munitions and Supply takes up his estimates.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have a further question that I suppose I might better ask a little later, but I think it has direct reference to this matter. What plan has the Department of National Defence adopted to ensure that Canada may continue to manufacture up-to-date munitions of war for the new army? The minister quite rightly said that our army, navy and air force would be provided with the very latest equipment. Is it proposed that we shall ourselves equip those forces, or is it proposed that we shall buy the material somewhere else?


Douglas Charles Abbott: At the moment we have on hand quite a lot of the material and equipment. In future I think we will both manufacture and probably have to buy. As to the details, again I suggest that my hon. friend would get a more satisfactory answer if he addressed that question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who has been in charge of planning our armament production throughout the war.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: In that connection I have a vivid recollection of what occurred in Canada a few years ago, when it was not understood just what arsenals were. I think a great deal of credit should be given the former director of the national research council, General McNaughton, for his foresight in the early days of the depression, when he had the vision to encourage the establishment of pilot plants for the development of the art of manufacturing munitions of war. Such pilot plants were set up by the national research council, and during the war we greatly benefited from those plants and from the research that was carried on. I mention as an example the development of magnesium; the construction of the wind tunnel; the research carried on in connection with boats, and so on. To my way of thinking we should not forget the lesson we learned in the early days of this war. If we had maintained well equipped arsenals in this country; if we had established liaison with Great Britain and the United States, and so on, I think we would have been far better equipped to manufacture our own munitions of war. We would have had trained workmen; we would have had the art of manufacturing these things. I might mention a very good example. Without detracting at all from what was done by the

Demobilization-Army
John Inglis company in connection with 'tfhe manufacture of Bren guns, I have it on good authority that thousands of dollars could have been saved in the early days if the manufacture of that gun had been undertaken in a small pilot plant at an early date, instead of trying to develop the art in a great factoiy. We all know the number of rejects that came through in that factory for months.
I am bringing up these matters only to show how necessary it is for the Department of National Defence to have close liaison, through the Department of Reconstruction or the Department of Munitions and Supply, with the manufacturers of the country, so that we shall not lose the benefits of what we have learned in connection with the manufacture of these things. It seems to me that we should continue to have pilot plants operating and also that, even if it costs a little more, the Department of National Defence should buy whatever it requires from Canadian manufacturers. One part of research on which we should keep up to date all the time is that having to do with the manufacture of these munitions of war.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I should like to ask the minister one other question in connection with certain properties in the city of Halifax taken over by the Department of National Defence. I am sure I do not need to emphasize readiness and willingness with which the people of Halifax placed at the disposal of the department the exhibition grounds, where the navy was first quartered, and where there is now a barracks, the new Wellington barracks. Then there is the other property, known as Che-bucto barracks, or No. 6 district depot, which was formerly the Halifax airport. The city is very anxious to know when that property will be available for its use, so that I would ask the minister if he is in a position to advise as to how soon his department will be able to return that property to the city of Halifax.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I an afraid I cannot give my hon. friend any exact date, except to say that we are trying to get out of all exhibition properties as soon as possible. We realize that there is a natural desire on the part of local communities to have those properties available for exhibition purposes. However, I cannot give any exact date. '


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I am not greatly concerned about the exhibition. But the exhibition property lends itself in a fundamental way to future development. I hope the minister will see his way clear to segregate army troops in that particular section of Halifax, where they should
have been some years ago. In fact, I think he will find on record in his office plans which would take in that policy. I am not at this time advocating the return 'of the exhibition grounds, but I am interested in the return of the property known as No. 6 district depot, or the Halifax airport property.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have to make inquiries. We are trying to get out of properties of that kind as quickly as we can.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Many questions are being
asked of the minister, and perhaps I might assist him by making a suggestion. I notice that in this item only thirty-one per cent of the appropriation was spent in the first six months. It would seem, therefore, that the department will end up with a surplus. I would take a leaf out of the book of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) and suggest to the minister that if he would like to build a barracks where it will be greatly appreciated he might just speak to me privately, and I would tell him where to locate it.	.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Apropos of what
I said in connection with liaison between the Department of National Defence and other departments, what is to be the policy in that connection?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In connection with arsenals and research work?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Yes, in connection with having these things made in the country, and keeping up to date, and not losing the benefit of what we have done in the' war.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps the hon. member
was not in his seat when I replied to a question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). I said that the plan for research and development contemplates close liaison between industry and the defence services of the country. The method to be followed 1 is now under study, and I am not in a position to make any positive statement as to what that method will be. I can, however, assure the committee that this matter is not being overlooked, and that it is being given the most careful and anxious consideration at this time.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask the minister two, questions, the first of which has to do with the Alaska highway. Last week the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) in his capacity as acting Secretary of State for External Affairs explained to the house that the Canadian army was to take over the maintenance of the Alaska highway.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As of April 1, yes.
Demobilization-Army


Howard Charles Green: Yes, as of April 1, 1946. That, I believe, will be a new job for the Canadian army?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; that is right.


Howard Charles Green: I have no doubt there will
be a good many problems to settle. Is the minister in a position to give us any information on the point this evening? For example, can he tell us whether it will be under the supervision of the Royal Canadian Engineers or just what the plan will be?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can reply in a general
way. As a matter of fact, the Canadian army was keenly interested in taking over the maintenance of the Alaska highway, because it will afford an opportunity for practical training in bridge construction, and that sort of thing by the engineering corps. It is felt that that will be of interest to the younger men coming in. For this reason the army is interested- in taking over the highway. We take over as of April 1, so that there is no provision in this year's estimates. Next year, however, there will have to be an estimate to make provision for the maintenance and upkeep of the Alaska highway. The staff is now giving this matter careful consideration, in consultation with United States military authorities who have been in charge up to the present time, and who have made available their cost figures to show what provision we shall have to make.


Howard Charles Green: My second question has to
do with the possibility of the army's giving up some of the building space it now occupies. I would imagine that -the situation is much the same in every province of Canada. However, in Vancouver the army took over the old Vancouver hotel which, as the minister is no doubt aware, is a very large building. Some suggestion was made a few weeks ago that the army was to clear out, and have someone take over the building. However, no definite announcement has been made.
It is of the utmost importance that there be some reduction in space occupied by government departments. For example. I have letters from doctors who are returning from overseas, after having served for several years;
I receive letters from lawyers and from other men who require office- space, and all tell me that they are having the utmost difficulty in finding any space at all. If the army could cut down on the space being used it would be helpful in reestablishing these men.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can assure my hon. friend that this question is receiving daily consideration, not only by the officers of the department,

but by myself. I am sure there is not a morning conference goes by when, in meeting with the staff, we do not have some, question before us in which a request has been made to vacate some space. We are doing our best to meet these requests.
The committee will realize that we still have a fairly heavy problem on our hands, with demobilization, the storage of equipment and the like, with the result that it is not possible to move out as rapidly as we might wish. However, we are making shifts from property which may be used for purposes such as have been suggested by the hon. member, and moving into other types of property situated perhaps in more remote areas. AVe can do that now. He is right when he says that this is an important point, and I can assure him that we are doing the best we can to see that the necessary changes are made.


Howard Charles Green: What about the old Vancouver hotel?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is under-to use a popular expression-the most active consideration at the present time. I am -not in a position yet to make a positive statement on the point, but I hope before long I may be able to do so.


Mr. MacNICOL:: May I revert to the Alaska highway, because I know something about the road, having been over it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I point out that it is not covered by this item.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the minister in a position to tell the committee if the engineering department has made any estimate as to the cost of taking care of the Alaska highway?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not yet. That will have to be included in next year's estimates. We are now conferring with United States authorities who have had under their control the upkeep of that highway, to find out what their costs have been. We are preparing estimates, but I cannot give any statement at this time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I might say that I conferred with the United States engineers on the highway in connection with keeping it in order after the war was over. The information I got was that for the first year it would cost approximately $15 million, but that from then on it would cost approximately $5 million a year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The information I have is that the highway is in good condition to-day. I should have thought the hon. member's figure is pretty high.

Demobilization-Army


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the minister mean my figure of $5 million?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought the hon. member said $15 million.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I gave .that amount for the first year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would not be in a position to give any figure. I have no doubt my hon. friend's information is pretty good.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -All the non-permanent bridges would probably have to be rebuilt the first year. However, quite a number are permanent and they should not have to be rebuilt. I am of opinion that perhaps they were right in stating that the yearly cost would be about $5 million, once we have it in shape.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Personnel supplies and services; food, medical and dental stores, clothing and personal equipment, $142,857,171.
Alan Cockeram: The actual expenditures on this item in the fiscal year 1944-45 were $153,569,439. I notice that the estimate for 1945-46 is $142,857,171, or a reduction of about $11 million. The war was over in May, so far as the European war is concerned. But it does seem to me there should be a greater reduction in this amount than is shown here, for the simple reason that the minister has told the committee that, up to date, 100,000 men have been demobilized, and this item includes personnel supplies, food, medical and dental stores. There must certainly be an explanation for a figure which is so much out of line as this one is.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before 'the minister gives
his answer, I wish to say a few things about clothing and personal equipment. This amount is quite large. I should like to know what is done with military clothing which has been worn and which is returned to the department. I understand that some of this clothing is given to the soldier, but that what is left is given to the Indians or sold by the pound. During the war a colonization agent in my constituency tried to buy some of this clothing for settlers and settlers' children. He was told to wait until after the war. Now this clothing is in the hands of War Assets Corporation.
An hon MEMBER:	Or destroyed.


Jean-François Pouliot: Or burned or sold to the
man who makes a huge profit from dealing in that kind of clothing. The acting leader of the house must remember the days when he was the Minister of National Defence. I was proud of him because he did veTy well. He has a quality which the two
ministers before the present minister did not have; he is human. He understood the difficulties faced by people, as did Norman Rogers and as does the present incumbent of this post. But the others did not.
I remember the time when General LaFleche was deputy to the minister. I told him of the _ difficulties faced by settlers whose children had to stay indoors all winter without going out to play in the snow because they had no clothing. The kind heart of the minister did not have to mellow because he had a good heart. He understood the problem of these people, and he decided to distribute some of this clothing which was no longer of use to the army to relieve the distress of the poor and to give an opportunity to these young children to have some warm clothing in the winter. The minister probably has forgotten his good actions on that occasion, but I remember them and those whose suffering was relieved by his ffindness still remember that. They have to have good memories because since then they have got nothing. What happened? The war expenditures committee acted foolishly and listened to some brass hate who had no heart and who suggested that everything should be sold to the junk dealer. I do not know if they were agents of the junk dealers, or if tl^ey had a share in the benefits from the sale of those goods. It may have happened because it does happen sometimes. I was scandalized to see those men with hearts of- stone refuse to give a chance to the poor of this country.
They were ready to give this clothing to the Indians, which is all right for the Indians. The hon. member for Calgary East has suggested that the Indians should have the same rights as the whites as far as old age pensions are concerned. That is quite fair, but I think the least we should expect is that the whites should have the same rights as the Indians. When there is poverty in our midst it is the duty of men in public life to realize that family allowances are not enough * to cover expenditures incurred by parents when bringing up a large family. When there is an opportunity to provide some generous help, they should not miss that opportunity. These people are poor, but they are proud. They sometimes resent the way in which charity is offered, but something given by the state is not charity that brings humiliation to their hearts. They accept willingly their share of what belongs to the country. What belongs to the country, belongs to the people at large. It belongs to all the people, but it should be distributed to those who need it most.
Demobilization-Army

I do not see why anyone should have to pay anything for a wise and judicious distribution of this clothing to the needy, to those among us who are suffering. We hear a lot about public health. There is a committee of the house of which I am a member, but I must say that I have not attended any sitting. I am not interested because it is mainly academic. I am not interested in academic matters; I am interested in facts and actions. If a thing is not done according to scientific formulae the experts of the Department of Health and Welfare will turn it down, even though it achieves its aim. They have fine brains, but they are brains that should be kept under glass in a coffin to be exposed to all passers by. Their brains are so large that they take up all the space in their bodies and no room is left for a heart. That is how health and welfare is understood in Ottawa. Do you think that cheques will cure all the evil? Cheques are good and cheques are appreciated, but cheques of $5 or $6 or $7 will not buy all the warm clothing that the young ones need, especially in the winter that is coming very quickly. I know that the minister will tell me: You will have to put your request before War Assets Corporation. But there is not time. The minister is piloting this estimate-


Angus MacInnis: He is not piloting; he is anchored.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. frie#nd will pardon me if I use a nautical expression in reference to the ship of state.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is clever.


Jean-François Pouliot: But here we are. Let us give our imaginations an opportunity to picture the huge quantities of clothing and personal equipment amounting to $159,000,000 worth. That is a very large bouquet on the desk of the minister, to purchase new clothing and personal equipment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That was last year's estimate. It is $142,000,000 this year,


Jean-François Pouliot: It makes little difference when we are dealing with such big figures. If it were only $100,000,000, it would be something. It is a formidable sum of money, perhaps not formidable to the government but certainly formidable to me. This money is to buy new clothes and new equipment, and perhaps there will be certain services and supplies. It is a very large amount, to purchase a very' large quantity of new clothing to replace another large quantity of clothing which is not so good, naturally, as the new clothing but which still may be quite service-
able to mothers who would tailor it into good warm clothing for their young children. Here I must pay a special tribute to the Canadian mother, who is just as industrious as a bee, and who takes advantage of her natural skill to do things that would seem to man to be impossible. Is it not possible to bring this matter to the attention not only of the minister but of the whole cabinet? It would bring relief to a large number of families, and would cost the government nothing, except the small amount that would otherwise be got from the junk dealers. The cost is nothing compared with the good that would come to the nation if the government would act as it has done in distant past years. I know the minister is well disposed on many matters, and I hope that he will speak to the Minister of Reconstruction, under whose administration War Assets Corporation comes, so that some of this clothing may be widely distributed to the needy through charitable organizations, the Red Cross, parish priests and municipal councils. It would be a good act and it would help the families of the settlers as much as family allowance.
While I am on my feet I wish to pay a special tribute to the very finest man who was in the Department of National Defence during the past year, Colonel Henri Des-Rosiers, who has won many decorations and who led the famous 22nd battalion into Germany after the last war. I have been told by my friends and my relatives what a gallant officer he was then. After the war he occupied the high position of vice-president of the Imperial Tobacco company in Montreal. He left that position to come to Ottawa to fulfil a most ungrateful task. I had to write to him again and again, and "if there was no revolution in my county it was due to the fairness and spirit of justice and to the really manly qualities of Colonel DesRosiers. I owe him a special tribute. He has helped the poor by very fine acts of charity, and he has helped some soldiers, who did not know a word of English and who had only Englishspeaking officers, to get transferred to other positions. He has also been a wise adviser to the ministers of national defence who unfortunately did not ask often enough for hia advice. He was the ideal man in the pfiblic service. He worked in team with the present incumbent of the office of deputy minister. Colonel DesRosiers has not been replaced, and the fact that he has not been replaced in the position of deputy minister is a great loss to French Canadians, and not only French Canadians but to all who are French speaking. There is a reason for that. As we have the same expenditures practically

D e mobilization-A rm y
in the Department of National Defence as during the war there must be the same amount of work to be done as there was before, and as there were two deputy ministers during the war I do not see how one can fulfil all the tasks now. The estimates are nearly as big this year as last. There are good men among the French-speaking officers in the army, but they have not an opportunity to serve in the Department of National Defence.
Replying to what was said by one of the new members, we might take, for instance, Major-General Tremblay, one of the finest men in the army. He also was commander of the 22nd regiment. His chest is full of decorations which he won on the battlefield. He has a fine reputation not only in Canada but overseas as well, and plenty of friends. He was appointed inspector-general of the army in the eastern command. What did he do? For months and months, perhaps for more than a year, or even two years, he was seconded by the Department of National Defence to the Department of Labour to act as a buffer in matters of man-power. He was there as a clerk and tool of Ralston, while there was no inspector-general to look after these needs of the army in the eastern command. He kept his position as inspector-general but he could not fill it. This is only one example, but the time is late, and I will not quote any more. This sort of thing shows that when competent men are assigned to a certain duty in the army they are removed to be clerks-minor clerks-in other departments where their work is not as useful as it would have been had they been left at their original posts. I could tell much more, but that, I think, is enough for the present.
I want my compatriots from the province of Quebec to be respected; and if there are no more who have important positions it is because they are kept in the dark by those who are interested in not bringing them into the limelight and who may be jealous of them.
The minister is fair-minded; he is living in the big city of Montreal; he knows that some of his best friends are French Canadians and the value of those who are French Canadians. I was touched when I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard say that he had met French-Canadian officers when he was in German concentration camps, and there he knew them and was able to judge the quality of the province of Quebec by the character of her sons.
We hope that the minister will do, what has not been done by Colonel Ralston or General McNaughton, namely, bring reform into the 47696-111
Department of National Defence. It is a very hard task, and Mr. Chairman, I will tell you why. It is because of the men of the department who are around a minister. I do not speak particularly of the Minister of National Defence; it applies to all departments. These people have meals together; sometimes their wives are friendly. If this or that man is fired they will complain to the minister and say, "Oh, So-and-so, why did you do that to him?" Wives like to talk to each other; then there will be trouble in the house, and friends will come there and say-I do not speak of any minister in particular-"Why did you do that to your friend? You were unjust." Then the chiefs of the branches have their own friends; they are friendly with the deputy; their wives meet and have parties together; they form a sort of family compact which it is hard to destroy. People may suffer on account of the incompetence of individuals, but there is close friendship between some of them, and it is impossible to break those links, to cut those ties and >
say, "You, So-and-so are incompetent; it is unfortunate, but you will have to go and make room for a competent one." It is a hard thing to do. Things like that go on all the time, and that is why we have no reform. It takes more courage to bring reform into the Department of National Defence or any other department than to fight a war against any enemy, because reform of this kind has to be done in peace time, when the world is supposed to be full of men of good will, and as all men are supposed to be full of good will, how can we call anyone incompetent? The one who calls him incompetent is not supposed to have any good will; the other is regarded as a victim; and so we cannot have reform.
However, it is nearly eleven o'clock. Some hon. members may have something important to say. I hope the ministers will not forget, even in their sleep, what I have said, and if they decide to bring reform they will deserve and receive fine treatment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on railways and shipping.-Mr. Maybank.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Firearms
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 2, 1945