1945-04-09

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

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What are the salary schedules paid by the Canadian National Railways to all employees in a supervisory capacity from vice-president down, except such classifications as are covered by wage agreements?
2.	What are the salary schedules paid by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to all employees in a supervisory capacity from vicepresident down, except such classifications as are covered by wage agreements?
3.	How do the above salary schedules compare with those of class one railways in the United States?


Mr. MICHAUD:: It is not considered in the public interest that this question should be answered. The question has to do with the internal management

of the Canadian National Railways and is of a type that all governments have consistently declined to answer.
2.	No information.
3.	No information.


TREASURY BILLS
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What is the total amount of treasury bills held by the Department of Finance from each of the provinces?
2.	What demands for payment of these treasury bills have been made to each of the provincial governments since 1930?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 
ST. HONORE, QUE., AIRPORT
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Has any work been done by the government on airport runways at St. Honore, in the Lake St. John area, Quebec?
2.	If so, were any engineers employed?
3.	What are the names of such engineers?
4.	Where are their offices located?
5.	Were they paid any fees for their services? If so, what total amount?
6.	Has the work as originally carried out been accepted by the government?
7.	If not, have instructions been given by the government to proceed with the rebuilding of such works?
8.	Has the government made new disbursements in connection with such works?
9.	If so, to whom were such payments made, and to what total amount?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Yes, under the British commonwealth air training plan.
2.	Yes.
3.	Department of Transport engineering personnel-District	airway engineer, 0. L.
Colborne-up to June 30, 1943; district airway engineer, J. H. Curzon-from July 1, 1943 to the present; resident engineer-G. L. Taylor; inspector-Carl Warren; inspection firm-F. J. Leduc & Associates.
4.	The district airway engineer's office is located at 904 Confederation Bldg., Montreal, P.Q. The firm of F. J. Leduc & Associates is located at 354 St. Catherine East (Corner St. Denis), Montreal, P.Q.
5.	Total amount paid out on Department of Transport engineering services, (salaries, expenses, etc.)-$20,156.18. Total amount paid out on fees to F. J. Leduc & Associates- $11,968.36.
6.	Yes.
7.	See answer to No. 6
S and 9. No new disbursements have so far been made in connection with this airport, but a contract has been entered into with Mr. Louis H. Tremblay for the fencing of the right of way of the entrance road, at an estimated cost of $2,700. Mr. Tremblay has. commenced this work, but no money has, as yet, been paid to him for the same.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND FERRY
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: 1.	Has actual construction been started on the hull of the new ferry for the Prince Edward Island service?
2.	If not, what is the reason for the delay?
3.	If construction has actually been started, how far has the hull been completed?
4.	Who has the contract for construction?
5.	What is the contract price?
6.	Does the contract price cover the completed ship or is there a separate contract for the machinery?
7.	Has a contract been let for the construction
of the machinery?
8.	If so, to what stage has construction advanced?
9.	When does the contract for the machinery call for delivery?
10.	When is it expected that delivery will take place?
11.	What name has been given to the ship, if any?
12.	When is it expected that the ship will be in operation on her designated route?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Yes.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	The following hull steel work is erected:- (a) complete fiat keel and centre girder; (b) floors and girders and tank top-plating for about 140 feet of ship's length; (c) 50 bottom shell plates. The following is fabricated:- (a) 70 main and intermediate frames, both sides; (b) stringers for about 140 feet of ship's length; (c) 1 bulkhead. Pattern for stem completed and for stern frame 3/4 completed; loft moulds completed for 15 floors both sides and 140 feet side girders both sides.
4.	Marine Industries Limited, Sorel, Que.
5.	On basis of cost, plus fixed fee. The total estimated cost is $4,750,000.
6.	The contract price is for the completed ship.
7.	Marine Industries Limited have sub-let the work for construction of the machinery to Dominion Engineering Company, Limited.
8.	The propulsion equipment includes a power plant, consisting of 16-6 cylinder engines in sets of two, each set direct connected to a 1050 k.w. generator. The actual propulsion is done by four propellers each driven by a 3.850 h.p. electric motor. The auxiliary equip-
Questions

ment includes a power plant consisting of three 4 cylinder engines each direct connected to a 330 k.w. generator. This power plant is for supplying the lighting and all ship's services. For the propulsion machinery engines all castings and about 3/4 of the forgings have been delivered to the shops, cylinders, cylinder liners, cylinder heads, main engine castings, crank and cam shafts are completely machined. All other castings and forgings are approximately 1/3 machined.
Twenty-four of the cylinders complete with lines are assembled on the crank casings and two crank shafts are being fitted in the crank bases. All plans for engines are complete.
All of the material for the eight 1050 K.W. generators has been delivered to the electrical factory and is now in process of manufacture. Shipment to the engine builder for assembly with the engines is scheduled to commence with two generators in August, continuing two each month, with complete shipment early in November.
Likewise all of the material for the four 3850 H.P. propulsion motors has been delivered to the factory. These being among the largest of their type ever built in Canada require a longer time for manufacture. Shipment to the shipbuilder will commence with two in January and two in February, 1946.
All the material for the control of this power plant has been ordered and about 90 per cent [DOT]of it is in the electrical factory. Assembly has not yet been started pending completion of the necessary drafting of the design. Such drafting is about 90 per cent complete and assembly of the control equipment will commence shortly.
For the auxiliary power plant engine about half of the castings and forgings are in the shop, of which about half are machined. All of the material for the three 330 K.W. auxiliary generators has been delivered to the electrical factory and manufacture is well advanced. Shipment to the engine builder for assembly with the engines is expected to be complete early in November.
9.	February, 1946.
10.	As called for.
11.	No name has been given to the ship as yet.
12.	During the summer of 1946.


BRETTON WOODS
Mr. McGEER:: 1.	What powers, rights, privileges, opportunities or advantages now enjoyed by the government and the people of Canada will be given up, in whole or in part, as a result of the acceptance and adoption of the agreement reached at the united nations monetary and {Mr. Michaud.]
finance conference held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in 1944, for the establishment of an international monetary fund and of an international bank for reconstruction and development?
2.	What powers, rights, privileges, opportunities or advantages will the government and the people of Canada secure from the adoption of the above mentioned agreement?


Mr. ILSLEY:: I should like to say a word about this question. I think it would be impossible to answer it without developing an argument for or against the recommendations of the Bretton Woods conference. The hon. member spoke to me about this question and I consented to its going on the order paper, but on consideration I do not think it can be answered. If the information is to be given I think it would be appropriate to give it by means of an analysis of the Bretton Woods proposals to be put out in a white paper. I should be prepared to give consideration to the desirability of having such a white paper prepared and tabled at the next session of parliament.
Question dropped.


R.C.A.F.-NO. 12 EQUIPMENT DEPOT, MONTREAL
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: What is the total value of the supplies and equipment lost, stolen and broken at number 12 equipment depot, R.C.A.F., Montreal, Quebec, since the beginning of this war?


Mr. GIBSON:: To 31st March, 1945, losses, $27,111.35; thefts, $130.78; breakages, $6,414.50; total, $33,656.63.


HECLA, MAN., DOCK
Mr. BRYCE:: 1.	What money has been or will be spent for repairs on Hecla dock, Manitoba, for the fiscal year 1944-45?
2.	Who received payment for this work?
3.	Who is hiring the day labour on this project and at what rates?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	$2,023.42 (work completed).
2.	G. A. Williams, lumber, $257.03; Departmental stock, lumber, $77.11; H. B. Magnusson, disbursements, $4; Fedor Thordasson, stone, $601; H. B. Magnusson, foreman, $560; S. K. Johnson, timberman, $257.42; W. E. Bell, timberman, $211.06; Reggie Johannesson, labourer, $49.68; Unemployment insurance commission stamps, $6.12.
3.	(a) Labour hired by foreman through national selective service; (b) foreman, $7 per day; timberman, 61c per hour; labourer, 46c per hour.

Questions


EXPORTS OF OATS AND BARLEY TO THE UNITED STATES
Mr. PERLEY:: How many bushels of oats and barley have been exported to the United States since 1943, by growers permit or direct by the wheat board or any other source, and what was the price paid by the United States per bushel?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: The export of oats and barley did not come under the control of the Canadian wheat board until April 1943 and records of exports since that time have been maintained by the board through the issuance of export permits. The following figures include export permits covering the shipment to countries other than the United States; however, these are comparatively small.
During the period April to July 1943 export permits were issued for a total of 30,806,605 bushels of oats (including processed oats, oat groat products and mixed feed oats), for which a total equalization fee of $1,159,762.76 was collected. Of this quantity export permits were issued for 7,241,509 bushels on which no equalization fee was charged as contracts had been entered into prior to the establishment of equalization funds. The average equalization fee collected during this period on oat permits subject to a fee was 4-92 cents per bushel. For this same period export permits were issued for a total of 28,618,309 bushels of barley (including processed barley, barley malt and pot and pearl barley) for which a total equalization fee of $479,974.32 was collected. The comparative price situation in Canada and the United States did not warrant the assessing of equalization fees on barley until May 28, 1943; therefore, permits were issued for 25,471,055 bushels on which no fee was charged. The average equalization fee collected during this period on barley permits subject to a fee was 15-25 cents per bushel.
Export permits issued and fees collected during the crop year August 1, 1943 to July 31, 1944 are as follows:
Oats (including processed oats, oat groat products and mixed feed oats), permits issued, 69,163,151-08 bushels; equalization fee collected, $23,912,449.29; average per bushel, 34-57 cents.
Barley (including processed barley, barley malt and pot and pearl barley), permits issued, 27,920,010-30 bushels; equalization fee collected, $11,796,937.06; average per bushel, 42-25 cents.
The cost of western Canadian oats and barley to the United States purchaser would be the ceiling price for these grains in store Fort William./Port Arthur, which is 51i cents per bushel for oats and 64f cents per bushel
for barley, plus the equalization fee, plus forwarding costs from Fort William/Port Arthur to destination.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION- MARITIME REGION
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	How many persons are employed by the unemployment insurance commission in the maritime region?
2.	How many of them are veterans of this war or the last war?
3.	How many permanent appointments have been made in the maritime region?
4.	What are the names and addresses of all persons holding permanent positions in the maritime region, and which of them served in this or the last war?


Mr. MARTIN:: In making reply to this question I would point out that the answer to part 1 is not complete in that it does not contain a break-down of the number of women employed; consequently an erroneous impression would be possible. Later, however, I hope to be able to table a supplementary answer to that part of the question, and subject to this reservation I now answer the question.
1.	430.
2.	69.
3.	45.
4.	Name-Address-War Service
Grace Whitney Anderson (Miss), 35 Mountain Road, Moncton.
Wm. George Archibald, 300 Marsh St., New Glasgow.
Frederick T. Armstrong, Yarmouth.
Hamilton Baird, 324 High St., Moncton; service present war.
Frank Belliveau, 18 McAllen Lane, Moncton; service last war.
Hugh A. Bruce, 32 School St., Sydney; service last war.
John E. Burgess, 452 Main St., Kentville.
Elda L. Caldwell (Miss), 396 Lower Road, Halifax.
H. S. Calver (Mrs.), 12 South Bentick St., Sydney.
Edith E. Cox (Miss), 101 Weymouth St., Charlottetown.
Leo J. Curry, c/o Unemployment Ins. Com. Dom. Government Bldg., Moncton.
E.	C. Dolan (Miss), 39 Carleton St., Saint John.
M. M. Dunsworth (Miss), 378 Robinson St., Moncton.
E. L. Foster (Miss), 32 Carleton St., Saint John.
K. S. Foster (Miss), 161 Botsford St., Moncton.
R. W. Goss, 34 Seymour St., Halifax; service last war.
Questions

R.	P. Hartley, 366 Highfield St., Moncton.
M. A. Hennessey (Miss), 4 Belleview Ave.,
Moncton.
G.	V. Jacques, New Glasgow.
I.	P. Jollymore (Miss), 126 Steadman St., Moncton.
J.	P. Keating, 66 Broadview Ave., Moncton; service last war.
W. M. Kisson, 377 Union St., North Devon.
H.	Livingstone, 46 Dominion St., Glace Bay; service last war.
G.	A. Lough, 25 Cobourg Rd., Halifax; service last war.
M. R. McCormick, Sydney River.
F.	E. Manson, 43 Inglis St., Halifax.
A. V. Milton, Pictou; service last war.
E. L. Morris, c/o Unemployment Ins. Com. Dom. Government Bldg., Moncton; service last war.
J. B. Murley, 83 Upper Prince St., Charlottetown; service last war.
J. R. O'Connell, 281 Mountain Road, Moncton.
C. C. Ogilvie, 48 York St., Glace Bay; service last war.
H.	M. O'Neil, Highland Ave., Yarmouth.
G.	H. Purdy, 71 Portledge Ave., Moncton.
T. B. Radford, 137 Gordon St., Moncton.
W. M. Roberts, 67 Archibald St., Moncton.
E. Rundle (Miss), Greenwood St., Westville.
W. J. Ryan, 126 Douglas Ave., Saint John; service last war and present war.
A. H. Sherren (Mrs.), 108 Archibald St., Moncton.
W. I. Steeves, 43 Winter St., Moncton.
Rene Surette, Leger Corner, N.B.
L. F. Ward (Miss), 410 Douglas Ave., Saint John.
S.	C. Wright. 22 Portledge Ave., Moncton; service last war.
J. M. Gibson. 77 Spurr St., Moncton.
Edmund Burke, not known; presently oh active service.
E. M. Steeves (Miss), not known; presently on active service.


SEVENTH VICTORY LOAN
Mr. TRIPP:: I.	What was the time period of campaign covered in the seventh victory loan?
2.	What were the opening and closing dates?
3.	Was any extension of time required to complete the canvass?
4.	What was the objective in dollars, and was this attained?
5.	What number of canvassers participated?
6.	W'hat was the objective in dollars for the province of Saskatchewan?
7.	Was this objective reached during the campaign?
8.	What was the total amount subscribed by this province?

9.	Has the province of Saskatchewan, under the Douglas government, conducted a campaign in which to raise funds to finance, or assist in financing, government-owned enterprises?
10.	If so, what was the time period set for the campaign?
11.	What were the opening and closing dates?
12.	What was the objective in dollars?
13.	What number of canvassers participated?
14.	Was the objective in dollars attained by the closing day of the campaign, and what amount was subscribed to that date?
15.	Was it necessary to extend the closing date of the campaign in order to reach the objective?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Three weeks.
2.	October 23 to November 11, 1944.
3.	No.
4.	81,300,000,000 in cash. Actual cash subscriptions totalled $1,517,642,700; (final figures are not yet available).
5.	14,742.
6.	Cash objective-$35,355,000.
7.	Yes.
8.	Cash sales-$50,554,400.
9 to 15. Not of official government record.
PERIODICAL "money"


Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	Are copies of Motley, a small periodical published at 1165 Broadway, New York, denied entry into Canada?
2.	If so, on what grounds or for what reason?
3.	When was the ban put on?
4.	By whom was the ban put on?
5.	Upon whose authority?
6.	What reason is given for maintaining this ban?
7.	Would any person in Canada possessing a copy of this publication be held guilty of a punishable offence?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Yes.
2.	This publication was prohibited on the recommendation of the censorship authorities, because it was spreading German propaganda.
3.	June 20, 1941.
4.	By the Department of National Revenue.
5.	Under authority of section 39A of the defence of Canada regulations, 1939, on the recommendation of the chief censors of publications; and section 13 and Item 1201, Schedule "C" of the customs tariff.
6.	See answer to question 2.
7.	Any person would be liable to prosecution under section 63 of the defence of Canada regulations.


NATIONAL FLAG AND NATIONAL ANTHEM
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX:
When will the Prime Minister implement his promise made in 1944 to give our country a national flag and a national anthem?

Questions
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: This will depend on the opportunity he may have for so doing, and on the appropriateness of the occasion.


VETERANS' LAND SETTLEMENT-SIMCOE COUNTY
Mr. McCUAIG:: 1.	What properties have been purchased in Simcoe county for veteran land settlement?
2.	What was the acreage and purchase price in each case?
3.	How many properties have been approved for purchase and not yet completed?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1 and 2. As at February 28th, 1946:
Purchase
Land	Acreage Price
N. i lot 5, concession 12,
township Tecumseh 	100	$4,700S. 1 lot 17, concession 7, township Essa 	100	4,500N.E. i lot 21, concession 8, township Flos 	50	3,000N.W. i lot 6 and N.E. *} lot 5, concession 7, township In-nisfil 	100	3,500E. part lot 15, concession 1, township Oro 	85	4,600W. part of W. i lot 20, concession 4, township Vespra	25	3,2003.	Statistical information is compiled) by regional areas. In the Toronto regional office area which includes the county of Simcoe transactions covering 7 properties approved1 for purchase have not been completed.


DR. BELA EISNER
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Has Hr. Bela Eisner been appointed by the Minister of National War Services, or by the Department of National War Services, or by the committee on cooperation in Canadian citizenship, to do any work on behalf of said committee? If so, what is the nature of the work assigned to Dr. Eisner?
2.	Were any Hungarian organizations in Canada consulted with reference to Dr. Eisner's appointment before it was made? If so, what organizations, and what were their views in the matter of Dr. Eisner's appointment?
3.	Is Dr. Eisner receiving any remuneration from the government for the work he is doing? If so, howr much?
Mr. LaFLECHE:
1.	The services of Dr. Bela Eisner were utilized for a period of three months, September, October and November, 1942, for the purpose of obtaining a report on the general situation of Canadian Communities of Hungarian origin. He has not been connected with this department since that time.
32283- 42
2.	Dr. Bela Eisner's services were recommended by the cultural council of Canadians of hungarian origin.
3.	Travelling expenses only were paid for the months of September, October and November, 1942, in the amount of $414.95.


AMERICAN STERILIZER
Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	What business house represents the American Sterilizer people in Canada?
2.	Is Lieutenant-Colonel Wheeler, head of the directorate of hospital equipment and supplies, a director of the above concern?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	Ingram and Bell Limited.
2.	Yes.


JAPANESE NATIONALS-INTERPRETERS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MaeINNIS:
1.	Did the British government or any agency or department of the British government make a request of the government of Canada or any agency or department thereof for the services of persons of Japanese origin in Canada as interpreters or for any other purposes connected with the war?
2.	If so, what number of persons of Japanese origin was asked for?
3.	What disposition was made of the request?
4.	If rejected, for what reason?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The United Kingdom government and other commonwealth governments have made requests to the Canadian government for the services of Canadians of Japanese origin for various purposes connected with the conduct of the war.
The governments concerned have been informed that their needs will be filled in so far as qualified individuals can be found.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-ROTATION LEAVE
Mr. CASE:: 1.	What is the procedure for rotation leave now in force for the armed forces overseas?
2.	Is it automatic?
3.	Does a soldier have to apply for such leave?
4.	If so, how many applications have been granted?
5.	Have any been refused?
6.	If so, how many and for what reasons?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	Rotation leave is granted on monthly quotas. Selections are made by commanders in the field for troops in theatres of operations and by Canadian military headquarters for those in the United Kingdom. Leave is granted on a priority basis having regard to the soldier's length of overseas service, amount of combat service, marital status, conduct, etc.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.

Questions

4,	5 and 6. This information is not available in Canada but could be secured from Canadian military headquarters. To do so, however, would involve extensive inquiry inasmuch as the details must be secured from unit commanders in the field, and require a great deal of time and labour to secure. To date a total of 4,084 all ranks have been returned to Canada under this scheme.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	What loans have been made by the industrial development bank, by months, since the beginning of its operations?
2.	Has the industrial development bank opened, or does it intend to open, any branch offices other than those in Toronto and Vancouver?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	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 February 28, 1945, appeared in the Canada Gazette of March 24, 1945, and showed loans and investments (excluding dominion government securities) at $79,229.77.
In addition, section 29(2) provides that "The bank shall make up and transit 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.
2.	The Industrial Development bank has opened branches in Toronto and Montreal and will open shortly a branch in Vancouver. The policy of the bank in opening additional branches will be determined by the board of directors in light of the volume of loaning business in other localities.


EDMONTON-FAIRBANKS-TELEPHONE LINES
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	On the withdrawal of American army personnel from Yukon, Alberta and western British Columbia, will the government of Canada acquire the telephone lines constructed by said army between Edmonton, Alberta, passing through Whitehorse, Yukon, and extending to Fairbanks, Alaska?
2.	Will the government of Canada consider linking said lines with its government telegraph system?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Under the exchange of notes of June 23 and 27, 1944, the Canadian government undertook to reimburse the United States government for the construction of the telephone-telegraph teletype line from Edmonton to the Alaska boundary. The agreement provides that these facilities will be relinquished to the Canadian government.
2.	The question of the future use of these lines is under consideration and no statement can be made at present.


PRESCOTT-OGDENSBURG FERRY
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Has the government paid any subsidy to the Prescott-Ogdensburg Ferry Company since the beginning of the war?
2.	If so, what amounts have been paid?
3.	Are further payments of any such subsidies contemplated?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Yes.
2.	1942-43, $11,640; 1943-44, $11,640; 1944-45 (to Dec. 31, 1944), $8,730.
3.	Yes, a further payment of $2,910 will be made for the quarter ended March 31, 1945, as soon as claims are received and approved.


CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Who are the members of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, whom do they represent and what public office do they hold in Canada?
2.	How many received an exit permit to go to England; what are their names, and for what purpose did they go?
3.	Which of them, if any, are soldiers w'ho served overseas in this or the last war, and in what capacity?
4.	Was the trip approved of and did it have the sanction of the government?
5.	In time of war, how many of these trips have been authorized and to where?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	I am informed that the C.I.I.A. is an unofficial body founded to encourage the study of international questions. It is associated with the Royal Institute of International Affairs in the United Kingdom, and with similar institutes in other countries.
2.	In February, 1945, the following persons went to the United Kingdom to attend an unofficial British commonwealth relations conference held under the auspices of the R.I.I.A.:
Mr. E. J. Tarr, Mr. Victor Sifton, Mr. W. A. Irwin, Mr. B. K. Sandwell, Professor R. G. Trotter, Mr. Unwin, Mr. D. R. Michener, Mr. A. Brewin.

Questions as Orders jor Returns
It is assumed that it is these to whom the question refers.
3.	No information.
4.	The journey was not made on official business.
5.	No official authorization is necessary for travel to the United Kingdom provided the normal passport and other regulations are met.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many home defence troops who were in Canada on February 28, 1945, were in, (a) operational units; (b) noil-operational units; (c) in training?
2.	How many home defence troops volunteered for active service in each of the months of January, February and March, 1945?
3.	How many of the home defence troops are on extended leave from depots and in particular, (a) by provinces; (b) by military districts?
4.	How many home defence troops ordered overseas or to some other part of Canada or who have been on leave, failed to report in each of the months, November, December, 1944, and January, February and March, 1945, (a) by provinces; (b) by military districts?
5.	How many of these men have been apprehended in each of the five months?
6.	How many have been prosecuted, and are such men punished for being absent without leave or as deserters?
7.	How many in each province?
8.	How many in each military district?
9.	How many have been prosecuted for assisting or abetting defaulters in each of the said mouths?


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-INTAKE, ETC.
Mr. PURDY:: 1.	By provinces and/or military district and respective service, what is the estimated intake into the armed forces to date?
2.	By provinces and/or military district and respective, service, how many men are now enrolled in the armed forces who have not volunteered for overseas service?
3.	What is the number of men in each province and/or military district of military age as represented by national registration figures, less total enlistments?
4.	What is the quota of men presently placed on each province or military district by the Department of National Defence through the mobilization boards?
5.	What percentage of the quota assessed has been produced during the past six months by each province and/or military district?


SUNNYBROOK HOSPITAL
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What progress is being made on the erection of the new Sunnybrook hospital at Toronto, and when will it be ready for occupation?
2.	What additional hospital accommodation has been made since the survey of 1940?
32283-42J



TIDEWATER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY-EASTERN WOODWORKERS

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: What contracts have been entered into and what purchase have been made since January 1, 1944, with or from the Tidewater Construction Company Limited and the Eastern Woodworkers of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, by the three Departments of Defence, the Department of Munitions and Supply, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Transport and the Canadian National Railways, stating purpose of contracts, payments made to date and estimates to complete?



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: May I ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence a question with regard to the present application of the government's policy on agricultural leave granted to soldiers?


Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: Perhaps it would better meet the convenience of the house if I gave the information when my estimates are before the committee. 1 have the material here.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of a telegram received from the secretary-treasurer of district 26, United Mine Workers. It appears that for the year 1943 the employees of the Dominion Steel and Coal company were taxed at the source, but a certain percentage of the tax was not deducted. They claim now that the government has notified the company to deduct the unpaid portion of the 1943 tax plus the current taxes for this year. This is creating anxiety amongst the men, and the mine workers have suggested that the 1943 portion representing the refundable part of the tax be applied to the 1943 tax and the thing cleaned up in that way. Has the minister been approached by the organization I mentioned, and if so, is any action contemplated?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is properly a question for the Minister of National Revenue rather than for the Minister of Finance. I do not know anything about the situation; I have not been
San Francisco Conference

approached at all, but perhaps I might say a word. I gather that this is really a request that the refundable portion, of the tax be applied in liquidation of the overdue taxes. That could not be done under the law, because the refundable portion is not repayable until two years after the war.


Clarence Gillis: I had in mind that the question might more properly be put to the Minister of National Revenue, but I was led to believe by the telegram that representations had been made to the Minister of Finance; therefore I directed my question to him.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The matter had not been brought to my attention. Perhaps it came before the officers of the department, but if so, I have not heard of it.



SEED CORN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I do so now because seeding operations have already commenced in southwestern Ontario. My question relates to seed corn. Last year I understand that Yugoslavia and Greece gave orders for a substantial amount of seed corn from Canada. The corn growers in southwestern Ontario, in order to plan their seeding operations intelligently, would like to know if any similar order or request has been received this year. If the minister is not in a position to answer to-day perhaps he may do so to-morrow.


James Angus MacKinnon: No such request or suggestion has been brought to my attention. It may have been received by the wheat board. I shall make inquiries and let the hon. member know.



SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. ORUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question either to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Agriculture. Has any request been received from the United States government or the state of California for an allotment in any form of 500,000 pounds of beef for the forthcoming conference at San Francisco? I understand that any member with a

good steak under his belt is more agreeable, and I should like to know what action is being taken in this regard.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure just what form the request took or to whom it was made, but inquiries were made as to whether Canada could supply a certain number of cars of meat to be used in connection with the San Francisco conference. As I understand it, the reply given was to the effect that any beef and pork that we were able to send out of the country was contracted for under an arrangement between the three governments, but that some supplies of turkeys were available. We are selling our poultry to the United States, a very considerable part of it to the United States army. Some turkeys, as I understand it, are to be sent to San Francisco.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If I may ask a supplementary question, am I correct in assuming that we have no more beef in Canada than we have shipping facilities for? Are these turkeys that are to be sent cold storage turkeys?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are turkeys that the people there are very anxious to get. They apparently think they are better than any others they can get.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What about the beef situation?


James Garfield Gardiner: The beef situation is that we are sending all our surplus to Great Britain.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF CANADIAN DELEGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, when on the 29th of last month I spoke in the house on the united nations conference to meet in San Francisco on the 25th instant, I referred in the following terms to the delegation that it was proposed to have represent Canada:
It is important to Canada that her representatives at the world security conference should be assured of the widest possible measure of support from parliament and from the people. It is important that our representatives should speak with a clear, strong and united voice. There is every reason to believe that the vast majority of Canadians of all parties desire to have Canada participate in measures to safeguard the peace which we hope to see established at the close of this terrible war. For this, as well as other reasons, it is desirable that Canada's delegation to the San Fiancisco

San Francisco Conference
conference should be broadly representative. As I have already announced, it is the government's intention to select representatives from both houses of parliament, and from both sides of each house. The government itself will, of course, assume its constitutional responsibility both for the selection of the delegation and for any decisions which are agreed to at San Francisco. It is desirable that the house should make its decision upon the resolution now before it. before the membership of the delegation is announced. Once the resolution is adopted. I would hope very shortly thereafter to be able to make an announcement. By associating with the delegation members of political parties other than its own, the government is seeking to lift and to keep the effort to achieve enduring peace above the arena of party strife.
It will be recalled that on the 28th of March the house all but unanimously adopted the resolution accepting the invitation of the United States and other great powers to Canada to be represented at the San Francisco conference. I have now pleasure in announcing to the house the proposed personnel of the delegation.'
As I have said, the delegation is to be representative of both houses of parliament and of both sides of each house. In deciding, first of all, on the size of the delegation, it was necessary to have some regard to the delegations that were going from other countries. In this I felt that particular attention should be paid to the personnel of the United Kingdom delegation. There are to be nine members of parliament in the United Kingdom delegation, four of whom are ministers of the crown. The other five have been selected from parliamentary secretaries to different ministers. The entire British delegation i3 chosen from the membership of parliament. It seemed to me, in these circumstances, that if Canada had a delegation of seven, that would be as large a delegation as we should expect to have. I am speaking now of the official delegation, not of the experts and assistants and secretarial staffs which may be necessary.
Having decided on a delegation of seven, the question of the division between the two houses was the next point considered; and there it seemed that the House of Commons would necessarily have the larger proportion of ohe delegates. It was decided to have five of the delegates chosen from the House of Commons and two from the Senate.
As I have said, the desire is to have the delegation in each house representative of .both sides, both the government and the opposition. I think it will be generally conceded that if the representation from the Senate were made equal, that is to say, one from the government
side and one from the opposition, it would be appropriate and expected, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, that the delegation would have at least one more representative chosen from the government side than from the opposition.
As to the selection from the government side, hon. members have kindly indicated they expect I should lead the delegation. I have asked my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), to accompany me. I think our country would like to see the women of Canada represented on the delegation, and I am happy to announce that Mrs. Casselman,. member for Edmonton East, has agreed to. become one of the delegation.
As to representation of the opposition, I am sure that all hon. members will be pleased to have the leader of His Majesty's official opposition (Mr. Graydon) one of the repren-tatives.
That leaves one more to be selected; and may I say that it is not always easy to make these individual choices. However, I personally, as hon. members are aware, have felt that we are not furthering what is best in British parliamentary procedure by giving too much in the way of recognition to groups as such. I believe in a government and an opposition; those that are for us are for us, and those that are against us are against us, whether they be Progressive Conservatives or C.C.F.'rs or Social Crediters or members of any other group that may be named. The choice which is being made at this time is not to be considered as a choice from any particular group as such it is the second choice from among the opposition in this parliament, gentlemen who have taken the responsibility, as representatives of the people in this house, of opposing the government with regard to certain of its policies. I have felt that if the choice were made in reference to the size of the following of the leaders of particular groups, that might be fair ground on which to base a decision. On that basis I have felt the house would welcome the appointment of the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) as a second member of the opposition to be a member of the delegation.
May I say to my good friend, the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Blackmore), that personally I could not wish for a better travelling companion than himself, and I am very sorry indeed that I have not felt it possible to include him as one of the delegation. In selecting the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation as a member of the
San Francisco Conference

delegation, I made that choice on the basis that he is a leader of a party which has a following in this house from more provinces than one, a following which to that extent is more representative of different parts of Canada and partakes more of the nature of a national party. The following of the hon. member for Lethbridge is confined, I believe, to one province.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: We have representatives in Manitoba.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not in this house. Members of other groups, I believe, are confined to one province, or parts of a province. In the circumstances it would hardly be possible to enlarge the delegation to make it more representative than, I believe, it is under the proposed personnel.
As to the representation from the Senate, my thought was that the most acceptable representation would be found in choosing from the membership of the Senate, the leaders of the government and of the opposition. I have asked Hon. Doctor J. H. King, leader of the government in the Senate, to be the representative on the delegation of the government in the Senate; I asked Hon. C. C. Ballantyne as the leader of the opposition in the upper house if he would not accept to act as the other member of the delegation. I was particularly hopeful that Hon. Mr. Ballantyne might find it possible to accept, -as he is one of the oldest members of parliament and has had exceptional experience In matters of international concern. If I am mot mistaken, he was with Sir Robert Borden :at conferences in London when questions relating to the formation of the League of Nations were under consideration, and at imperial conferences which dealt with allied matters; I sought to impress upon Senator Ballantyne that, with this experience, having regard to the questions which would come up at San Francisco, his presence on the delegation would be most helpful and in every way, I felt, warmly appreciated. Unfortunately Senator Ballantyne, for personal reasons, has not found it possible to accept. He has written me a letter which he has kindly intimated I might read if I thought it desirable to do so. I shall therefore read his letter:
The Senate Canada
April 5, 1945.
My dear Prime Minister:
Referring to the two personal interviews which you graciously gave me last week in Ottawa when you invited me to be one of the Canadian delegation that will be attending the United Nations San Francisco conference to be held on April 25.

Please be assured that I deeply appreciate the high honour of being invited by you to form part of this delegation. Frankly, I can say that I would like very much to have accepted your invitation but owing to so many personal difficulties in the way which I explained to you at our interviews, I regret that it is not possible.
May I be permitted to wish you and your delegation a pleasant and safe trip and every success under your distinguished leadership.
Kindest regards,
Yours sincerely,
C. C. Ballantyne.
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,



P.C., C.M.G.,

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa.
When I ascertained that Senator Ballantyne would not find it possible to become a member of the delegation, I invited the Hon. Lucien Moraud to become a member of the delegation as the second representative of the upper house. In inviting Senator Moraud, the government had in mind not merely the representation of the Conservative party, the opposition in the Senate, but also the desirability of having a French-speaking as well as an English-speaking representative of the delegation chosen from the Senate as well as from the House of Commons. Senator Moraud has had considerable experience in international problems. He has familiarity particularly with matters pertaining to South American countries, and for this as well as other reasons I believe his name will be most acceptable to the members of both houses and to the people of Canada. Had Senator Ballantyne found it possible to accept, I should have felt that from his long residence in and representation of a constituency in the province of Quebec, he would have been regarded as representing the French-speaking as well as the English-speaking people of his province and other parts of Canada.
In addition to the delegation proper there will necessarily be advisers. Here may I say at once that the government has had to consider carefully a situation which necessarily arises, namely the representation of special interests at the conference by advisers. When one begins to run over the list of special interests which would have to be considered, if a selection were to be made on that basis, the number becomes so large that it soon becomes apparent that the required numbers would be excessive. Having regard to the nature of the conference itself, which is to set up an international organization for the maintenance of peace and security, it is clear that the particular advisers required are those who possess special capacities and experience

San Francisco Conference
in international relations and who have gained that experience in large part in the public service.
As hon. members are aware, the public service of Canada possesses a body of exceptionally well trained experts, men and women who are expert in the particular fields with which they are immediately concerned, and who have given to them over years much thought and study.
We are exceptionally fortunate in Canada in having in our Department of External Affairs a body of highly trained officials whose standing, not only in our own country, but in countries throughout the world, is recognized as being as high as that of any corresponding group in any country. For this reason the choice of advisers is being made from those who will be best able to give expert advice and broad counsel on the special and specific questions of the setting up of an international organization. So far as it is possible special interests and special groups in this country will be kept in mind and should be protected through the generally representational character of the delegates. In any event there will of course be opportunity for special review when the resultant agreement comes before parliament for consideration prior to ratification. The senior advisers will be the following:
N. A. Roberston, Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs;
H. Hume Wrong, Associate Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs;
L. B. Pearson, Canadian Ambassador to the United States;
Jean Desy, Canadian Ambassador to Brazil;
L. D. Wilgress, Canadian Ambassador to U.SS.R.;
W. F. Chipman, Canadian Ambassador to Chile ;
Major-General M. A. Pope, C.B., M.C., Military Staff Officer to the Prime Minister, Military Secretary to the Cabinet War Committee and Member of the Chiefs of Staff Committee.
Hon. members will see how exceptionally fortunate we are in being able to have as expert advisers at the conference a number of young men who have served in the Department of External Affairs in Canada, and have since been serving in other countries either in the capacity of ministers or ambassadors. In the time that they have served in these countries they have become familiar with the problems that are likely to present themselves to the minds of those who will be leading the delegations from these countries, and as a result, will be in an exceptional position to give to
our delegation expert advice. May I mention, by way of example, Mr. Pearson, our ambassador to the United States, and the familiarity he already has with most of the questions likely to arise, and the study he has been giving them for a long time. I should speak, too, of Mr. Wilgress, who is our ambassador in Russia, and Mr. Desy, who is our ambassador in Brazil, and the familiarity they have gained of international problems in the time they respectively have been in Russia and in South America. The same is true of Mr. Chipman, our ambassador in Chile, who over many years has been interested in international questions, and who enjoys a high reputation as a jurist.
And, of course, any delegation going to a conference to discuss problems of world peace could not be more fortunate than to have as its chief advisers Mr. Norman Robertson, Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, and Mr. Hume Wrong, the Associate Undersecretary of State for External Affairs. No abler advisers on matters pertaining to their country's international relations will be found in any public service.
I should add that there will also be six or seven technical advisers to deal with particular problems requiring special knowledge, and of course whatever secretarial and clerical assistance is necessary to make possible the efficient discharge of the duties of the delegates.
The conference opens on the 25th of this month, and arrangements which have been made thus far are for the delegation to leave Ottawa for San Francisco on the 19th, which is Thursday of next week. I might add that delegations from other countries are already beginning to proceed to San Francisco. We will have in this city before the week is over some representatives from other countries who will be proceeding by way of Canada to San Francisco.
In order to reach San Francisco in time for the opening ceremonies on the morning of the 25th, it has been thought advisable to have arrangements made for our delegation to arrive not later than the 23rd. This allows for the possibility of a delay of a day.
I have given the house the names of the representatives comprising Canada's delegation, and have designated those who are to accompany them, and the basis upon which the selections have been made. I sincerely hope that hon. members will feel that in making those selections the government has sought to do what it believed to be eminently fair.
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's invitation to me as leader of the opposition
San Francisco Conference

to join the Canadian delegation going to San Francisco was not entirely a surprise to me, but it does provide an opportunity for me to make one or two observations at this time.
The arbitrary ruling out of my leader, John Bracken, as a possible choice of delegates-


George Alexander Cruickshank: He ruled himself
out.


Gordon Graydon: -was both unfortunate and groundless. We feel that Mr. Bracken has the best right to represent us, and on that point there is complete unanimity within the Progressive Conservative party. I have no doubt that this view is largely held throughout Canada by all unprejudiced people. Canada's interests would be more acceptably served were she to have at the security conference the present Prime Minister's most likely successor. That claim was strongly urged by us in the house debate, but it evidently fell upon unresponsive ears.
Anticipating that I might be designated as a delegate by the Prime Minister, I sought the advice and guidance of my leader a few days ago with respect to the course which I should follow in the event of an invitation being so extended. Mr. Bracken was firmly of the opinion that I had a duty to the nation and to my party to accept. I am following his advice and, subject to clarification of my position in the delegation, shall accept the responsibility which representation entails.
The task which lies before Canada's delegates to San Francisco is both heavy and compelling, but I shall strive to the limit of my energy, capacity and ability to render the very best service I can in the hope that Canada will, with the efforts of us all, make a worthy contribution to the high purpose and noble cause of world peace and security.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in accepting the invitation to membership in this delegation I wish to say I deeply appreciate it, not on account of any partisan advantage, but because I believe that in the future those of us who attend the conference will be called upon to assist whatever administration may be in power in this country, in furthering the cause of peace and universal justice throughout the world. I therefore shall be glad to assist in any way I can.


John Horne Blackmore: I rise not to offer any complaint whatsoever against the decision. I believe it is fitting that it should be pointed out to this house and to the country that there are several serious aspects involved in this situation. In the first place the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made known to the country some time ago that he was desirous of having

the opposition represented at this conference. Up to the present time the only voices that have been raised in this parliament in opposition to the general proposals upon which the San Francisco conference is founded have been those of the Social Credit members. The result is that in selecting the delegation the Prime Minister, who either did it on his own accord or upon advice, has successfully eliminated the opposition in this house and in this country.
Incidentally, I will challenge any man in Canada who considers himself qualified to accept the challenge to show any difference in any respect whatsoever between the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is an insult.


John Horne Blackmore: Just one moment; furthermore, I challenge anyone who considers himself qualified to accept the challenge and establish his case to show any material difference between the trends of liberalism to-day and the avowed policy of the C.C.F. May I repeat that the Prime Minister has successfully eliminated the apposition from the delegation to San Francisco.
There is another matter which is of vital importance. We are considering a conference for the elimination of war in the world, if that be possible; we are considering a conference that ought to be aimed at the establishment of a world organization which will be able to guarantee to every nation participating the fullest measure of sovereignty consistent with the achieving of the objectives of the organization. Now the only party in Canada and in this house which had ever offered an alternative; which has indicated that there is a way of effecting an organization which shall be able to accomplish the ends of the proposed organization but yet at the same time guarantee national sovereignty, is the Social Credit party.
One other aspect of this matter is the question of eliminating the cause of war. Those who gave me the honour of listening to the speech I delivered on March 23-[DOT]


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: -will remember that I pointed out that the San Francisco proposals did not aim to eliminate the cause of war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker is on his feet.


John Horne Blackmore: The Social Credit party is the only organization that has proposed a means of eliminating the cause of war. Therefore it should be represented at

Business of the House
the conference. By eliminating the Social Crediters the Prime Minister has eliminated from the conference ail the possibilities-


Thomas Vien: Order. Has the hon.
member concluded his remarks? I must point out to him that there is nothing before the Chair at the moment dealing with either the merits or the demerits of the conference to be held at San Francisco. All that is before the Chair is the simple statement made by the Prime Minister with regard to the composition of the delegation. No argument or discussion can take place on that.


John Horne Blackmore: Other hon. members have expressed their general attitude to the Prime Minister's announcement; that is all I was doing.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with I think I should say a word or two to the house about, the desirability of having some understanding reached as to the winding-up of the business of this particular session. I do that for two reasons. In the first place it is desirable that hon. members should know as early as possible what day we are to conclude the business of the house, that the government may have the opportunity of arranging for the proceedings of prorogation and the assent to the measures that may be passed in the interval. The other reason is one which relates itself to the delegation that is to go to San Francisco. In mentioning that I do so only because of the necessity of indicating to hon. members and to the country what is involved as far as I myself am concerned in seeking to be in a position to leave with the delegation on Thursday of next week.
As I have said, the conference opens on April 25. To reach San Francisco in time and to have satisfactory arrangements completed prior to the opening it will be necessary for members of the delegation to leave Ottawa next Thursday. If the house is to sit until eleven o'clock on Monday night of next week, the 16th-the term of the present parliament expires at midnight on the sixteenth-I must say that so far as I personally am concerned, I am afraid it will not be possible for me to leave with the other members of the delegation; I shall have to follow a little later on.
The house will realize, I hope, that there are very heavy obligations on my shoulders at the moment in considering an absence which will involve in all probability being away from Canada for a month or more at a time when the situation overseas with respect to the war presents many problems that could not and would not arise at any other time. I shall have to have the opportunity to discuss with my colleagues before I leave some matters related to the progress of the war which it has not been possible to take up while parliament has been in session during these last few weeks, and also to anticipate the situations that are certain to arise in the course of the ensuing month. As I shall be away for a month or more I shall have to discuss with my colleagues as well some matters related to the business of the country that will be taken up during that period, some matters that should receive attention before my departure and that of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) who will be accompanying me.
There is the further fact that a general election in all probability will be called at a very early date. That again will depend on how' long we are kept here before the term of this parliament expires. There are matters in that connection to which. I shall have to give consideration before I leave for San Francisco. I would not make mention of these matters except on grounds of the proper discharge of public business. I ask no favours of anyone, but I do ask for consideration from all sides of the house with respect to what is in the public interest of Canada at a time when parliament is about to dissolve, when- matters pertaining to the war of a very critical and exacting nature have to be considered prior to my absence of a month o.r more on a public mission in another country and with a general election pending.
May I say that I see no reason why this house should! not conclude its business rapidly unless there is a desire on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to keep the government as long as they can from going to the country. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been-


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: The sooner you go the better.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friends opposite will conclude the business of this house to-day I will announce the date of the election to-morrow. I want to have it understood that just as soon as this house concludes its business-and it rests with the opposition whether we are to be kept here
Business of the House

much longer or not-I am prepared within at least forty-eight hours afterwards to announce the date on which polling will take place at a general election throughout the country. In the light of that statement it rests entirely with hon. gentlemen opposite whether we close to-day or to-morrow or the day after or the day after that; but if we sit very much longer it will mean that I shall not find it possible to leave for San Francisco on Thursday of next week with Canada's delegation, though the delegation itself will proceed. Now in regard to the fixing of the date-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not see where the joke lies in saying "the fixing of the date," because I have said already that this depends upon hon. gentlemen opposite. When they are prepared to conclude the business here I have said that within forty-eight hours thereafter I shall be prepared to give the date of the elections and polling.
As to the winding up of the business of the house, I think it is quite clear that this session was called for two purposes, first to consider the San Francisco conference and questions arising in reference thereto, and second to make the necessary appropriations for carrying on the war and to vote the supply required to permit government of the country to be carried on during the period of the election and until the new parliament is returned. The first matter, the San Francisco conference, has been dealt with. In connection with the second, parliament already has voted the supply necessary in the way of supplementary estimates for the last fiscal year, and we are now asking that we be given five-twelfths of the necessary war appropriation and of the estimates for the coming year to cover the period of the election and the assembling of the new parliament.
It has been said by some hon. members that we are voting vast sums of money without much in the way of consideration; that the country will think we were giving very limited consideration to the large amounts we are voting. May I point out that we are not asking for anything in connection with a purpose which has not been approved already; that we are not asking for anything the purpose of which has not been sanctioned already by this House of Commons in a previous session. Everyone agrees that the appropriation for the war is necessary. There we are taking as the basis for what we are asking only 
the equivalent of an amount that was paid out during a corresponding period in the fiscal year just ended. With regard to supply for civil government, we are simply asking, to enable the government to carry on for the period of the election and the time required for the assembling of the new parliament, for amounts corresponding with those voted for the same services over a corresponding period of time. It is not a case where there is the necessity to further scrutinize possible payments. They have been scrutinized; they have been gone over. However, as I say it rests with hon. gentlemen opposite to prolong the discussion if in their opinion that should be thought necessary.
I feel that perhaps this house does not realize the length of time it is going to take to carry on an election and bring a new House of Commons into being, and why therefore it is advisable that we should have the election brought on just as soon as may be possible. Let me put it briefly in this way. After the dissolution of parliament and after the writs are issued, to all intents and pur-purposes it will be two months until the date of polling. One month will have to elapse between the nomination and the polling, and it will take a month prior to nomination date for the electoral officer to give the necessary instructions and make arrangements for taking the votes overseas. The chief electoral officer expects that after the polling it will take another two months before all' the writs are returned and a new parliament can be summoned. It will take even longer than that, because after the chief electoral officer has received the writs he then has to notify the clerk of the House of Commons that the writs have been returned, thereby giving authority for a new parliament to be summoned. The minimum period of time required to summon a new parliament is seven day's; in all probability it will be a little longer. If there were undue delays in the return of some of the writs it would take still longer. That is a long period, but it is fixed by legislation which this parliament has enacted, and arises in part from the fact that votes will be polled in all parts of the world.
I expected that a question on this matter might be raised by some hon. gentleman opposite, so within two days of the opening of the present session I asked the chief
electoral officer if he would prepare for me a memorandum which I could read to the house giving in the form of an official statement what I have just set forth in an offhand manner. I had better read this statement that it will be on record in Hansard:

Business of the House
Office of The Chief Electoral Officer
Ottawa, March 17, 1945. Memorandum for:	The Right Hon. W. L.
Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada.
In connection with the next general election. I am of the opinion that a minimum period of sixty days is required between the date of the issue of the writs and polling day.
The statute prescribes that the enumeration in urban and rural polling divisions shall commence on Monday, the 49th day before polling day, and the remaining 11 days are required by the returning officers to appoint the enumerators and to furnish them with the necessary instructions and supplies.
Before commencing their enumeration, on the 49th day before polling day, each enumerator must be informed by the returning officer, of the dates of the issue of the writs and polling day which have a bearing on the qualifications of some of the electors.
During the above mentioned period of sixty days, 1 do not exj>ect that any difficulty will be encountered in the taking of the votes of war service electors stationed in Canada and overseas.
After giving careful consideration to the period required after polling day at the next general election for the return of the writs for the most difficult electoral districts, I have come to the conclusion that the earliest date upon which parliament could be assembled would be on a date two months after polling day.
It will not be possible, in any electoral district to hold the final addition of the votes and make the subsequent declaration of the elected candidate until eight days after polling day and in several electoral districts, owing to difficulties in communication the final addition of the votes is not usually held before three weeks after polling day.
Provision has to be made for adjournments of the final addition of the votes in several electoral districts where ballot boxes may be missing. Provision also has to be mude for recount proceedings which, in view of the recounting of votes cast by war service electors in the overseas voting territories, will take more time than at previous elections. For example, if a recount was ordered in the electoral district of Ottawa West, the ballot papers cast by war service electors in India, Australia, Egypt, Italy, France and the United Kingdom, etc., relating to such electoral district would have to be recounted at the same time as the ballot papers cast by civilian electors.
Respectfully submitted,
Jules Castonguay,
Chief Electoral Officer.
As I have said, this is an official statement of the situation. I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that any moneys that may be voted from now on so far as this government is specially concerned, as distinguished from what pertains equally to members of all parties, will be a matter of supply for a period only of some two weeks, namely from the first of the present fiscal year to the 17th day of April. A general election is part of the necessary procedure of government in the country. It is something arranged, not for any particular party but for the people. I have heard some hon. members say, in the course of discussing matters here, that they want to get further information, that as representatives of the people they have the right to demand it, that parliament is the supreme authority. Parliament is not the supreme authority; the supreme authority is the people of this country. They are the ones we are asking to be allowed to go before, to determine what particular government or authority is to carry on the business of the country over the next five years.
AH we are asking parliament to do is to vote the money necessary for carrying on the war and for carrying on the government during the period of the election and the assembling of a new parliament. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that they want an election; they profess that they are going to be returned, that they believe they are going to be the next government and so forth. All we are asking is to have sufficient supply voted for four and a half months. If they are returned, that will enable them to come into office that much sooner. It is not a special privilege we are asking for ourselves.
The government is not asking any favour of any one in asking the house to shorten this particular session. All we are asking is that the people be given the earliest possible opportunity to say whether they wish to have the present government returned to office, or whether they wish to return members of some other party to form some other government.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I do not expect to speak with perhaps as much heat as the Prime Minister has used in his plea for the shortening of the time of the session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was not heat; it was enthusiasm and eagerness.


Gordon Graydon: So far as our party is concerned we have been striving conscientiously in this session, as we have in other sessions, to facilitate the passage of public business having regard to the duty and obli-' gations which rest upon us with respect to the proper criticism of the estimates of the different departments as they are brought before us. I was surprised that the Prime Minister was so provocative in his remarks this afternoon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I take exception to that. I know my hon. friend likes to have words recorded in Hansard, intended
Business of the House

to leave a certain impression, but I say to him that I was not provocative. I was trying to meet his alleged1 wishes. I was seeking to impress him and others with our desire to get to the country just as soon as we can.


Gordon Graydon: If the Prime Minister feels that the word "provocative" is one he would not like spread upon the pages of Hansard, then I suggest he do not adopt an attitude so that we call for that accusation. Whether he intended it or not, to-day the Prime Minister was trying to swing the big stick around parliament. If he intended to seek the cooperation of the various groups in the house to expedite public business I should have thought he would not attempt to throw his political weight around as he was apparently attempting to do.
We have no desire to keep the government from going to the country. Why should we? So far as this party is concerned the government can go to the country when they like. We will welcome their going to the country. More than that, for some considerable time the Prime Minister has been afraid to go to the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: This is a new angle the Prime Minister has thought up in the last few minutes. There is plenty of evidence that the Prime Minister has been afraid to face the people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now my hon. friend is becoming provocative.


Gordon Graydon: Of course the Prime Minister has just been whistling when going through his own political graveyard, and I do not want to deprive him of that.
May I say, and I say it in perfectly good humour, that this has been a strait-jacket session from beginning to end. The session should have been called in January, and it is the government's responsibility that the session is in the position it is. The government has attempted to squeeze three months' business into a little more than three weeks, and now the Prime Minister comes and asks us to squeeze it again. I am not so sure that that is a proper proposal for the Prime Minister to make.
So far as our party is concerned we want to examine, not with any political motive but in the national interest, the estimates of the different departments that are being brought forward under the war appropriations. I am inclined to think from the tone of the Prime

Minister's remarks that the questioning and the criticism of the opposition are becoming perhaps just a little too severe and the Prime Minister wants to dissolve parliament so that we cannot have any more light thrown on the departments that are coming up under the war appropriations.
We have always cooperated with respect to the work before the session and we shall continue to do so. Any kind of threat or any attempt to wave the big stick is not going to interfere with our attending to the national business, which the people have sent us here to do.
My followers and I will consider the proposal the Prime Minister has made this afternoon and in due course we will make known our decision in the light of what we think is the national interest. .


Mr. COLD  WELL@: As time is so short I think we should be occupying our time much better if we went into the estimates.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister one question with reference to the memorandum he just read. One item has been left out of it that should have been included. How many days are allowed to expire between the death of this parliament on the seventeenth and the date of the general election?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know that that would properly appear in the particular memorandum I have just read. This parliament will expire at midnight on the sixteenth-if this House of Commons is not sooner dissolved. I understand that my hon. friend is asking how many days after that can elapse before the date of the election is made known.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How many days must elapse before an election must take place; what is the shortest period of time before the polling date?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no set time. There have been instances where parliament has been dissolved and it has been several weeks before the date of polling was made known. I have, however, already indicated to the house that I have no intention of proceeding in that way. I am prepared to announce the date of the election before the expiration of this parliament by efflux of time if hon. gentlemen opposite give me the opportunity.
Mr. E. G. HANSELL Macleod): I should like to ask the Prime Minister just one question on the basis of his lengthy remarks.

,Retirement oj General Pearkes
I do not think I can add very much to what the leader of the opposition has stated. The Prime Minister frequently asks for cooperation, but it seems to me that his understanding of cooperation is that it should be one-sided. It is always the opposition that is asked to cooperate. I am ready to cooperate at all times, but since the Prime Minister has said that the people are the supreme authority I am always going to ask myself whether cooperation is in accordance with the will of the people. That was a nice statement to make but as a matter of fact the supreme authority in Canada is the Prime Minister himself. That is all there is to it.
The Prime Minister said that if we concluded quickly he would be ready to announce the date of the election. Let us have some cooperation the other way. Let the Prime Minister announce the date of the election now and leave it to the opposition to decide whether the business of the house should be wound up this week.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not presume to override what is implied either in the constitution of the country or by the authority of parliament. When parliament has concluded its business, it then becomes my duty to make an announcement as to the election. To do anything of the kind in advance would not only be assuming authority which my hon. friend, though quite erroneously, has kindly stated I already possess as being the supreme authority; it would be going far beyond that.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence, in view of what the Prime Minister has just said, that only a few days more, as we all know, remain of this session. I have asked a number of questions on the order paper; they have been on the order paper for three weeks; also orders for returns have been passed by the house, yet no returns have yet been brought down in answer to my questions. I am anxious to receive these returns before this house dies. I would therefore ask the parliamentary assistant if I may now have copies of all correspondence, telegrams and communications asked by me some twenty-one days ago, passing between General Pearkes and the Department of National Defence.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That question was passed as an order for a return. Probably the Secretary of State can answer my hon. friend's question.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Yes, it was passed1 as an
order for return.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I should like to know when
the return will be produced.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: I think that the hon. member for Parkdale raised on Friday last the question addressed to the parliamentary assistant, and I had an inquiry made as to the information with regard to General Pearkes. My hon. friend's question, as he worded it on Friday, rather implied that the question which was made an order for a return referred to General Pearkes alone, but actually it dealt not only with General Pearkes but with all his officers in the Pacific command. Under those circumstances I think the hon. member and the house will realize that it involves looking over a large number of files, not only here but at headquarters of the Pacific command. It was the wording of the question itself that makes that imperative and I presume has delayed1 the return to the order of the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There was one other order
for the production of correspondence and instructions. I think that return will be brought down to-morrow.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: May I say in reply to the
Secretary of State that the correspondence is all on file, and whether it relates to General Pearkes or his officers is immaterial.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The question was not
limited to correspondence. It refers to information.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The question referred to is
this, and it was passed as an order for a return on March 26:
Mr. Bruce:
1.	Has the Minister of National Defence any information to cause him to believe that General Pearkes and his officers in the Pacific command did not carry out the minister's instructions to put forth their best efforts to induce draftees to go active?
2.	If so, what is such information and the grounds for such belief?
3.	Is there any information on the files of the Department of National Defence which establishes that General Pearkes did not, with fidelity, discharge his duties in securing the enlistment for general service of home defence personnel under his command?
And so on. Surely that can be answered here and at once. It is all humbug to say that you require a longer time.
War Appropriation-The Army

Mr. MoLARTY:	The hon. member for
Parkdale has to do what each member of this house has to do, namely, assume that every department of government is acting in perfectly good faith, and to suggest that it is a matter of humbug when the preparation of the return involves a tremendous amount of work and going through a large number of files is surely not worthy of the hon. member for Parkdale. While he says that it should be answered here and now, he, like every other member of this house, will have to take the answer that is given by the department as to why any necessary delay ensues.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Last summer during the session I had an experience of the same kind when I repeatedly asked for returns to questions directed to the Minister of Pensions and National Health, and on the last day of the session I asked if it was too late to bring the returns down that he had delayed until the last day. He got into a state of great annoyance, and the session died and I did not receive those answers. I am afraid that is going to happen again in this case.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Yeterans Affairs): In reply to the point just raised by the hon. member for Parkdale, may I say that I was ready with the replies on the last day of the session, but he did not find it convenient to remain here and went home.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I was here, but did not receive those replies, because you did not produce them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege, and in view of the fact that I am mentioned in the question, I should like to place on the table some correspondence between the Victoria council of the legion and myself in connection with it.


Gordon Graydon: What question is the hon. member referring to?


James Garfield Gardiner: The question referred to by the hon. member for Parkdale.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 6, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Usley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

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


Mr. LACOMBE:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some observations on this resolution, which reads:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, inter alia,
1. That sums not exceeding $2,000,000,000 be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending March 31, 1946, for-
(a) the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada.
And so forth. The Prime Minister announced a few minutes ago that we are to send delegates to the San Francisco conference. The Prime Minister also stated that a general election is necessary to know in whom the confidence of the people of this country lies. Answering the Prime Minister I say that the delegates we shall send to San Francisco will not be responsible to the people of Canada because they will no longer be members of the House of Commons or elected by the people of Canada. Nor will it be a peace conference.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I believe it is time the committee confined itself to the estimates before it. We are not discussing the San Francisco conference now.


Liguori Lacombe: Then, Mr. Chairman, I shall discuss other matters.


Liguori Lacombe: This resolution relates to all phases of the war. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has made this clear when he outlined to the committee the war effort that Canada intends to launch against Japan, after the victory of our armed forces in Europe. It follows from his statements that young men who have been mobilized for the defence of this country will participate in the war against Japan. That is another adventure for which those who have supported participation and mobilization must be held responsible. As I stated in the debate on the San Francisco conference-
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Order. Mr. LACOMBE (Translation): I ask you, Mr. Chairman if I may not at least mention it, since we are now discussing a resolution which reads in part as follows:
That sums not exceeding $2,000,000,000 be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending March 31, 1946, for-
(a) the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada.

War Appropriation-The Army
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that there is equal justice for all in this house, and that we are at least allowed to make an incidental mention of the San Francisco conference, without being told by hon. members who support the government that it is against the rules of the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, the San Francisco conference has nothing to do with the resolution now before the committee.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. We
are now considering the war appropriations of the Department of National Defence (Army). Knowing that the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) would be the last among the hon. members to proceed when he is out of order, I would ask him to confine himself, as much as possible, to the matter now before the chair.


Liguori Lacombe: I am surprised that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence should have interrupted me. Indeed, I heard in this house last Friday the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), as well as the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), reviewing at length the programme of the Progressive Conservative party. Nevertheless, we shall confine ourselves to the debate.
*Compulsory military service will remain in Canada even after the war. I am opposed to this disastrous policy, as I have always been opposed to participation in the war, mobilization and conscription. The resolution now under consideration provides for the enforcement of conscription in Canada in its participation in the war against Japan.
I shall quote sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 1:
(b) the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada.
Therefore, the estimates we are requested to vote will 'be used to conscript our men for all war theatres, including Japan, unless the mobilization act and the order in council P.C. 8891 are immediately repealed, since the mobilization act and conscription are still in force. Order in council P.C. 8891 will be enforced.
At the start of my remarks, I call the attention of the committee to excerpts from Hansard of March 30 and 31, 1939. The members will, once again, note in what way the government have kept their solemn pledges. The paragraphs I shall read in a moment have been published and reproduced by the Canadian National Liberal Association, with headquarters in Ottawa. Here are the
sacred pledges that the government have taken on conscription. The right hon. the Prime Minister said:
The present government believes that conscription of men for overseas service would not be a necessary or an effective step. Let me say that so long as this government may be in power, no such measure will be enacted. (Page 2426, House of Commons Debates, March 30, 1939.)
The former Minister of Justice, the late the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe added:
I think I am true to my concept of Canadian unity when I say that I shall always fight against this policy; I would not be a member of a government that would enact it; and not only that, but I say with all my responsibility to the people of Canada that I would oppose any government that would enforce it. (Page 2468.)
Here is what the hon. the Prime Minister had to say about participation:
One strategic fact is clear: the days of great expeditionary forces of infantry crossing the oceans are not likely to recur. Two years ago, I expressed in this house the view that it was extremely doubtful if any of the British dominions would ever send another expeditionary force to Europe.
We have tremendous tasks to do at home, in housing the people, in caring for the aged and helpless, in relieving drought and unemployment, in building roads, in meeting our heavy burden of debt, in making provision for Canada's defence, and in bringing our standards of living and civilization to the levels our knowledge now makes possible. There is no great margin of realizable wealth for this purpose; we must, to a greater or less extent, choose between keeping our own house in order, and trying to save Europe and Asia. (Pages 2426 and 2419 of Hansard for March 30, 1939, re participation.)
On March 31, 1939, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, former Minister of Justice, said, as reported in Hansard, page 2469:
I agree with what was said yesterday by the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister, and what was said by Mr. Bruce of Australia, that the time for expeditionary forces overseas is certainly past, and it would not be the most effective way to help our allies. The men would be needed here; and in any event it is parliament which will decide about it.
Please note, Mr. Chairman, that these words were uttered by the Prime Minister and the former minister of justice barely five months before Canada entered the war by the express will of the government. At this stage of my remarks, I should like to have some literature issued by the National Liberal Association, with headquarters in Ottawa, distributed to my former Liberal colleagues. I shall hand this document to the hon. member for Charle-voix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) who will see to it that it is passed on to the page boys so that everyone may be kept posted.
War Appropriation-The Army

And it is this same government, through the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bertrand), which dares to charge us with isolationism. It is the same party which, for twenty-live years, has advocated isolationism in Canada, and whicli dares to give us a lesson in patriotism.
And what of the sudden about-face of the present government which, in June, 1940, imposed compulsory military service in Canada? I quote the following from "Canada at War", issue of February-March, 1945, page 74:
The military call-up was instituted in 1940. In that summer, parliament passed the National Resources Mobilization Act, which is usually referred to as N.R.M.A. This is the statute which has provided the authority to the governor in council for the calling up of men for compulsory military training.
In a speech delivered recently in this house, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) warned the government against our participation in the Pacific war. However, the Minister of National Defence (navy) (Mr. Macdonald) has intimated that this participation was already an accomplished fact. Such a decision had been taken prior to the minister's announcement, and without parliament's authorization. Once more, the representatives of the people have been ignored in regard to events of the utmost gravity which again involve all our resources, as evidenced by the following excerpt from the February-March. 1945 issue of "Canada at War", page 86:
First official indication of the composition of the Canadian naval force in the Pacific was given by navy minister Macdonald in February. It will include ships ranging from frigates to aircraft carriers and will operate in close cooperation with the Royal Navy. Corvettes will likely be used sparingly, if at all.
The cruiser, H.M.C.S. Uganda, commissioned in October in a U.S. navy yard, will soon be at its battle station in the southwest Pacific. It will be joined by H.M.C.S. Ontario, a cruiser now being built in Belfast Two light fleet aircraft carriers under construction in the UK. are expected to join the Canadian navy for Pacific duty. Each will carry complement of 1.250 and be Canadian-manned except for air crerv.
Canadian Tribal class destroyers, including the four now being built in Canada, will also serve in the Pacific. Probably not more than 250 Canadian ships and approximately 39.000 seamen may see action in the Pacific. With the exception of key men, these will be enlisted for service in that theatre on a voluntary basis.
The prime minister has, in the first place, claimed that Canada's participation in the Pacific war would this time, be on a voluntary basis. The government leader has broken so many promises and pledges and he has done so little to keep his word that I find it impossible to give credence to his statements. Total conscription, which already exists, will be

enforced in the Pacific war as it has been on all other war theatres in the world. Such statements are mere propaganda on the eve of a general election. If the government guilelessly believes that the people will let themselves forever be deceived, they are mistaken, but if the government are sincere and loyal in that statement, let them repeal at once the mobilization act and order in council 8891 passed in November last. The government leader has, on the other hand, asserted that the draftees being trained in Canada will participate in the war against Japan. It cannot be said that they are volunteers-they are conscripts-the name "draftees" has been changed for that of "men conscripted for the defence of Canada". Therefore, I was right in my constant opposition to the government's foreign policy.


Mr. LEDUC (Translation):: It was in order to save the country.


Liguori Lacombe: On March 23 last, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde) made the following remarks in this house, as reported in Hansard:
To refuse such cooperation would, in my opinion, mean a betrayal of mankind's interests.
Let those who advocate such a policy assume the responsibility for their action before the young Canadians who made the supreme sacrifice, before those who have suffered and who hope that their martyrdom will inspire to those who have not yet w-ept other humanitarian motives than paltry political advantages.
A little further on, in the same speech, he said: "We are neither cowards nor traitors".
The hon. member should be extremely cautious, because he lives in a glass-house. I shall show him in a few moments that we do not need any lessons from him in courage and loyalty.
At the time when the only member of the Quebec legislature who fought in Europe, was under fire on the beaches of Normandy, the Liberal party, for which the hon. member for Labelle takes up the cudgels, was treacher-. ously stabbing him in the back. Lieut.-Col. Sauve-
Mr. LALONDE	Translation): He had
more courage than you.


Liguori Lacombe: But you had not enough courage to defend him in his constituency, while I was contributing to his victory. The hon. member can answer me later. While Lieut.-Col. Sauve, a member of the Quebec Legislature, was up against merciless opposition in that same constituency, through the action, the fault and the fanaticism of the party of the hon. member for Labelle-

War Appropriation-The Army


Mr. LALONDE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Liguori Lacombe: -who was the first-


Maurice Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Liguori Lacombe: -dared to nominate a candidate to oppose the member for Two Mountains.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: A point of order has been raised. The hon. member must take his seat.


Maurice Lalonde: I ask the
lion, member for Laval-Two Mountains to withdraw the words which he has just uttered. I do not think that the expression which he has used is worthy of a member of parliament. It is unparliamentary, and I ask him to withdraw his statement. Further, I had nothing to do with the candidature of Lieutenant-Colonel Paul Sauve in Two Mountains. Those responsible for opposing him did not belong to the dominion Liberal party. If my hon. friend has a grudge against certain members of the Quebec Liberal party because, as he claims, they have broken a pledge not to oppose Lieutenant-Colonel Sauve, let him take up the matter with Mr. Godbout and quit bothering us in Ottawa.


Liguori Lacombe: Is the hon. member speaking on a point of order or is he making a speech?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for Labelle has justifiably raised a point of order. I wish to indicate to the hon. members that they must confine their remarks to the matter under consideration. The committee is now examining the appropriations for the army. This is not an opportune moment to discuss the speeches which were delivered in connection with the San Francisco conference.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Let him make amends.


Liguori Lacombe: I am not
speaking about the San Francisco conference but about the fight waged against a company commander on the firing line. I never said anything about the fanaticism of the hon. member for Labelle, but I spoke about the fanaticism of the party to which he belongs. He seems to have misunderstood me.


Maurice Lalonde: Then you
withdraw your statement?


Liguori Lacombe: I withdraw nothing, for I have nothing to withdraw. At this point in my remarks, I suppose I may quote from the February and March issue of "Canada at War", page 58:
Summing up the work of the First Canadian Army since it entered its first great battle as an army in France on August 7, 1944, General Crerar said in his Christmas message: "It has fought forward some 450 miles throughout France, Belgium and Holland. It has met and defeated, either in whole or in part, 59 enemy divisions, of which 11 were SS (Elite Corps) and Panzer type and 48 were infantry and other types. It has captured from the enemy nearly 120,000 prisoners. It has a right to be proud of its record."
It was at the very moment when the great battle of France was being fought, that the Liberal party was conducting a shameless campaign against a company commander who was risking his life, at every moment, on the firing line.
Even the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Claxton) had his word to say, on March 27. He might very well have started with re-edifying his popularity in the riding he represents in parliament. Let him tell us, for example, why the Minister of National Defence, Mr. McNaughton, was so shamefully defeated in Grey North? Mr. Chairman, the slackers who have allowed and encouraged the fight against the election of Lieutenant-Colonel Paul Sauve, in Two Mountains, would no doubt be in a position to supply information about the campaign vnged against General McNaughton. The junior member of the cabinet accuses me of being an isolationist and a defeatist. I answer him: You are a defeatist yourself, for the party to which you belong has done everything in its power to ensure the defeat of an officer at the front, while I was sparing nothing to make his victory possible.
The defeat of the Minister of National Defence in the Grey North by-election has caused the Prime Minister to hesitate about calling a session of parliament. However, he had made up his mind, long before, to remain in power to the very last day. The Prime Minister should have advised His Excellency the Governor General to dissolve parliament as early as June 18, 1940. . .


Rodolphe Leduc: Even before
that.


Liguori Lacombe: Indeed, on June 18, 1940, when the government introduced the mobilization bill they were stripped of their mandate. They had no authority to proceed with this legislation. They had been
War Appropriation-The Army

elected on March 26, 1940, on a policy of moderate, voluntary and free participation in the conflict.
The 1942 plebiscite was nothing but a shameful deceit. Did he need to be relieved' from the pledges he had broken two years before? He had solemnly promised never to enforce conscription and scarcely three months after his election on March 26, 1940, he was already enforcing it.
It is desired' to make us believe that conscription is in force only since November 1944. That is nothing but trickery and deceit! Ask the young men called for military training since 1940 whether conscription is in force in Canada, and since what time it is.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Since the beginning of the war.


Liguori Lacombe: Ask the
families of draftees who have been wounded or even shot dead by the military police, to tell you since what time conscription exists. Ask the young men who, since 1940, have been haled before the courts, and have been so arraigned for a period of almost five years, for having neglected to answer an order calling them for military training, whether we have conscription since 1940 or not.
Have not the people been enough deceived by unscrupulous politicians of every ilk? They have too long been a prey to fear, uncertainty and heaps of lies from a whole legion of public men. They only want the opportunity of restoring truth in>
its right place and of doing justice to their so oft-betrayed country. If the constitution is not a fiction, parliament should be dissolved at once. It should have been dissolved as soon as the government broke their pledges, less than three months after the general election held on March 26, 1940. It does not matter if London extends the term of the British parliament. We do not want to follow in the wake of London. We demand a general election without any delay. The reasons so far given by the Prime Minister for postponing a general election are but idle pretexts. The victory loan and the San Francisco conference should not delay the election. Who has ever proved that an election campaign would be detrimental to the victory loan campaign? Nobody. That is merely a political bugbear. As regards the San Francisco conference, those selected1 to represent Canadla there will have no mandate to do so since the term of parliament will then have expired.
Let the government face their responsibility and go to the country. I understand their fear:	It is hardly interesting for them to

meet the electors after they have deceived and betrayed them, so many times. But the day of reckoning cannot be eluded. Let them forward! The personal interest of a member or a government is of so little importance. There are so many problems that await a solution. The nation's interest is the thing which matters and that is what the people shall decide in the next general election. The citizens of this country will sever the last ties that bind them to a government which has done the very opposite of what they had repeatedly promised to do or abstain from doing. They will take away the government of the country from those who by an exaggerated war effort, an effort beyond our strength, have led them to the brink of ruination. They will spurn the blandishments and camouflage of a government which has consistently misled them before and since Canada's entry into the war. Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister has just declared, in reply to an article which appeared in a Montreal newspaper, that our participation in the war against Japan could not be a modest effort? He has left far behind his policy of a voluntary, free and moderate war effort. Since the Prime Minister himself has admitted that our soldiers who will take part in the war against Japan have already been mobilized for the defence of Canada, there can be no question of a voluntary system but indeed of conscription to be enforced once more. That is what we are opposed to and we will fight against it unremittingly.
The government is therefore making arrangements to attend the San Francisco conference while making preparations for a stepped up war effort. Canada will make international commitments which are still more dangerous. A warlike atmosphere rather than an atmosphere of peace will prevail at that conference. The events which I had foreseen are already taking shape. So far Canada has been very gullible and will continue to be the dupe. We have no possessions to defend and no territorial ambitions. While we shall defend British interests and American claims in the Pacific, thanks to a so-called peace conference held in an extremely strained warlike atmosphere, our delegates will agree, at that conference, that Canada, after all the sacrifices she has made, is ready and willing to police the world. To attain this purpose, conscription will be imposed in Canada even in peace time. Our youth will be liable to compulsory military service even when the war is over. This is a most condemnable policy which will emerge from the conference of San Francisco where predatory nations will as ever force

War Appropriation-The Army
their views upon intermediate and small nations. What business have we got in that adventure? For my part, I have already condemned this disastrous policy and I remain opposed to all those regrettable ventures.


Mr. EDWARDS:: At the outset I should
like to pay a modest tribute to the learned andi brilliant man who has presented to the house the estimates and report of the Minister of National Defence. Through, him, sir, I should like to express my tribute of appreciation to that distinguished' scientist, that great soldier, that great Canadian who was the architect of the Canadian Army, the minister whom he has the honour to represent in the house. As a scientist, the minister appreciates scientific skill, knowledge and ability. Under his leadership the Canadian Army came to be regarded as perhaps the most efficiently effective of any of the allied armies; and because of that fact I approach him, through his parliamentary assistant, with a problem the solution of which I believe will mean much to the welfare and effectiveness of our Canadian soldiers, sailors and airmen, and at the same time give belated recognition to one branch of science in Canada to-day.
My remarks are directed primarily to the pharmaceutical services in the navy, army and air forces. For the last four years, though I did not know about it until last fall, the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, composed of over four thousand registered, fully-trained and for the most part graduate pharmacists, has been urging upon the service ministers the use of trained pharmacists as such in the armed services, and their recognition as such, in accordance with their professional training and the contribution they make to the physical fitness and fighting ability of the men and women in the Canadian armed forces.
I was surprised, as I am sure many hon. members will be, to learn that this movement has not met with the immediate and spontaneous response which might reasonably have been expected!; yet when I looked into the matter I found that in the United States it was only in 11M3, after thirty years of effort, education, instruction and appeal, that the pharmaceutical corps of that country was brought into being by presidential decree following an act of congress For over twenty years the pharmacists of this country have been, agitating for the setting up of a pharmaceutical corps to service our armed forces, and for many more years a similar agitation has been carried on in Britain. Only the other day in a British journal I read
the comment of a Canadian pharmacist, who said that pharmacy as practised in the British army had not changed since the days of the Crimean war, and I believe the same comment could be made, in regard to the pharmaceutical service rendered our fighting men and women to-day. I was astounded to learn, what I believe to be true, that while in every province of Canada a druggist or pharmacist is not permitted1 to compound or fill prescriptions containing drugs without having been licensed, following the granting of a university degree or after an apprenticeship of several years, nevertheless, as I appreciate the situation to-day, the men and women of our fighting services are supplied with drugs and! pharmaceutical preparations by men and women who have no such qualifications, who have no knowledge of the value of such drugs and chemicals, and who have been given only the most cursory training-two or three months-in the dispensing of these supplies.
I was curious to learn why this situation should exist in the army and the navy and, I must confess to a lesser degree, the air force. As far as I can discover, in Canada, as in Great Britain and the United States, the opposition has come from the senior service, the medical branch, who apparently have resisted and continue to resist any inroads upon their rights or domain, as professional men. The whole opposition in the United States, as the congressional record reveals, came from the medical and surgical branch of the services. I believe the opposition in this country also comes from that branch of the services. That is the same branch which for thirty years opposed the establishment of a dental corps. Do hon. members realize that for the first time in 1939, and only since the outbreak of this war, we have had a Canadian dental corps serving all three branches of the services, the navy, the army and the air force? Such inquiry as I have been able to make from members of the dental corps, would indicate that there also the opposition to its formation came from, the senior service, the medical branch. I believe it to be true that never in the history of the Canadian army, navy or air force have our fighting men and women received better dental care and attention. I believe it to be a fact that the Canadian airman, soldier and sailor is better looked after from the dental point of view than any other fighting man or woman in any other allied service. I believe that is directly due to the fact that the Canadian dental corps as such is free and independent, that it. does not report to nor is it subject to the direction of the army medical corps; it
War Appropriation-The Army

reports to the adjutant general of the army. It administers a service overseas as well as across Canada to the navy, army and air force personnel without embarrassment or hindrance from the medical branches of those three services.
I believe that our fighting personnel are entitled to pharmaceutical services and treatment as good or even better than those provided for civilians. In addition to the hazards of actual combat and fighting with the enemy, the personnel of our army, navy and air force should not be subjected to the additional hazards of having injected into their bodies or having to take orally pharmaceuticals, chemicals and drugs which are administered and dispensed by other than the most capable and competent people. It is for this reason that I feel perfectly justified in representing to the parliamentary assistant that this situation should be thoroughly investigated, first, from the point of view of service to our fighting personnel and, second, with a view to giving belated recognition and granting the appropriate status, promotion and pay to a segment of the professional life of this country who have heretofore been denied recognition.
Similar recognition has been granted to the nursing sorority, if you will; it has been granted to the dental fraternity and to the engineering profession. Apparently it has been granted to the clerical staff because there is a separate corps of clerks. There is a pay corps as such which is remunerated and controlled within itself. I think the time has come when we should take a lead. Instead of standing by and asking what is done in Great Britain or what we have done in the past, we should do just as we have done in connection with clothing and equipment for the fighting services and in providing the tools of war. The Canadian soldier is entitled to the best that Canadian brains and ingenuity can give him, and we should carry this same principle through with regard to the pharmaceutical preparations, drugs and service which the fighting man needs and which should be the best that can possibly be supplied.
The establishment of the dental corps resulted in a decided increase in the physical fitness and well-being of our fighting services without any additional expense to the government. I believe that the setting up of a pharmaceutical corps to serve all three branches of our fighting forces would permit us to use the technical skill, knowledge and ability available to us, and would also result in a corresponding reduction in cost. Does anyone believe that you can provide separate pharmaceutical services, depots, transportation

and dispensing facilities for the army, navy, and air force, each operated separately, as cheaply or as efficiently as you can provide such services with a corps concentrated under one control as is the case with the dental corps?
I am well aware, and I would expect the parliamentary assistant to make reference to it, of the fact that as late as May of this year there was a routine order passed covering part of the representations I have made to-day. Canadian army routine order 4444, dated May 6, 1944, states:
1.	It is essential that a standard be set to cover the qualifications of all pharmacists, officers and other ranks, who may have the custody of, or who may dispense narcotics or other dangerous drugs. This refers particularly to personnel covering off vacancies for pharmacists on all military hospitals and medical inspection rooms.
2.	The following standard will, therefore, apply:
(a)	All personnel employed in the Canadian army (active) as pharmacists or dispensers shall be graduates in good standing in pharmacy, of a university or recognized school of pharmacy.
(b)	Personnel qualified for group B and C under "Instructions regarding trade tests and rates of pay, pharmacists and dispensers", may be employed as assistants, where the establishment permits.
3.	Unqualified personnel are, therefore, to be replaced immediately by personnel qualified in accordance with the above.
4.	This order supersedes other instructions issued with respect to qualifications of pharmacists.
I draw your attention to the fact that that order, the first of its kind, was passed only as recently as May 6, 1944, after we had been in the war for over four years.
The air force is not tied down so much by precedent. As a rule it has been more alert and more ready to appreciate the value and necessity of providing its personnel with the very best of pharmaceutical and other services. After representations had been made, it took prompt steps to see that our airmen were supplied with pharmaceuticals and drugs only by competent men. In a letter dated July 20, 1944, to the chairman of the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, the chief of the air staff states:
The following information in regard to your letter of July 12, 1944, may serve your purpose.
(a)	Approximately eighty graduate pharmacists are employed in their professional capacity in the R.C.A.F. An establishment exists in all R.C.A.F. hospitals of thirty beds or over for registered pharmacists.
(b)	The ranks of pharmacists, with few exceptions, are, to-day, froni sergeant to warrant officer 1st class. Positions for commissioned officer pharmacists have recently been created in R.C.A.F. hospitals of one hundred and fifty beds and over.

War Appropriation-The Army
(c)	A division of pharmacy has been established in the Directorate of Medical Services for Air. Two officers, in the ranks of flight lieutenant and pilot officer, are in charge and are responsible to the Director of Medical Services for Air for the standards of pharmaceutical practice in the R.C.A.F. Both of these officers are graduate pharmacists.
(d)	All non-commisisoned officer pharmacists in the R.C.A.F. are in the highest degree of trade grouping and, as a result, receive an additional seventy-five cents a day for their rank.
I do not think the matter has gone far enough. I believe that the pharmacist profession as such, as well as the pharmacists in the armed services, are all of the opinion that they could serve Canada and the fighting forces more efficiently, effectively and economically if a pharmaceutical corps were established. I think the time has come when effect should be given to the considered and disinterested opinions of men who are most capable and most competent of passing an opinion on this subject. Unfortunately I did not serve in the last war for physical reasons, nor have I been privileged to serve in this one, but there are members of this house who did. I wonder if this experience is common to any of them. A veteran of two former wars and now a practising pharmacist writes as follows- for obvious reasons I do not wish to disclose his name:
Ottawa has laid down hundreds of regulations regarding the handling of dangerous drugs, namely narcotics, phenobarbital. the sulfas, even methyl hydrate for use in civilian practice blit allows those with only rudimentary training to issue them for "the cream of the population.'1 Is the service man not entitled to as much protection as the civilian?
When the medical officer goes up the line, the sergeant takes the sick parade whatever his qualifications. I've guzzled number nines at the order of these paper salesmen, gulped spirits ammonia aromat administered by equally incompetent.
Another druggist in the service writes me as follows:
Here in camp at our M.I.R, room-
I believe that is the medical inspection room.
-they dish out cough medicine and other medicine in old coke and whiskey bottles with no labels on them. It seems to me that men qualified for this job should be there in place of men who have no training.
I was speaking less than a month ago to a graduate pharmacist who is home in Calgary on leave. I asked him about this particular phase of army life, and I am advised by him that in a medical report centre in Montreal at which any serviceman may report for treatment the man in the dispensing room was not a trained or graduate pharmacist. He said:
I was there for a month, and he was senior to me; I helped him.
Another graduate of the university of Alberta, with the degree of B.Sc., Ph., a young lad, got a postponement for a year and a half from selective service in order to complete his course in pharmacy so that he would be more useful to the army or navy or-air force, as the case might be, and what happened to him? He was told that there was no future for him as a pharmacist in the army or navy and that he had better go into some other branch of the service. He went to Cornwallis, the naval establishment, and despite his best efforts to transfer from gunnery into the pharmaceutical branch was peremptorily told to continue or he would be sent to sea as an able seaman. In that same naval establishment, a friend of his, who was a gold medallist, if you please, in pharmacy, in his final year at the university was an assistant sick-bay attendant, taking orders and instructions from a senior in that establishment who had received no pharmaceutical training, was a graduate of no school of pharmacy and would never be allowed to use the training he was receiving in the navy to dispense drugs in civil life. This gold medallist was taking instructions and orders from that other lad who was senior to him in point of service.
One of the results of this practice is that we are going to have two problems so far as the rehabilitation of these men is concerned. The young man who was a graduate pharmacist will have lost interest in his profession because he has not been allowed to practise it in the service; on the other hand, you have the bookkeeper or clerk acting as a pharmacist and dispensing drugs, if you please, to our heroes when he will not be allowed to dispense for five minutes in any drugstore in any province in the Dominion of Canada. That is not only a waste of Canadian brains and ability, but it is doing definite harm to enthusiastic young lads who are anxious to serve their country to the best of their ability.
I could go on and give many other instances which have been brought to my attention. Suffice it to say that I hope that the parliamentary assistant to the minister will, when he replies, let the committee know what the situation is and justify the opposition to a proposal which seems to be fair, reasonable, economical and practicable and which puts a premium on scientific knowledge, skill and ability, rather than upon seniority and tradition.
War Appropriation-The Army

The pharmaceutical association recommended to the three service ministers the setting up of a Canadian pharmaceutical corps with headquarters at Ottawa presided over by a colonel, who would be responsible only to the adjutant general, as in the case of the dental corps; that he should have three assistant directors of pharmaceutical services, one each to act as liaison with the army, the navy and the air force respectively. Surely we can profit from the experience of men of science, men of business ability, men who in the hard school of prectical experience have learned how to serve the public and serve it well, efficiently and scientifically. I still believe that there are medical men in this country, particularly in this day of highly complex compounded drugs, who appreciate the value of the services of a highly trained pharmacist, and who will support the demands of the pharmaceutical association and of pharmacists everywhere in the services for the establishment of a pharmacy corps. I trust the intelligent, thoughtful people of Canada will demand that a service considered good enough for the sailors and the soldiers of forty, fifty, sixty and seventy years ago shall be discarded as not good enough for the soldiers, sailors and airmen of to-day.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The same question was raised by the leader of the opposition the other night, and I shall see that my hon. friend's remarks are brought to the attention of the officers of the department. I think I should tell him, though, that my information is that the representations to which he has referred have already been carefully considered by the department, and it is felt that the formation of a pharmaceutical corps is not justified, or a practical suggestion, since the numbers involved would not appear to justify the separate administration of a separate corps. The records indicate that the establishments overseas and in Canada provide for fewer than three hundred duly qualified pharmacists. These establishments were prepared after careful consideration had been given to the requirements of the Canadian army. As he no doubt knows, a number of qualified pharmacists have been given commissions. In fact, an old friend of mine with whom I went to school a good many years ago, and who has been overseas since 1939, is a pharmacist and a major. But it has been decided that there is insufficient reason for the formation of a corps at the present time. However, it is useful that this matter should be brought up, because, while we are getting near the end of this war, there may possibly be another one. I fear it is a
LMr. Edwards.]
little bit late now to form a pharmaceutical corps, and my information is that the decision taken against it is pretty definite.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: How would it compare .with the dental corps?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not the information, but I am sure there would be a very much larger number of dentists than of pharmacists.
The leader of the opposition asked me another question the other evening, as to what was the policy of the government with respect to married quarters. I have made some inquiries as to that, and I find that there exist relatively few such quarters in Canada. Some quarters were built originally for this purpose at Halifax, Quebec, Kingston, Toronto, Camp Borden, London, Winnipeg, Calgary and Esquimalt, but in a good many cases it has been necessary to take over some of these married quarters for officers or to house active soldiers. So far as policy is concerned, the policy during the present war has been not to construct additional married quarters because of the shortage of materials and labour. What the policy will be in the future I am not in a position to say.
Just one other point while I am on my feet. The hon. member for Yale asked me to give a statement as to the position with respect to farm leave.
As the committee probably knows, there are now three types of farm leave: first, compassionate leave; second, leave granted' to assist in hog, dairy and beef production; third, spring and1 harvest leave. Perhaps I might outline the conditions governing these three types.
First, as to compassionate leave. In order to obtain compassionate farm leave, without pay and allowances, which is granted for the purpose of working on farms owned by members of the soldier's immediate family where there would be undue hardship if the leave were not granted, a soldier must apply in writing to his commanding officer who will, after investigation, forward it with his recommendation to the general officer commanding or district officer commanding concerned, who may authorize leave for such period as he deems advisable, but not to exceed six months. Subject to the exigencies of the service, the same officers may grant extensions for such periods not exceeding six months as they may consider advisable. The facilities of the national selective service mobilization bureau, dependents' board of trustees, auxiliary services or any provincial, municipal or civic

War Appropriation-The Army
organization may be used to investigate statements submitted on behalf of the soldier when it is considered to be necessary or desirable.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is the decision of the commanding officer ever reversed by headquarters?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot answer that question offhand, but I will make inquiries and find out. They are usually handled by the district officer commanding.


Mark Cecil Senn: Yes; I understand that,


Douglas Charles Abbott: Then there is a new type of leave-the hog, dairy and beef production leave. To obtain this type of leave, which is granted without pay and allowances, the soldier must make application in writing to his commanding officer and the same procedure as I have outlined for compassionate farm leave, is followed. It may be granted to any soldier not eligible for reinforcements, including personnel returned from overseas on rotation who, in the opinion of the general officer commanding, district officer commanding or commanding officer, will be able to assist in or promote the production of hogs or dairy products and beef and, particularly, to soldiers who have been formerly employed in such enterprises. The soldier need not be related to the owner of the farm or enterprise concerned.
Finally, there is spring and harvest leave. This leave, which is also without pay and allowances, may be granted to such personnel as can be spared for the purpose of sowing crops, harvesting and aiding in spring and harvest operations, provided that the soldier has had actual experience in farm work. Application will be submitted in writing by the soldier to his commanding officer who will, after investigation, forward it with his recommendation to the general officer commanding or district officer commanding concerned, who may authorize leave for a period not exceeding two months and may make such investigations as he may deem necessary before approving the application.
Those are the three types of farm leave.


Mark Cecil Senn: After a soldier has proceeded overseas, is compassionate leave or leave for these other purposes ever granted?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, a soldier may be
returned from overseas on compassionate grounds; and I think, subject to check, that that would include compassionate farm leave. It is naturally perhaps rather more carefully scrutinized in the case of the soldier who is serving overseas than it is here, but a man may be returned from overseas on compassionate grounds.


Mark Cecil Senn: He still has to apply to his commanding officer overseas?


Douglas Charles Abbott: He would' have to apply to his commanding officer overseas, and it would
have to be dealt with by the military authorities over there.


Mr. FAIR:: Is there any method devised whereby the granting of leave can be speeded up? It seems to me that quite considerable time is spent by the army authorities and selective service officials in arranging for leave or deciding whether leave can be granted. We are now into the spring season, and a number of men who should be released are not yet released.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that any special method is being devised. Instructions have been issued to deal with these applications as expeditiously as possible, because it is realized that in respect of seeding leave, now is the time when men would be needed. I suppose the same applies to the new type of leave, namely, that to assist in dairy production.


Robert Fair: Then I have a further question to ask: Where soldiers have made application for leave to their commanding officers, and before such leave has been granted, they are transferred to another camp in Canada, possibly several hundreds of miles away from home. Will the department make arrangements to see that these men do not have to pay their railway fare back home?


Mark Cecil Senn: I should like to emphasize that point, because I have known of cases where men have been removed to other camps. For some reason or another their applications have not followed them, and considerable time has been required to make out new application forms. There has been difficulty in getting those soldiers home in time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall see that that point is brought to the attention of the department.


Charles Edward Johnston: Lately I have received many requests respecting farm leave. The parliamentary assistant has pointed out that there are three types of leave for boys in the services who are to work on the farms. In almost every case, however, there seems to be some loophole. For instance, they are granted leave if they can be spared. I do not know whether this is intentional, but in many cases where farm lads are applying for leave they are being told distinctly that they are needed more in the army than in agriculture.
War Appropriation^-The Army

I think the parliamentary assistant should know that in some cases the officers in charge of the camps where applications are made are refusing to accept these applications for farm leave. I am not going to say that the commanding officers always do that. In some cases even before the lads get to the commanding officer they are discouraged from making application. Then, as soon as a request is made for farm leave, as has been indicated, these boys are immediately transferred to some other camp.
Obviously, whoever is doing this is doing it for a purpose, namely to get the boys out of that jurisdiction before any pressure can be put on to have them released for farm leave. Some cases of this kind have come to my attention. I shall not deal with them specifically, because some are under investigation now-and I must say that the department has been very good in trying to trace down the facts.
There have been instances, however, where boys have made representations to the officers at their camps, especially in the west'-and I have Calgary in mind'-and they have been told outright, "We need you for the army, and that is where you are going to go; there is no use in your putting in an application for farm leave, because if your father cannot carry on his farm he had better sell it"
I do not think it is the intention of the government to have a condition of that kind. The army may take the position that they are requesting so many men from each district, and the only place from which they can get them is from the farms. One of the authorities on the mobilization board told me pointedly, "Ottawa tells us that we have to get so many men for the army, possibly 25,000. You know as well as I do that we have got nearly everybody around the country, with the exception of the lads on the farms. If Ottawa tells us we have to get 25,000 men from this military district, or this section of the country, will you tell me where we will get them, if we do not take them off the farms?" And so long as they are told they have to get 25,000 men they say they will have to get them from wherever they can.
So far as the army is concerned, it may be that they are faced with an impossible task. They are asked to produce so many reinforcements for the army; and, of course, the only place they can get them is from wherever they may be available. That would be the farms.
The parliamentary assistant has just indicated that leave was granted for beef and hog production, if the men were not eligible for

reinforcements. If those boys are in uniform, either in the home defence army or in general service, they are eligible for reinforcements.


Douglas Charles Abbott: By that I meant if they were of a category, physical condition, training, and the like, eligible for reinforcements. If they were line of communications troops, well and good.


Charles Edward Johnston: A case may come up where a boy might be in the home defence army, and might have an A-l physical category1. But that boy may be required on the farm; he may be an only son.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He would be eligible for compassionate leave, but he would not be eligible for hog, dairy and beef production leave.


Charles Edward Johnston: I speak
from memory when 1 say that there was a stipulation as to his being spared. Which category was that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hog, beef and dairy production leave. He does not have to be a farmer and does not have to be related to the person on whose farm he would work. Presumably he would not be given leave unless he had had some experience in farming. But, as distinguished from the other two types of leave, he does not have to be related or connected in any way with the farmer for whom he may work, provided that it is considered he is qualified to do that kind of work. Against that, he must not be of the physical category and training which would qualify him for reinforcements overseas. We have to provide a certain number of reinforcements o-f the men in that physical category. That is a top priority. It is ahead of growing beef and hogs, or the production of dairy products.


Charles Edward Johnston: I agree with the parliamentary assistant. I have been one *who has always contended that the army is one of our first requirements. But I also agree with the Minister of Agriculture who said last session that there had to be some protection for the farmer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If I might interrupt my hon. friend at that point, let us not get confused in this discussion between action taken by mobilization boards and the leave granted a man after he is in the army. My information is that military representatives on the mobilization boards-and they are handled by the Department of Labour, the selective service branch-have been instructed not to oppose the granting of leave to farmers under the circumstances. I think it will be found

War Appropriation-The Army
that there are very few farmers being called up to-day under selective service regulations, if they choose to claim exemption. There are a number of cases where chaps who have worked on the farm have entered the army and have been quite content to stay there, but when they are posted for overseas they then make application for farm leave. The committee will realize that a considerable amount of reluctance might be displayed to the granting of that leave in these circumstances.


Charles Edward Johnston: I realize that some of these matters come before the mobilization boards.


Douglas Charles Abbott: All of it, so far as the callup is concerned.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes; and that necessarily comes under the Department of Labour. But in some instances both the army and the mobilization boards are responsible. I have in mind the case of a boy in uniform. He made application to the selective service mobilization board, of which Chief Justice Harvey of Edmonton was chairman. Every effort was made to discourage him in his endeavour to get off for farm assistance. Then, when it came to making application to his commanding officer, he could not even get there. There are many cases of that kind. If we are to have anything like the production for which the Minister of Agriculture is asking, especially in western Canada, some recognition must be given these boys. It is all right for the department to set out rules and regulations under which the boys can get compassionate leave for agricultural work. But if the army authorities are to override those regulations, and if when applications are made the boys are to be moved to some other camp, we in the west will be right up against it this spring so far as farm help is concerned. I think the parliamentary assistant should make further investigation in regard to the action that is being taken by the army authorities and the selective service mobilization board in hustling these fellows away so that they are not allowed to get back into agriculture.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will make some inquiries into that.


Mark Cecil Senn: Before we leave this subject
I should like to ask if regulations are issued1 to the commanding officers in regard to this matter?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct. Instructions have gone out with respect to this new leave and) instructions had gone out previously with respect to the other two types of leave.


Mark Cecil Senn: Are the instructions mandatory, or is it in the discretion of the commanding officer as to whether or not he grants this leave? That is the question I have been wondering about.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course, where it relates
to compassionate leave it obviously cannot *be mandatory because there must be the exercise of discretion. In other words, the commanding officer or the district officer commanding must look at the facts and then exercise discretion as to whether those facts justify the leave.


Mark Cecil Senn: In the instance where a boy
obviously has a good) case is it mandatory?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In that case the general
officer commanding in the district-


Mark Cecil Senn: Does that hold true as well
for harvest and seeding leave?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is true for harvest and
seeding leave, but I am not sure about this new type of leave. That is a new one and I have not looked into it. It is certainly true of the compassionate and the harvest and seeding leaves.


Mark Cecil Senn: I would suggest that the parliamentary assistant look into it again, because I doubt that it is mandatory.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am. saying that it is not
mandatory, I am sure it is not mandatory for compassionate, harvest and seeding leave. I am positive it is within the discretion of the district officer commanding. As to the other, I do not know. The Minister of Agriculture tells me that the same principle applies to the new type of leave; it is discretionary.


Mr. McGARRY:: I should like to make
a few remarks relative to the estimates of the Minister of National Defence, but before doing so I desire to offer a tribute to the parliamentary assistant for his eloquent and lucid .presentation of the estimates. He has proved himself a worthy assistant to a worthy minister. Of course he had1 a good story to tell and all good' stories are easy to tell. They are usually accepted with good grace. However, if it had not been for the efficient efforts of the minister who up to a short time ago had charge of the Department of National Defence, and the excellent efforts of his successor, the parliamentary assistant would not have had such a good story to tell.
_ I just wish to make a few remarks with regard to the estimates and I wish to refer first to a discussion that took place in committee last Friday evening with regard to the afford-

War Appropriation-The Army

ing of adequate and proper facilities to look after our returned men who, unfortunately, through their war experiences have suffered mental wounds and disabilities. The hon. member for Cape Breton South who, I think, was the initial speaker on this subject-and I am sure he believes that every hon. member in this house is associated with him in his expression of compassion and solicitation for the providing of these facilities-referred to them; but I am inclined to think he as well as myself and other hon. members did not have all the information with regard to the facilities that are provided for the men who through the horrors and hardships they have undergone in this war have found themselves under a disability which perhaps demands more compassion than any other disability from which they might suffer. I mention this because one listening to the hon. member would be inclined to believe that no facilities were provided to take care of these cases. The Minister of Veterans' Affairs, upon whose estimates I believe this discussion should have taken place, enlightened not only the hon. member for Cape Breton South, but other hon. members as well as myself. I am sure that many of us did not know of the facilities that are provided at present, and probably knew little or nothing about the programme for extension of these facilities which has been formulated and is now under way.
I wish to refer to one part of the discussion mentioned by the senior hon. member for Halifax in speaking of the Nova Scotia hospital. I know a little about that hospital; I have had a good deal to do with it. I have had occasion to send patients there and I visited it several times. The Nova Scotia hospital has all facilities to treat neurotic and neurasthenic cases that any other institution would have that would be devised for that purpose. They have all the therapies. They have insulin therapy, electric therapy, hydro therapy, vocational therapy, thermal therapy and recreational therapy. I repeat that they have all the facilities that would be provided in hospitals that are set aside for that purpose. As the hon. member has said, the undesirable part of it is that there are insane people there. But the appellation of an insane asylum does not apply to the Nova Scotia hospital. Some years ago it was looked upon as a retention hospital. To-day it has outgrown that, and I know cases in my own constituency where people believed they were getting work weary or brain weary and have volunteered to go to this hospital and take treatment. In every case by taking the therapies provided there either individually or conjointly on the advice of the

doctors they reaped satisfactory and lasting results. So that I say until we get hospitals specifically designed to look after such cases, the hospitals of Nova Scotia can very well carry on the treatment indicated in these mental cases. As a matter of fact, since the beginning of the war some 325 mental cases from the army, navy and air force have been _ treated with very good results.
In regard to the matter of having sane people in the same hospitals, every patient who enters these institutions is segregated with the class indicated by his diagnosis and prognosis, and I have every reason to believe that patients, whether civilian or service personnel, who require mental treatment of any kind, can be treated satisfactorily in the hospitals of Nova Scotia. There is no doubt that as the demobilization programme progresses the need for these special hospitals will increase; but as long as we have a Minister of Veterans' Affairs who is so compassionate and so generous in passing along recommendations; as long as we have such an eminent psychologist as Major Chisholm at the head of affairs, with his knowledge of medicine and mental diseases and his great executive ability; as long as we have in addition the hearty cooperation of all the provinces, I believe these poor men who are seeking treatment, and their friends, may rest assured that ample facilities will be provided.
So much for that. There was one other matter which came out in the discussion on Friday last, with which I should like to deal briefly. I 'believe the hon. member for Fort William made a strong appeal to the parliamentary assistant in regard to the release of young men for work on the farms. I heartily join with the hon. member in advocating the granting of either extended leave or of discharges to those needed1 on the farms. It seems strange to me that in all this talk about releasing men, or giving them leave, nothing has been said about sons of fishermen. These men are essential producers, and the pursuit of fishing is hazardous, particularly inshore fishing. Usually these men have a boat, with an engine. It is impossible for a -man to do inshore fishing by himself; there must be two men in each boat. In my constituency I have dozens of men advanced in years who have made fishing their life work, who have the boats and all necessary equipment. Many of these old men spent the winter sitting in cold shedis repairing and painting their boats and getting their equipment ready for the spring. Now, however, unless their sons are released from the army, or at least given extended leave, I know dozens of men in my constituency whose boats will have to remain idle. This is not fair. I

War Appropriation-The Army
would ask the parliamentary assistant, the Minister of Labour and all who have anything to do with this matter to give this point their serious consideration. The fisherman, who is just as important a producer as the farmer, should receive the same consideration in regard to the release of his son from military service that is shown the farmer or the man engaged in any other industry.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. d'ANJOU (Translation):	As on every
other occasion, I wish to state clearly my position on the war estimates now under discussion in the house.
We are requested to vote two billion dollars in order to pursue our irrational and limitless participation in the present conflict. Out of that fabulous sum of money, about one billion dollars will again, this year, be given in pure gift, as a tribute to England. I shall return to this matter in the course of my remarks.
As a logical and natural sequence to the position I have always maintained on this matter of war appropriations, I condemn with all the energy and1 strength at my command, the request of the government for billions of dollars for deeds of carnage and destruction. Canada is on the verge of financial collapse and the government persists in bleeding white our population for the benefit of England and the infamous war profiteers who are pyramiding colossal and scandalous wealth, while thousands upon thousands of our Canadian youth are giving up their lives on far-away battlefields for the protection of foreign interests.
As long as war remains a tool for the vultures of international finance, it will not end and the slaughter that is now bleeding the universe will continue mercilessly for the peoples engaged in the present conflict.
What I oppose in the resolution are the amounts requested to continue our participation in the war and the granting of a new gift to Great Britain.
Following their usual custom, the government submit to us resolutions which have been muddled on purpose, so as to place in a dilemma those who have enough courage to fight their infamous war policy.
Mr. Chairman, as I have consistently done since the outset of the present war, I denounce with all the energy at my command, the gift to Great Britain implied in the present resolution. This annual tribute paid to England 32283-434
i9 proof enough that we are still at her beck and call. Why make gifts to a country immensely richer than our own, while the most abject poverty still exists in some parts of our land. In my riding, there a~e many new settlements whose population suffers from many ills and lacks often even the very necessities of life. Instead of treating with such liberality a country to which we owe nothing, except Christian forgiveness, the government would be far better inspired to ensure the welfare of our own suffering people. All for England and nothing for Canada, seems to be the motto of a government the sole worry of whom is Great Britain and who forget that there exists a beautiful country called Canada, which I recognize as my sole country, my only fatherland.
Speaking for his minister and for the government, the parliamentary assistant for National Defence stated that soldiers, airmen and sailors would participate in the fight against Japan and that they will go voluntarily. Mr. Chairman, I fear that that is just another one of those political promises. For twenty-five years, particularly during the course of the last general election of March, 1940, we have been given many of those solemn promises and sacred pledges which the government did not hesitate to violate after the election.
For my part, I believe that if the government are sincere they will immediately repeal our law of conscription. If they do not, we shall have every reason to fear a repetition of the same things that happened since 1940. They have promised, on the other hand, that conscription would cease with the close of hostilities in Europe. Unfortunately, they have not come to an end yet, and Heaven only knows when they will.
If we are to believe the papers, the Canadians have been sustaining heavy losses lately. Last night, I was listening to a radio news report saying that the Germans were resisting stubbornly in the interior of their country and that the Canadian troops were fighting in that area. When we look at the casualty lists we receive every day we notice these words: Killed in action; killed in action.
I am afraid the government will not only continue to send conscripts overseas but that they will be wanting more than voluntary enlistments in the war against Japan.
I now wish to draw the government's attention to what takes place in my county. I recall that in 1917 and 1918-I had then the honour, like I have to-day, of representing the county of Rimouski-government of the day which included the hon. minister of Mines (Mr. Crerar), right hand of the present
War Appropriation-The Army


Mr. FAUTEUX (Translation):: 
Gaspard Fauteux: Did I understand that ail those farmers' sons put in gaol in the county of the hon. member for Rimouski were arrested because they had not done their military service, and that they were subsequently sent overseas for that reason?
Mr. d'ANJOU (Translation): They were
conscripts.


Gaspard Fauteux: In that case, did I understand, first, that they were young men who had not undergone their military training, though they had been .called?
Mr. d'ANJOU (Translation): They were. I say to the hon. member that they were conscripts and had not reported for military duty.

War Appropriation-The Army


Maurice Lalonde: Well, that is a different thing.


Gaspard Fauteux: With your consent, Mr. Chairman, the second question I wish to direct to the hon. member for Rimouski is this: Had these farmers' sons whom you have just mentioned and who were sent overseas, made a request for exemption from military duty as farmers' sons.
Mr. d'ANJOU (Translation): No, they had not, but it is for the same reason that the union government was condemned: I have already said so and it is easy to understand for one who wishes to try. I have mentioned absentees; by absentees we usually mean those who do not answer their call. .If that practice was disapproved in 1917-18, I wonder why it is approved to-day.


Gaspard Fauteux: They were not exempted in 1917-18.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. I
would ask those who wish to speak to address the chair first.
Mr. d'ANJOU (Translation) :I understand, but there are three or four hon. members speaking to me at the same time, as if there were two or three presidents in the house; to whom should I address myself in this case?
That is exactly what happened in 1917-18. The hon. member for St. Mary was not in the house at that time, neither perhaps was the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde), but I remember that some of the members who were in the house at that time are still here to-day.


Gaspard Fauteux: In 1017-18, Mr. Chairman, farmers' sons were not exempted by law.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Yes, they were.
Mr. d'ANJOU (Translation): Yes, they were; there was even a court of exemption in my county. What was a crime for the union government is a crime still more atrocious and outrageous for a Liberal government who for the past twenty-five years promised us that never, under a Liberal administration, would conscription be imposed.
(Text) Mr. ABBOTT: I am only sorry that the hon. member for Lake Centre who has expressed doubts of the zeal with which the enforcement proceedings are carried on cannot understand French because, if he had heard the hon. member for Rimouski describe so harrowingly how the Rimouski gaol was crowded with deserters, I am sure he would have changed his mind.


Mr. EMMERSON:: I regret that I was not in my seat on Friday when the hon. member for Kootenay West brought up the question of Canadian nurses who had enlisted in the South African forces. Hon. gentlemen will remember that in 1941 the South African government opened negotiations with a view to getting Canadian nurses because of the shortage of nurses in the South African forces, and some three hundred Canadian nurses were enlisted by the South African representative in Canada, with the aid of the national defence department. There were set out in a document that was submitted to all these girls who offered themselves for enlistment the terms of enlistment, the compensation and certain other conditions.
It will be remembered also that in those days [DOT] many Canadian girls were anxious to get into the service and up until the middle of 1940 were still awaiting an opportunity to enter the Canadian nursing service. When they joined the South African forces they read the terms of enlistment which were presented to them, and while they knew that they would not get the same rate of pay as Canadian nurses serving with the Canadian forces, the language on the document was not quite clear to them and they did not. understand that the terms of enlistment were different from the terms of enlistment with the Canadian forces. They understood that they would get rations and quarters in addition to their pay, but when they got over there they found that that was not the situation. Of course it was a matter of great disappointment, particularly to some who had dependents. It has to be remembered that these girls were told they would have to take enough equipment to serve them at least two years, because it was difficult to get . uniforms in South Africa, so that most of them had to buy uniforms to the extent -of three hundred dollars or over, but they had an allowance of only $150 for clothing. This meant that many of them had to borrow, and they made certain arrangements to pay back their indebtedness by assignments of pay. Of course those who had to assign pay to dependents found when they got over there that they would have no money left, because of the deduction for rations and quarters and, I believe, for laundry. The term of enlistment was for one year absolute, with an opportunity of renewal. We must give credit to the South African government, in this way. A number of the girls, although they had enlisted for one year, were released from the service, before the year was up, in-order to marry. A number of the girls came back, but those remaining for a second term got an increase in pay, not to
War Appropriation-The Army

bring it up, however, to anywhere near the same level' as is received by Canadian nurses serving in the Canadian forces.
I thought it advisable to make this explanation, although of course it is all water under the bridge. What especially strikes me and what I should like to emphasize is, as mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay West, the matter of gratuities for these nurses who have returned and obtained their discharge. The South African representative here in Ottawa tells me that no provision has been made for gratuities for Canadian nurses serving in South Africa. It may be merely that he has not been notified of any gratuity. In any event our nurses, whether they serve in Canada or in South Africa or with any other of the commonwealth forces, are entitled to gratuities under Canadian legislation, but of course minus any payments of gratuity by other governments. But our Department of National Defence is not paying gratuities now because it is waiting to find out what will be paid by these other governments. It may be that there will not be any legislation.


Gordon Graydon: Some of these girls were transferred from South Africa to the Italian front, were they not?


Henry Read Emmerson: They are still with the South African defence force, but serving with South African units up in the north. Others returned to Canada and got their discharge; and some enlisted in the Canadian Army Medical Corps.


Gordon Graydon: So that those who are now in Italy are really with South African units?


Henry Read Emmerson: Not necessarily. So far as I know, those who were serving in North Africa did not go beyond Africa. They may have gone to Italy with South African forces, but I am not aware of it. I know that some went north with South African forces and served in Cyrenaica a year or two ago.


Gordon Graydon: I know that a nurse from my own town was in Pietermaritzburg, in South Africa, and then she transferred to Italy and is still there, as far as I know.


Henry Read Emmerson: That may be so. .1 think our Minister of National Defence should get into communication with the authorities concerned as quickly as possible in order that some gratuity shall go forward to those nurses who were not so highly paid while serving over there.
One other matter I wish to bring up is related to the policy as far as aircrew are concerned, according to the announcement

made by the government. A great many of our aircrew, particularly those who have graduated within the last year, are being put on reserve and are, not callable for service in the army. I think all hon. members agree that that is a good policy. I want to draw attention to the position of those civilian pilots who, back in 1940, when we were starting the empire training scheme, jumped into the breach. Those men, who had learned to fly at their own expense, were employed as civilian and staff pilots at our elementary schools and our observer schools. Now those schools are being closed and those men are out of priority employment but are subject to call by the army, and I wish to register a protest thereat. Those men who have given service in teaching pilots, many of whom are going on reserve, are returned to civilian status, or are out of the service, and are subject to callup by the army. I urge very strongly that if the regulation is as I understand it to be, it should be changed. The matter has been submitted to me only recently, and as far as I can find out those civilian pilots are subject to call-up for the army. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to give me some information in the matter, and say if that is so.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know. That, of course, is not a matter which primarily concerns the Department of National Defence; it relates purely to national selective service. We indent on the labour department for so many men a month, and the Department of Labour provides those men.
On the question of the South African nurses, I told the hon. member for Kootenay West last week that I would see that his remarks were brought to the attention) of the minister and the department. That is being done. I cannot give any definite answer other than to say that the matter is still receiving the most careful consideration of the appropriate authorities with a view to trying to straighten it out.


Gordon Graydon: They certainly feel they are getting a raw deal.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, no doubt. Many people feel that, of course.


Gordon Graydon: That is not exactly an answer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, but you do not expect
me to pass on the question myself, do you?


Gordon Graydon: I am beginning to expect less from you.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You are justified in that.

War Appropriation-The Army


Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, before voicing the remarks I wish to make about the resolution now before us, I should like to deal with a statement made about me by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix).
The hon. member said that I did not vote against the act for the mobilization of human and national resources, although it has already been shown in this house, as any one can see by looking at page 925 of the official report for 1940, that the vote taken during the discussion of that measure was a vote on a ruling of the chairman.
This time, I shall answer him through his good friend the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy), whose truthfulness I think he will not dare question. Here is what that hon. gentleman said in an interview published by L'Action Catholique on August 9, 1940:
In connection with the last session, Mr. Sasse-ville Roy said that he had endeavoured to uphold without any fanaticism his fellow-citizens' opinions. He emphasized that no vote was taken on the mobilization bill and that no one should consider as representing the feeling of the house the vote taken during the discussion on a ruling of the chairman. In the opinion of the great majority of members, the stand then taken by the chairman was justified and it was very hard to vote against him.
What does the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency think of the evidence given by his friend the hon. member for Gaspe to the effect that no vote was taken on the mobilization bill?
However, as a vote was taken on a ruling of the chairman, the house should be interested to know what the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency replied to his friend the hon. member for Gaspe. On August 10, 1940, L'Action Catholique published some comments under the caption "Mr. LaCroix charges Mr. Roy with having run away at the time of the vote". And here is what the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency said:
I believe it would have been better for Mr. Roy to tell you frankly that he did not find the doors of the House of Commons wide enough in his haste to get out and abstain from voting so as to avoid offending his leader, Mr. Hanson. As a matter of fact, that was noticed by all members and it caused general hilarity, because Mr. Roy left the house at the very moment when the vote was about to be taken.
For the time being, I shall leave these two hon. members to ponder over their respective statements.
The resolution which is now being discussed is preliminary to the introduction of a bill which will be submitted for our approval. However, the resolution outlines in general
terms the purpose for which this sum of two billion dollars will be used, and I wish to express my views forthwith on the matter.
According to the resolution, the sum of two billion dollars will be used, among other things, to defray the cost of the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada.
After the exaggerated and ruinous war effort put forth by our country, an effort which was beyond our means and much greater than that of the other countries concerned, and in view of the present trend of events, the Canadian taxpayer could have expected a substantial reduction in those expenditures. Unfortunately, such is not the case.
What is the present situation on the theatres of war? In Europe, everyone is agreed that the end of hostilities is near, very near indeed. The countries which had been invaded by the enemy have been almost entirely liberated. Germany, in turn, is being invaded from all directions. It is a general rout, and the enemy's armed forces have been cut down, weakened and deprived of the production of countries which they had overrun. On the allied side, there is an increase in the production of European war plants, and new armies are being built up among the liberated populations of Belgium and France who are thirsting for revenge.
And yet, the same Canadian establishments overseas are being maintained, additional men are being called up for training in Canada, farmers' sons are denied postponements, industrial and agricultural production is being stifled and our people are suffering hardship.
I have no hesitation in saying that military call-ups should be immediately discontinued -Canada is surely not threatened at present- and of course conscription for overseas service should be dropped. I suggest that our soldiers overseas be gradually released and replaced by those from liberated countries.
It is intimated that when the war is ended they may be retained for policing Europe. This is indeed inconceivable. After five years and a half of war, have we not done our share? I am absolutely opposed to this policy.
"We need no longer be told that we are fighting for civilization, for the respect of treaties, for the protection of the territorial integrity of small nations. After the violation by Russia of one treaty after another, since September, 1939, in order to seize territory from her small neighbours, after the persecution carried out by Russia in Baltic countries and the massacre of thousands of Poles, after

War Appropriation-The Army
the violation of the Atlantic charter with the approval of Mr. Churchill, we may no longer entertain doubts as to the motives of the war. If the massacre of Poles by Germans was an act of barbarism, I cannot agree that the massacre of Poles by the Russians was an act worthy of a civilized country.
At present, in Europe, compromises are being made, at the expense of small nations, for the allotment of spheres of influence to Russia and Great Britain, and we are being asked to continue further sacrifices of all kinds.
Let us contribute to the relief of starving populations, very well, but I do not agree that we should ruin ourselves to ensure the material domination of a certain country rather than that of another, at the expense of smaller nations.
Let us now turn to the Asiatic war theatre, to the war against Japan. At the close of the Quebec conference, in September last, Mr. Churchill said that Mr. Mackenzie King had claimed for Canada a share of participation in the war against Japan. I fail to understand that ambition of the Prime Minister who would like Canada to fight everywhere, on land, on the seas, in the air, in every country where there is a war going on, when he knows the price will be the ruin of his own country.
I want our Pacific coast to be protected, but I am against sending our forces thousands of miles away to fight in the Pacific, where we have no interests to protect.
Why should we send our soldiers to fight in Asia? Not because they are needed. At the present time, the Japanese are on the defensive and the allies are continuously progressing without the help of our troops.
The parliamentary assistant for the army (Mr. Abbott) told me the other day that, at the present time, we have only a few specialists engaged in the struggle against Japan.
When we consider the population of the countries directly concerned in the conflict in Asia, namely, China, 500 million; India, 400 million; United States, 140 million; France, 40 million; Great Britain, 45 million; Australia, 6 million, and Russia, which Has just ended her neutrality pact with Japan, 180 million, a total of 1,300 million people against less than 100 million Japanese, we wonder why Canada with a population of 11 million and a half would be anxious to increase further her war effort by defending the interests of other nations in the Pacific.
Is our war effort not large enough? It is claimed that it exceeds, in proportion to our means, that of any other country. As a result, the Canadian taxpayer is heavily burdened.

The monthly news letter of the Royal Bank of Canada of February, 1943 stated:
Our income taxes are the highest in the world in many income brackets.
The February, 1945 issue of the above news letter said:
It is interesting to compare the income taxes in Canada and in the United States, two neighbouring countries that are so much alike in regard to economy and the standard of living. The following figures, which have been compiled in December by the Financial Post apply to a married man without dependents for the year 1944:
Gross income	Canada	United States	Excess in Canada's tax rates over United States' rates$ 2,000	$ 329	$ 130	153%3,000	, 732	360	103%5,000	1,628	850	92%10,000	4,262	2,400	78%
And what interests have we to protect in Asia? None at all. We have no possessions to defend or to retake. The United States are interested in retaking the Philippines and securing naval bases; France is interested in recovering Indo-China; Great Britain is interested in dislodging the Japanese from Singapore and Hong Kong in order to re-establish her asiatic trade. Let those countries defend their own interests. It does not concern us.
By the terms of the resolution, part of this sum of two billion dollars will be a gift to the united nations in the form of mutual aid.
I have always opposed the annual gifts granted first to Great Britain alone and later, shared, in a small measure, with two or three other nations, especially Russia.
However, this year, we have additional reasons for opposing this step.
The main worry of England is its post-war trade. I shall quote excerpts from newspaper articles as proof of this statement. First, we find the following in the issue of May 30, 1944, of the Citizen:
Citizen, May 30, 1944-British Plants Plan to Export Some Autos Soon.
London, May 30-British automobile manufacturers expect government permission to start making a number of cars for export, mainly for colonial markets, within the next few weeks, the Daily Mail said to-day.
The paper said the ears will be of ten or twelve horsepower and will sell for about $1,000.
Then, this, in the Star of October 19, 1944:
Britain Opens Trade Drive
London, October 19-Bidding for post-war world markets, hundreds of commercial travellers already have left Britain with government help to start a "buy British" campaign around the world, the Daily Express said to-day.

War Appropriation-The Army
Harcourt Johnstone, secretary of the department of overseas trade, was quoted as saying the government was cutting red tape to expedite the missions and that British manufacturers were getting passports and visas within three weeks after applying for them.
Mr. Johnstone said Britain "is not going to he left out in the cold" in efforts to capture world markets.
Whale we are giving our goods away, England is thinking of selling her own in the whole world. In certain quarters, it had been claimed that these gifts would promote our export trade with England after the war.
Well, this was declared, recently, by representatives of the United Kingdom. I quote from the Financial Post, of January 6, 1945:
But when Lord Keynes and other British officials were here recently they made it clear that United Kingdom is quite prepared to take a very tough attitude toward future trade relations with "hard" or dollar currency countries like Canada.
Britain says in effect: "Beyond what assistance you give us under free gift or mutual aid, we are determined, in future, to stand on our own commercial feet. We will deny ourselves Canadian goods rather than go into debt or take your surplus products on credit."
These facts speak for themselves. England is willing to accept Canadian goods on condition that they are given her. As for buying them she would rather do that somewhere else.
Such are the consequences of our boundless generosity which is leading us into utter ruin.
Russia, on its side, has benefited by our mutual aid legislation, by an amount of about 25 million dollars, during the financial year ended March 31, 1944. I have no figures for the year just ended.
As I said a while ago, I have always been opposed to the gifts granted Great Britain and other allied nations. This year, my opposition is still more energetic, because the gifts made to England only help her in developing her trade at our expense; gifts made to Russia constitute an endorsation of the cruelties and injustices perpetrated against Poland and other small neighbouring states.
We have no right to tax the Canadian people to help Russia acquire new territories, to spread her domination over Europe and enslave small _ nations who rightly demand their freedom.


Maurice Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I cannot leave unchallenged the remarks made by the hon member for Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou) about farmers' sons. I shall only take a few minutes in order to keep the record straight so that the committee may not gain the impression that we have been ill-treated in connection with postponements for farmers' 32283-44
sons. If I have grasped the argument of my hon. friend, he does not want members of the provost corps or the military police to seek out defaulters and deserters. I cannot understand the mentality of my hon. friend who does not want the government and the military authorities to enforce the law. If those unfortunate young men, because they were not judiciously advised or were not familiar with the facts, have not asked for a postponement and have become outlaws, in spite of all the sympathy I feel for them, I must say that to my mind the police had the duty to enforce the law. On the other hand, my personal experience compels me to state that in my district all bona fide farmers who asked for a postponement, and who scrupulously obeyed the provisions of the law, had no difficulty in obtaining one. Those young men only had to sign in the presence of a notary an affidavit establishing their good faith -and vouching for the importance of their farm. I cam assert that only a very small proportion of those young' men were not granted a military postponement.


Gaspard Fauteux: It was perhaps because they had benefited from sound advice.


Maurice Lalonde: Or rather, it may be that those who complain were injudiciously advised. At all events, I should like to pay a tribute to the hon. the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and his department, as well as to the registrar of the Montreal district. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, I must congratulate these gentlemen, because they did justice to the farmers of Labelle county. Each and every bona fide farmer who took the necessary steps without relying on his neighbour for securing exemption was granted a postponement and all of them are still on the farm where they contribute to the war effort. I do not know how things have gone in the county of Rimouski and I shall refrain from commenting on the situation there. But what surprises me is to see the hon. member for Rimouski rising in his place in defence of those young men who are outlaws. Such a stand is quite surprising to me. I think that if the hon. member for Rimouski, who is my senior in this house and for whom I have all the respect he deserves, will get to the core of the matter, he will find that in each case where a young defaulter had any trouble it was not through any fault on the part of the Minister of Labour or the government, but through the fault of the young man who did not comply with the provisions of the law.



War Appropriation-The Army

The second point I wish to discuss is the exemption of some farmers who are now in the army. I ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence to have the kindness to note-and I do not want to voice any criticism-that the Department of National Defence should appoint a liaison officer with whom we the members of parliament., who receive numerous requests from young soldiers, might deal with a view to having these young men who claim to be useful on the farm or in essential industries taken out of the army. At present, our applications are to be made to the Minister of National Defence and, naturally, as he is extremely busy, we have to apply to the officer commanding the military district. I must state frankly that the requests do not seem to receive the attention they deserve.
In my riding, as in all others, some farmers have enlisted voluntarily. They wished, of their own free will, to serve their country. Now, for very special reasons, such as the decease of their father, the disappearance of their brother, the increase in capital, they may wish to return to the farm. I must admit that, at times, it is almost impossible to obtain postponements. I suggest to the parliamentary assistant of the Minister of National Defence who has conducted the discussion with such ability and tact, that he advise the minister of his department to organize, between his colleagues and ourselves, the members of the house, and even the ordinary citizens who wish to submit requests of this nature, some kind of liaison machinery. I feel that this would facilitate the work and give full justice to the young soldiers who, in certain cases, would now be more useful on the farm than in the army.
(Text) Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax): I should like to congratulate the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence upon his review of the activities of the Canadian Army during the past year. -It was very full anidi comprehensive. I believe it will always be a matter of pride and satisfaction to Canadians that our armed forces took part in the invasion of Normandy and were present on D-day. Canadian divisions along the coast were assigned) the most critical part of the line to hold. They formed the left flank of the allied armies, and were the hinge of the line. It is well known now, I think, that the success of the whole plan of battle depended upon the Canadian troops holding their positions against powerful1 German forces. Later, in the follow-up, Canadian divisions were in almost continuous battle for as long as five months, and I think history will record

that during this period' the decisive battles were fought which determined the fate of the German armies in western Europe. During this five month period our divisions had to absorb great numbers of reinforcements. These reinforcements were present at the break through at Falaise, in regard to which Eisenhower said that every bit of dust represented diamonds and every foot of ground was worth ten miles elsewhere. Then they were in the follow-up of the Seine estuary; they were in on the outflanking of Rouen, and were in the siege and1 final capture of important channel points. Then came the great fight for the Schelte, the clearing of the estuary and the opening of the port of Antwerp to allied shipping. This fight was described by Field Marshal Montgomery as the finest operation of the whole western front campaign.
All this speaks well for the training and spirit of the men who went to northwestern Europe, not only in the original formations but also as reinforcements. It was not an accident that when the time came to cross the Rhine and strike on into Germany we should find the Canadian Army again holding the pivotal left flank of the allied line. I believe the Rhine offensive opened on February 6, and on February 15 tribute to the work of the First Canadian Army was paid by Major George Fielding Eliot, perhaps the most noted military commentator in the United States. Under the caption "Canadian doing a good job", Major Eliot writes as follows:
The moment is perhaps appropriate for pointing out that General Crerar and his staff of the 1st Canadian Army have carried out with great skill and workmanlike precision every task so far entrusted to them. He and his army have a great deal of experience in operations over water-logged terrain, notably in the Scheldt estuary campaign.
The 1st 'Canadian Army may justly complain that it has been given-by the tough luck of war-more than its share of the "dirty work", but it has performed all its tasks well, just as it is performing this one.
To-night the newspapers report that Canadian troops have cut off the great cities of Amsterdam, the Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht and have separated these cities from the main forces of the Germans.
I want to say a word about our troops in Italy. The troops there have had a long, tough and hard fight. In their ranks are to be found many of the most seasoned and battle experienced soldiers of the allied armies. They have had an uphill fight but they have fulfilled with complete success every task

War Appropriation-The Army
assigned to them. Young men who have served in that theatre and returned to Nova Scotia have told me of the loneliness of patrol work and of the isolation faced by the infantry platoons and other units and detachments. These men were fighting far from home and over very difficult terrain.
I have said that they were fighting an uphill fight, and that is literally true. These young men tell me that they always seemed to be where the Germans were looking down at them from higher positions. Tributes to the work of our troops in Italy have been paid by famous soldiers. The future will assess the value to the allied cause of the part they have played, a part that I am sure will be found worthy of the best traditions of the Canadian Army and of our country.
There is another matter I wish to bring directly to the attention of the Department of National Defence. A considerable number of young Canadians went to England before the outbreak of war to enlist in the British permanent army. Some of them left Canada because there were no suitable jobs available at the time, while others left through a spirit of adventure and a desire to see the world. These young men were fighting in 1939 and many of them were evacuated from Dunkirk. Some of them were from Halifax, most of whom joined the Manchester Regiment. Those who survived have seen much fighting in Europe, Africa or Asia.
After upwards of five years of war many are beginning to express the wish that they might be allowed to transfer to the Canadian Army. Some of them have in mind returning ultimately to Canada, taking advantage of our rehabilitation programme and possibly continuing their studies. Most of them were of high school age when they left. This matter has been taken up with the British war office and the answer given in the case of those in whom I am interested is that since they have been serving in the permanent army no transfer can be agreed upon at this time. If they had enlisted merely for the duration of the war apparently there would have been no obstacle or difficulty in their being transferred to the Canadian Army.
However, there is the difficulty that they are members of the permanent force and the present British regulations do not permit of their transfer. In view of the present state of the war in Europe-I think we all agree that it is close to an end-I would ask the department to make representations to the British war office with a view to having these young men given permission to transfer overseas to the Canadian Army. In due course I would 32283-44i
hope that they will become entitled to the full benefits of our rehabilitation programme.
I notice the Minister of Veterans' Affairs is in his seat and there is another matter I should like to speak about. He knows that I have brought this up on many occasions and I am taking this opportunity to refer to it again. I have in mind the position of our merchant seamen. During the past two years there has been considerable discussion in the house about these men. Some of these men come in to see me from time to time and they want to know where they are going to fit into the government's comprehensive rehabilitation programme.
In many cases they have been serving on the high seas or in and out of coastal waters for two or three, four or five years. I do not think there is any question in the mind of any hon. member as to this being a hazardous occupation. I have some figures which I got this morning and which I should like to give to the committee with the object of showing the dangers that these men have to face and of making a comparison with the figures relative to the Canadian navy given to the committee a few days ago by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services.
The information I have from the Department of Transport shows that there are 59,648 index cards of Canadian merchant seamen, active and non-active, on file in the central registry of the department. The number of identity certificates issued to Canadian merchant seamen was 39,308, as of April 1, 1945. Up to that date there has been listed as missing and presumed dead1 as the result of enemy action a total of 665 Canadian merchant seamen who were serving on vessels of Canadian registry and 381 who were serving on vessels of allied registry, making a total of 1,046.
A few days ago the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services told the committee that there were approximately 90,000 men in the Canadian navy, and that from the beginning of the war until February 28, 1945, there had been killed on active service, 1,498; reported1 missing, 44; made prisoners of war, 87, making 1,629 in all.
It is true that in our pension legislation there are some provisions which provide that when a seaman is killed or becomes disabled in consequence of enemy action or counteraction compensation is paid to him or his dependents. But we all know that the majority of fatal accidents at sea are not caused by enemy action; they are the result of the perils of the sea and the dangerous work these men
War Appropriation-The Army

have to do. Throughout the war these ships have been travelling in convoys without lights, and I should think there has been more destruction caused to our shipping in the Atlantic by collision at sea than as a direct result of enemy action.
When we are making adequate provision for the merchant seamen sailing the high seas, we should also consider the case of seafaring men, who, while not merchant seamen, are engaged in an occupation equally hazardous and equally essential to the war effort. When the bill upon which the War Services Grants Act was based was before the house for consideration last August the Prime Minister stated that its provisions were not intended to close the door to the claims of merchant seamen or of others who might be entitled to compensation for injuries which may not have arisen directly out of enemy action. He made it clear that it was not the intention to ignore claims of that kind. The armed services were dealt with first because the information as to the extent and nature of their services was available to the departments and it was comparatively easy to find a reasonably satisfactory solution concerning them.
When consideration is given to the claims of the merchant seamen, as the Minister of Veterans' Affairs has told us will be the case, I ask that consideration be given at the same time to the claims of the pilots at Halifax. They have been engaged in most hazardous work ever since the outbreak of war. They come under the Department of Transport; they are not employed directly by the naval authorities, but early in the war the transport officials advised these men that they would be partly under the control of the naval authorities. During the course of the war many of them have had to leave the port of Halifax. It is true that most of their work is confined to the port of Halifax and1 the territorial waters of Canada but at times they are taken away on the ships they are piloting because time or the state of weather does not permit the pilot to return to the inner harbour. To give the committee some idea of the dangers that the pilots in Halifax harbour have faced during the war, at the beginning of the war there were twenty permanent pilots and no temporary pilots. But in consequence of one disaster, when the pilot boat Hebridean was lost in Halifax harbour in collision with a foreign ship, no fewer than six of these twenty pilots were drowned, as well as the cook, engineer and a boatman of the pilot boat. There are to-day twenty permanent pilots and seventeen temporary pilots. I would ask the government, particularly the Minister of Vet-
erans' Affairs, who I know understand the problems that confront not only the members of the armed forces and their dependents but also the members of these auxiliary services, if that is the proper term to use.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How far do these pilots go out to sea?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: As a rule
not much beyond the territorial waters of Canada. They go out seven or eight or ten miles sometimes, but to a large extent their operations are confined to the waters within the jaws of Halifax harbour.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They do go out at times to waters infested by submarines?


William Chisholm Macdonald: Yes, at
different times. Some of them have been taken to the United States and some to the United Kingdom or wherever the ships happened to be going rather than incur the risks and delay of sending the pilot back to the dock in a small pilot boat.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does my hon. friend know whether there have been many casualties among them in this war?


William Chisholm Macdonald: Not as a result of enemy action, but I want to make it clear-


Mr. ISNOR:: Nine lives were lost.


William Chisholm Macdonald: Yes, but not as a result of enemy action. Six pilots and the three other members of the crew of the pilot boat I have mentioned lost their lives in that collision between the boat and a foreign ship. There is practically no compensation for these men. They were not under any provincial1 compensation law. They are entitled to a small pension from the pilots own superannuation fund, but the dependents of the five who were entitled to share in this fund receive an average monthly pension of forty-two dollars. The highest pension paid to a dependent family of these five pilots is fifty-five dollars a month and the lowest twenty-eight dollars a month. Each of the five had more than three children. Three of them had seven, eight and nine children respectively, all under the age of eighteen. That will give the committee some idea of the position in which the dependents were left because of this wholly unforeseeable disaster. I wish to thank the committee for listening to this recital, and I would urge as strongly as I can that the full benefits of our legislation for members of our armed services be extended to our merchant seamen and pilots.

War Appropriation-The Army


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to direct one or two questions to the parliamentary assistant. I asked him a question the other day about professional hockey players and I have had an explanation given to me by the Conservative candidate for Trinity, Mr. Conny Smythe, but I am not quite clear on it. My question to the parliamentary assistant the other day was about professional hockeyists leaving the armed services to play h'ockey, and Major Smythe, who I understand is an excellent soldier, gives me this explanation in the Toronto Star:
"I didn't know peeling potatoes was a useful occupation," Major Smythe said.
Did Major Smythe never see a private soldier peel potatoes?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear. I did it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Major Smythe goes on to say that if peeling potatoes is a useful occupation, Conservative members of parliament should do it, or words to that effect.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It would be all right if we were peeling Fraser Valley potatoes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Certainly, because then you would be peeling those mealy-mouthed potatoes that melt in your mouth. I am not joking about this. It is a serious matter so far as I am concerned, and apparently it has got a lot of publicity right across Canada. Mr. "Red" Dutton, who holds a responsible position in a hockey organization controlling millions of dollars, says that these young healthy men who are playing hockey are "all players who have been either rejected or discharged as medically unfit or are deferred as farmers on seasonal work or are students." What I want to know from the parliamentary assistant is, in what part of Canada does a farmer get deferment to play hockey? This is Mr. "Red" 'Dutton, President of the N. H.- something, who says that they are deferred as farmers for seasonal work. My recollection goes back to one gentleman from Detroit who is doing three years for taking some of this "seasonal help"; and I cannot understand why in the Fraser Valley, right to-day, farmers' sons are being called up to fight- as any man should be-and they are not posing as farmers so that they can get seasonal deferment as farmers to play hockey. When I see Mr. Conny Smythe, that gallant soldier, coming back to encourage the mothers of Canada by stating that owing to lack of reinforcements we had lost extra Canadian lives-


John Ritchie MacNicol: He is a gallant soldier.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I did not say he was not a gallant soldier, but it is not so gallant to tell the mothers of Canada that extra
lives were lost because iwe did not have ample reinforcements, when he is employing and making money out of these boys deferred for farm labour.


Mr. BROOKS:: That is the policy adopted by the government. It is their policy.


George Alexander Cruickshank: According to your Conservative leader from Toronto, Mr. Conn Smythe, we are asleep and doing nothing about it. Well, I am trying to do something about it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You are starting late. You should have started long ago.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If you will read Hansard you will see I started four years ago.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would foe getting discouraged, then.


George Alexander Cruickshank: A Liberal never gets discouraged1.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But it takes them a long time to wake up.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I got a letter from Peterborough only to-day. I should like to show you a picture which was sent to me from Peterborough to-day by a gentleman whom I do not know. It is a photograph of one of these gallant deferred men, when they need reinforcements so badly they must grab everybody. Here is this gentleman getting presented with a cup at St. Catharines, and underneath his picture it says that he, "who is employed as a shipper in the stockroom of a St. Catharines firm, is shown punching time in," with a lunch-pail under his arm. Are there not enough suitable one-armed soldiers in Canada who can act as punchers of time-clocks, if we are so short of reinforcements? What I want to know from the parliamentary assistant-and1 I do not want it passed by each time with a statement that it is a matter for the selective service; I am afraid I may not get a chance of a reply from the Minister of Labour-is this, if the army intended to call up farmers' sons, are they going to permit any further leaves or postponements of men physically fit, to play any kind of professional sport?


Douglas Charles Abbott: So far as the army is concerned I can assure the hon. member that it does not give leave or postponements to play hockey or any other kind of professional sport. While it is true that it is the Department of Labour, selective service, that has the responsibility of calling men up, I know that no man has the right to get exemption from serving in the army because he plays professional or any other kind of hockey. It may be that
War Appropriation-The Army

some young men have fooled the selective service board by claiming to be farmers and have then gone out and played hockey: that is possible; I do not know whether it is the case or not. But certainly there is nothing m the regulations which permits a man to get exemption because he is a hockey player. So far as I am concerned he cannot get compassionate leave from the army for this purpose, and I know of no rule in the army or selective service regulations which permits men to be exempted from military service in order to play hockey.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: The situation with
respect to Canadian nurses who served1 in South Africa has been dealt with quite fully by the hon. members for Kootenay West and Westmorland. I desire to add my support to their effort to get consideration for these Canadian women. I do not know that I need to cover the ground again. As far as I recall, every point has been, pretty well covered, except it may be that these young women are now in the position of having no recognition whatever in Canada even though they have been active in service in the allied cause. I have had communications from at least two of these nurses, and they are exceedingly anxious about their future position and status, as those who have contributed their part in the allied effort.
To bring out their view, perhaps I might quote in part a letter I have received from one of these Canadian nurses:
X submit this letter and solicit your assistance on behalf of the Canadian nurses who enlisted to go to South Africa. In 1941 South Africa appealed to Canada for trained nursing staff. Three hundred Canadian sisters volunteered and were enlisted at military districts throughout Canada. They were equipped with Canadian uniforms, with Canada badges on their shoulders, and later embarked for South Africa where they assisted in earing for allied casualties from the African campaign, India and Madagascar, and were later sent with South African hospitals to Egypt, Sicily and Italy.
The rate of pay was small in comparison to what the Canadian sisters serving in other theatres received.
I was one of those sisters and have recently been repatriated after thirty-two months overseas. On reporting to my military district no one knew anything about me. I was very bluntly given to understand we had never belonged to Canadian forces-and obviously were given no recognition in Canada for our services overseas.
There are many others returning to all parts of Canada, who have encountered the same difficulties. Those returning for hospitalization have been informed that the Canadian government assumed no responsibility for them.
I am appealing to you for assistance to gain a ruling whereby these sisters, although small in number, be given the same facilities and recognition regarding gratuities, et cetera, as
[Mr. Abbott.!
Canadians who have served with the imperial forces. We were, after all, representating Canada as Canadian citizens in Canadian uniforms in a common cause.
I plead with the government to go carefully into this situation. It seems to me that it may affect two departments; the Department of National Defence at present, as regards gratuities, and, possibly later, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, with respect to hospitalization. If they have no. standing whatever where will such a Canadian nurse be in the event that later she becomes a war casualty? Will she be at the mercy of the government of South. Africa, or shall we, through generosity or justice, in some way give recognition to the part that these women have played1?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The status of all such people who were domiciled in Canada, if they were members of the forces and' served) with allied forces in this war, is receiving the active and immediate consideration of the administration at the present time.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant two or three questions with respect to the administration of regulations as applied to our forces. The first question has to do with the matter of leave. My understanding is that there is discrimination as between the air force and the army. Air force personnel serving in Canada or any other theatre of war on discharge receive thirty days' furlough, plus rehabilitation allowance. In effect they get two months extra pay upon leaving the service.
I understand that if army personnel serve in a theatre of war they get thirty days leave, plus rehabilitation grant, upon their return. But army personnel serving in Canada only do not receive that additional leave, and upon being discharged from the service receive only the rehabilitation grant of thirty days.
I am not objecting to what the air force is getting, but I do say that the army is entitled to the same consideration in the matter of leave before discharge. In the air force it is graded. If they serve for a year it is not applicable. If they serve for two years they have fourteen days coming to them; two to three years, twenty-one days; three years or over, the full thirty days. I suggest that the parliamentary assistant check this with the other services, and if he finds there is discrimination along these lines it should be remedied so that all branches of the service may be treated alike.
Another matter I emphasized when I spoke respecting air force estimates was the position

War Appropriation-The Army
of many boys in the service who, upon enlistment, left elder sisters at home looking after their homes. In many cases those sisters have given the best part of their lives in the maintenance of the homes. I have two specific cases in mind, where the boys are overseas. In one case no dependents' allowance was granted, although it was applied for. The result is that the sister's income is not sufficient to pay the taxes on the home. There is an accumulation of taxes, and the possibility of losing a home in which the boys have lived all their lives. I tried eveiy department I could think of, including the dependents' allowance advisory committee.
I think some latitude might be permitted in that direction by way of extending the regulations so as to include this type of case, regardless of the fact that there is no dependents' allowance granted by the government. I could never understand why a girl in that position should not qualify for dependents' allowance. I checked the cases carefully, and there certainly was no reason why allowances should not have been granted. That is another point I would ask the parliamentary assistant to bring to the attention of his department, because I believe it is a responsibility of the Department of National Defence. I may be told that a case of that kind should go to the Department of Veterans' Affairs-or here, or there or somewhere else. But while a man is in the service he is the property of the Department of National Defence, and that is the department which in my opinion should deal with him.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: And it is that department
which should iron out his difficulties. People tried to give me the brush-off, and told me I should go somewhere else with it.


William Chisholm Macdonald: I think
there is provision for a sister who has no other means of support.


Clarence Gillis: In the case I have in mind
there was certainly no other means of support. There must have been faulty administration somewhere.


Douglas Charles Abbott: All allowances made by the dependents' board of trustees are, of course, discretionary.	.


Clarence Gillis: I have in my hand a memorandum issued by the wartime information board respecting post-war planning. These fellows seem to cause a lot of trouble. I find that at page 2, where it deals with the order granting certain tax concessions to service personnel after discharge, it concludes by
saying that personnel on retirement are discharged to civilian status, irrespective of length or theatre of service, and become immediately liable for income tax. They were granting them certain concessions, if retained in the service after their return to Canada, by way of exemption from income tax. But immediately upon taking employment and earning money they become liable for income tax. I am thinking of this: Will1 the gratuities paid to service personnel who take immediate employment be subject to income tax?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Clarence Gillis: It will not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Clarence Gillis: I would judge from what
I have read that if you do not find someone who is sympathetic, it could be interpreted as including anything a man may have earned.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; the gratuity is tax
exempt.


Clarence Gillis: I spoke on Friday evening
respecting the laige percentage of service personnel being discharged for psychiatric reasons, and deplored the lack of adequate institutions, particularly in the province from which I come, to look after this matter. During the course of the discussion I was pleased to hear the parliamentary assistant agree with me at least to the extent of admitting that in that particular province no institution has been set up to care for that specific problem. I thank him for that support.
I was somewhat surprised, however, to hear a Nova Scotia member take the position that in speaking to the matter in the house, and pointing out the lack of adequate facilities in the province, I had done something wrong.


Moses Elijah McGarry: On a question of privilege, if the hon. member is referring to me, I made no such remark. I complimented him upon what he had said.


Clarence Gillis: I was not referring to the
hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, but rather to the senior member for Halifax.
Let me make it clear that it was not I who introduced the subject. The fact of the matter is that the Canadian Medical Association raised it in the last issue of the Canadian Medical Journal by pointing out that twenty-five per cent of all discharges from the services at this time were for these reasons. Second, I did not condemn the institutions of Nova Scotia; a government-
War Appropriation-The Army

appointed! commission in that province, the Dawson commission, did that job. The fact of the matter is that I read in the house very little of the Dawson commission report.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Did the hon. member read
any of it?


Clarence Gillis: I read it all.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: All of it?


Clarence Gillis: Yes, on the matter of welfare-and I do not think you did. In fact, I am pretty sure you did not.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I wonder if the hon.
member-


Clarence Gillis: You sit down; I am speaking.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I wonder if the hon. member can tell us how many volumes comprised1 the Dawson report.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order.


Clarence Gillis: The Dawson commission
report?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: More than you will read
for the rest of your natural life.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Sidestepping!


Clarence Gillis: I am referring to the matter of public welfare, a very small part of that report. The commission set out a solid condemnation of thle institutional facilities in Nova Scotia.
I have had the privilege of going through the Dartmouth institution. I wish to say for the benefit of the senior member for Halifax that I went through it from top to bottom and it took me a l-ong time to forget some of the things I saw there. I wish to tell him also that I do not think he would want his son-I certainly would not want mine-after returning from service overseas to be put in that institution with the disability about which wei have been talking since the discussion began. I believe that with a couple of months' rest in proper surroundings these boys could come back. The experience I gained by going through that institution certainly does not suggest that it has the proper surroundings to nurse back to health a boy who is suffering from battle shock, battle exhaustion, or the kind of thing from: which they suffer on coming back from overseas.
While the minister may tell us that he is doing everything he can with respect to construction and getting the proper institutions together-and I am quite satisfied he has tried to do that-I would point out to him that this war has been on for five years. These

cases have been coming back for at least the past four years. If we want to build a plant, a factory, a battleship or a cruiser we can find the necessary personnel and finance to get it ready in the shortest possible time.
I wish to say that in so far as the medical treatment the men are receiving and the facilities at hand while they are in the service is concerned, it is a hundred per cent. I saw Penfield's men doing brain surgery over in France. They had the very best of everything. I think it is a reflection on ourselves that when the men come out of the service, after we are through with them, particularly those who are suffering from a mental disability, every facility is not available to care for them and the very best of specialists provided. I think the very best of everything should be made available to them.
I met one man who went through that Halifax institution which the senior member for Halifax thinks is the proper kind of institution-


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Is what?


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member said it was all right; there was nothing wrong with it; it was a good institution. I met one man who had been some time in it. They did not do much for him. When I met him he certainly was not under institutional care; he was not receiving any gratuity; he was not in a mental condition to take employment. They found half a dozen jobs for him; he could not stay on them. He never should have been allowed to leave the institution.
The point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the condemnation which I read into the records of this house was written by the Dawson commission, a commission appointed by the government of Nova Scotia. Secondly, the facts that the Canadian Medical Journal have set out with regard to that class of disability and the percentage coming back from the services at this time should shock us into taking immediate action on the question. While the minister has said that he agrees there is no proper institution in the province at this time to care for that problem he did not say what the plans were with respect to the maritimes in that connection. I trust that when he makes his report to the house he will give us some concrete statement as to what the plans are for the maritimes in that field.


Mr. HANSELL:: I do not want to interrupt the continuity of any subject, but what I wish to speak about is not Halifax. I desire to ask the parliamentary assistant two questions. Before I do that perhaps I had better

War Appropriation-The Army
preface them with a few remarks to assist him in giving the answers. I believe that the policy of the government, over the past years at least, with respect to voluntary recruiting has been that a man may volunteer for any particular branch of the army that he desires to enter. I wish to know if that is still continued. There was a day-I have not noticed it recently-when a good deal of advertising was done in pressure campaigns of one kind and another to get young men to enlist. They were encouraged to enlist by being told that they could go into some branch of the service and receive some type of trade or education that would be of some benefit to them after the war. I remember having a few pamphlets come to my desk and pamphlets to this effect were distributed in public places. I understand that it does not always work out in that way; that young men who may enlist may find that they do not eventually get into that branch of the service that they desire. I have a case in point. I am using it only as an illustration. It has been said that you can prove anything by citing a case because there is a case for everything. I am now using this one only as an illustration and I want the parliamentary assistant to answer the questions that will follow. The father of this lad says this:
Referring to the promises made by the government to boys just becoming military age, to the effect that if they volunteered for service they would be given the opportunity to go into a branch of the service they preferred and seemed most suited. My son entered the army in August, 1944, and was placed in the infantry, given no chance of any other branch of the service; he was refused by the air force and navy for medical reasons and no vacancies at the time; he asked to be put into the artillery or any service other than the infantry preferring the railroad corps, service corps, motor transport or signal corps; whenever he made any attempt to speak of a transfer he was always put off with the suggestion that he would be given the opportunity at the next training station.
I consider the government should respect the promises made to these lads in this regard.
My son has now been placed on draft for overseas; the infantry training he has actually received totals approximately three months.
The letter is dated January of this year. Does the government still follow the policy of permitting volunteers to enlist with the understanding that they may qualify for any branch of the army? If so, I should like to know how it happens that this man was forced to stay in the infantry. If this is not the policy at the present time, when was it discontinued?
Having asked that question, I should like to make one other observation and ask an
additional question. It seems to me that if we are to have satisfied soldiers in the army, and satisfied parents of these young boys coming out of high school and enlisting, we must fulfil our promises to them and be absolutely fair. It occurs to me that there are perhaps a good many men at present in the army in Canada who have been in the army for quite some time, perhaps a year or maybe four or five years. They are still in Canada. It does not seem fair to me that a boy like this young lad, perhaps of the required age, should come out of high school and enlist and in three months find himself in the draft. I took up this case with the department, and they looked into the matter; as I say, I am using it only as an illustration. The young chap was pulled off the draft for a week or two, and then put on again. I do not know where the young man is now; he may or may not be overseas. But I wish to ask the parliamentary assistant if the government has any policy under which those who have been in the service for the longest time should be the first to be drafted for overseas service. Would the parliamentary assistant mind answering those two questions, the first of which is in two parts?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In reply to the first question, a volunteer enters the army as a whole. I do not recall that there was ever any policy under which a man could select his own branch of the service. It has always been the case that his wishes were consulted, and if he were qualified to serve in the artillery, the signals or some other branch of the service he would be allocated to that branch, always provided that there were vacancies in it. But he joins . the army as a soldier. It may be unfortunate that there is not sufficient room in the army service corps or some other branch for all who want to get into it, but he must go where he is put.
As to the second point, my hon. friend asked if there was a policy as to when a man would be, as my hon. friend said, put on the draft for overseas, although I do not think that is the proper term. A man enlists as a soldier presumably because he is willing to fight, and he is sent overseas after three months, four months or whatever the time may be, according to the stage of his training and the available shipping. He will not be sent into the line to fight until he is fully trained; but I should think any young Canadian who enlists to fight would be anxious to get overseas as soon as possible.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not want to leave it at that. This is the result of having two policies, or two armies in Canada. Here is a
War Appropriation-The Army

young man who enlists of his own free will. The government may claim to have a certain policy; they may say to him, "If you enlist we will put you where we think you are best suited. Of course we may help you if you have any choice in mind." I do not know whether the pressure is as great now, but we all know there was a time when the army was pulling hard for voluntary enlistments, and young men were given all sorts of inducements to get them to enlist voluntarily. These young boys are not perhaps as mature as some of the older men in this house who are losing their hair and getting grey around the temples. They want to see life, and they enlist on the assumption that they may be able to enter some particular branch of the service. I have no doubt that this was encouraged. We cannot speak for every individual recruiting officer, but we know that .pressure was brought to bear on the young men of this country to have them enlist. The parliamentary assistant has made a statement. I wish all Canada could get it and know that when young men enlist in the army they are going to be sent where the army wants to send them, and to the service into which the army wants to put them. The parliamentary assistant was very pronounced on that point. He usually conducts himself pretty well! in this chamber. When he answered me a moment ago, I rather detected that he was getting a little impatient. I do not blame him, either, after sitting here hour after hour listening to all sorts of questions and complaints of one kind and another. But let Canada know; let the young men know that when they enlist they enter the army as a soldier and that is all there is to it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not say "hear, hear" to that whole statement, but I do say that fact should be made known. Bet us not fool these young men any more about this thing. I suppose we shall have to be satisfied with the minister's reply, whether we like it or not.


James Arthur Ross: This afternoon the opposition were given quite a lecture by the Prime Minister about the time being taken in this debate. We were told that we were not getting through these estimates quickly enough so that parliament might be dissolved. I am the first member of the official opposition to discuss these estimates to-day. It is passing strange that some ten hon. members who were elected as supporters of the government should have occupied the time of the committee during the past seven hours. The parliamentary assistant has not had an opportunity to place upon Hansard the answers to a number of questions which were left in 
abeyance on Friday, although he has had the week-end during which to get the answers. I have one or two other questions which I should like answered at the same time.
I did not take part in the debate on the San Francisco security conference, but I wish to raise an objection in connection wdth it. I will admit that my objection comes too late, but it was raised during the debate by some of my colleagues and other hon. members. I was anxious to get on to the discussion of these estimates, so that I refrained from speaking during that debate; but if we compare our delegates with those going from Britain and the United States, at a time like this when our young men are making such sacrifices, it is passing strange that included among those delegates from Canada's parliamentary group there is not one who has ever seen active service. With the number of people from whom the government could have chosen, on the government side alone to say nothing of the opposition in both this house and the other, surely someone representing the armed services could have been included in that delegation. I believe that the armed services first of all and then agriculture and labour should have been represented at that conference if it is to mean anything at all, although I am not one of those who are overly enthusiastic as to the outcome of that conference, judging by past history. We have in this country men who have had wide experience not only in the armed services but in various public offices throughout the country, who could have accompanied the Prime Minister and his group to San Francisco, and I wish to register my disapproval of the way in which our delegation has been made up.
On Friday I asked the parliamentary assistant a question relating to the number of N.R.M.A. men who had gone over to Britain and had left there for the actual theatre of war on the continent, and I believe the hon. gentleman said he would get me the answer. I also asked for a list of the retired senior officers, with their retiring allowances, from January 1, 1940, to date, which might be placed on Hansard. Then another question was raised by the former minister of national defence in regard to the number of Canadian casualties to date, that is dead and wounded, for the infantry; the total to date, and these figures broken down 'by months. That is, he was asking for the figures since November 1 of last year. I trust the parliamentary assistant will be able to place that information on Hansard.
Another question which the hon. member for Lake Centre raised in the discussion on Friday last was with respect to the retirement of

War Appropriation-The Army
General Pearkes. I believe the parliamentary assistant said it was his understanding that General Pearkes had retired voluntarily, but I read in the Ottawa Journal of to-day that General Pearkes states that he received the following message from the adjutant general:
There is no suitable employment for which you can be recommended in the Canadian Army.
Some other correspondence between the department and the officials of the Canadian Legion and having reference to General Pearkes that probably had no bearing on this matter, was tabled this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture. I think this matter should be cleared up. The department should issue a proper statement as to the circumstances surrounding the retirement of General Pearkes. I hope the parliamentary assistant will be able to put on the record the information for which I have asked.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I can give most
of it. First, my hon. friend asked how many N.R.M.A. men have actually gone to battle theatres from Britain. The latest figure I have is as of about a month ago and is 238. We have not had a report for the last month.


James Arthur Ross: Had they gone active; were they general service when they left?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no indication as to
whether they had gone general service after they went over.
Name and Corps
Brig. C. B. Russell, Gen. List	
Brig. J. L. Potter, R.C.A.M.C	
Col. R. L. Fortt, R.C.A	
Maj.-Gen. E. C. Ashton, Gen. List	
Brig. H. E. Boak, Gen. List	
Brig. C. V. Stockwell. R.C.A	
Brig. G. P. Loggie, R.C.O.C	
Maj.-Gen. E. J. C. Schmidlen, Gen. List	
Brig. C. E. Connolly, Gen. List	
Col. E. Forde, R.C.C.S	
Col. H. 0. Lawson, R.C.A.S.C	
Maj.-Gen. T. V. Anderson, Gen. List	
Brig. L. W. Miller, Gen. List	
Col. W. S. Lawrence, R.C.E	
Brig. J. E. Lyon, R.C.E	
Col. D. McNiven, R.C.R	
Maj.-Gen. C. F. Constantine. Gen. List	
Col. J. Q. Gill an, R.C.A.P.C	
Brig. V. Hodson, R.C.R	
Col. C. S. Jones, R.C.A.S.C	
Maj.-Gen. W. H. P. Elkins. Gen. List	
Col. W. E. L. Coleman, C.M.S.C	
Maj.-Gen. B. W. Browne, Gen. List	
Col. J. Jeffery, C.I.C	
Col. C. W. Devey, C.I.C	
Brig. R. J. Leach, R.C.A	
Maj.-Gen. C. R. S. Stein, R.C.E	
Brig. R. G. Whitelaw, R.C.R	
Brig. R. M. Gorssline, R.C.A.M.C	
Maj.-Gen. H. F. H. Hertzberg, Gen. List


James Arthur Ross: Before they left Britain.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no indication as to that. The hon. member for Lake Centre asked how many men had converted overseas on arrival, and our records indicate that the number is one hundred and eighty-nine who had enrolled while they were on the boat, and ninety four after they had reached overseas. I have nothing to indicate whether the figure two hundred and' thirty-eight to which I have just referred of a month ago were ones who had converted or were simply sent. There is no distinction made overseas between the two groups.
Then I think my hon. friend asked for a list of the senior officers who had retired.


James Arthur Ross: The figure of two
hundred and thirty-eight given by the parliamentary assistant seems to be a very small percentage of the total that have gone to Britain. What is the policy-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I pointed out that that was a month ago, to the end of February. That is the latest figure I have in* any event. I have the list of officers who have retired but it is fairly lengthy, and perhaps the committee would agree to its being placed on Hansard.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: With unanimous consent.
Mr. ABBOTT	: The fist	is as follows:Date of	Age on	Grossretirement	retirement	pension1- 8-41	55	$4,811 404- 7-40	63	4,219 4017-11-40	52	3,000 3415- 2-41	67	6,891 508- 3-41	57	5,103 0025- 4-41	57 '	3.790 8012- 1-42	58	5,304 6023- 8-42	58	5,366 4011- 9-42	59	4,609 0815-11-42	57	4,081 0028-12-42	57	4.337 2812- 3-43	62	7,000 0014-12-42	60	4,376 3918- 7-43	63	4,014 047- 9-43	47	3,983 5610- 4-44	66	4.139 1017- 4-44	60	6,066 8319-12-43	60	4,643 104- 4-44	60	4,468 271- 4-44	62	3,729 2621- 3-44	61	7,088 834- 6-44	65	4.661 589- 6-44	60	5,720 157- 4-44	61	3,789 3715- 8-44	60	4,278 331-10-44	53	4,468 278-10-44	58	4,947 0015- 9-44	50	4,240 2526- 1-45	59	5,202 7410- 4-45	60	6,183 75
War Appropriation-The Army

Retired with Supplementary Pension under GO 404/42
Name and Corps
Col. W. Neilson, R.C.R	
Col. P. A. Piuze, C. Pro. C	
Col. Count H. R. V. de Bury and de Boearme,
Col. A. E.' Snell.' RRa'm.C.
Maj.-Gen. E. deB. Panet, Gen. List	
There was another question asked with reference to the present Minister of National Defence; that is, his retirement on November 1, 1944 and what allowance he would be entitled to and upon what basis. My hon. friend will realize that he is not in receipt of a retiring allowance.


James Arthur Ross: I wanted to know what he is entitled to.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The information I have here indicates that his retiring allowance will be $8,960.


James Arthur Ross: That is the annual allowance?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the annual allowance, the annual pension. I cannot think of any other question that was asked by the hon. member for Souris.


James Arthur Ross: There was another question which was dealt with mainly by the hon. member for Prince; that is the casualties to date and by months.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have that information here and I can give it. On Friday last I mentioned to the committee that the saving in wastage for the four months period from November, 1944, to February, 1945, inclusive, as compared with the projected wastage was about 10,000 men. I have since been informed that on rechecking the figures the officers conclude that this saving is closer to 12,000, and that of that saving about 6,500 were in the months of November and December, 1944; about 3,500 in January, 1945, and about 2,000 in February, 1945. The saving in the infantry amounted to about seventy-five per cent of the total savings.


Mr. RALSTON:: Have you the March figures?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, not yet.


James Layton Ralston: Will they be available?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would think so. I will check and get them if possible and I can put them in later. The hon. member for Prince also requested the monthly figures of the number available. As I have already

Date of	Age on	Original	Supple- mentaryretirement	retirement	pension	pension13- 1-44	62	$1,477 52	$486 843- 9-43	56	1,800 00	415 2616-12-43	71	2.741 44	310 3828-10-43	67	4,095 30	121 7121- 8-43	62	2,075 55	345 62
informed the committee, we had at the end of March more than seventy-five per cent more fully trained infantry reinforcements than we expected we would have. My hon. friend asked if I could give this month by month. At the end of December we had over ten per cent more fully trained infantry reinforcements than expected. At the end of January we had over forty per cent more than expected.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend says
"over"; I suppose he means close to.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Close to; that has been the standard phrase that is used. At the end of February we had over fifty per cent more than expected and, as I have already said, at the end of March we had over seventy-five per cent more than expected. Besides having more fully trained infantry reinforcements than estimated, we had in addition more reinforcements undergoing training in the United Kingdom at the end of each of those months than we expected we would have.
While I am on my feet I should like to elaborate upon a statement which I made in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Prince with respect to a possible change in the physical requirements for the armed forces. After the recess on Friday I said that I had been informed that there had been no substantial change, no change of significance. That is true; nevertheless there have been some variations, and in order to make the record clear I think I had better state what those were.
I am informed that the physical standards for vision for overseas were lowered by general order 548/44, dated December 22, 1944, and published in C.A.R.O. 5222, dated December 27, 1944. The effect of the order applying to the new standards for "E" is that personnel generally who were graded "E.2" and "E.3" for visual acuity now become grade "E.l." An increased number of serving soldiers in Canada is, thereby, made available as reinforcements, and acceptance at reception is increased by the number who would previously have been graded "E.3" and are now "E.l." I am informed that the changes brings our new

War Appropriation-The Army
vision standard into line with that of the British and United States armies, with the Canadian still slightly higher, and was set after due consideration of the duties to be carried out, and where.
Then a change was made in the "S" factor by the elimination of grade "3" by general order 58/45, dated February 24, 1945, and C.A.R.O. 5410, dated February 28, 1945. This comprised a slight lowering of standards as serving personnel with "S.3" in their pulhems profile are assigned "S.l" or "S.4," following medical review, according to rewritten standards for these grades. It is repeated that the new standard for "S.l" is very slightly below the previous one. Serving soldiers in Canada raised from "S.3" to "S.l," and recruits graded *"S.l" and trained, have, therefore, a stability rating very little below that previously laid down for "S.l."
The application of the new standard for "S" means that a certain comparatively small number of serving soldiers in Canada upgraded from "S.3" to "S.l" is made available as reinforcements. "S.3" has not been assigned at reception since 1943 as doubtful cases between "S.l" and "S.3" were accepted for recheek with grade "S.l" assigned.
The above are the only actual lowering of standards of any account since early in the war. It is pointed out, however, that the minimum pulhems profile set for any given type of duty is being constantly changed according to requirements, except in the case of actual combatant troops, the minimum profile for which has not been changed to any appreciable extent.


James Layton Ralston: Are there no "S.2" grades at all?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I must confess that I am almost completely ignorant of what appears to me to be a complicated system, and I cannot answer my hon. friend's question.


James Layton Ralston: So that my question may be plain my hon. friend said' that "S.3's" were either regraded to "S.l", which raised them two notches, as I understand it, or they were put down one notch, making them "S.4". I wondered why, if they were regraded, they were not regraded as "S.2". I wondered why they were jumped two notches. I understand that there is a new standard for "S.l", and that it is slightly lower, to use my hon. friend's own expression than the present standard for "S.l" and lets in a comparatively small number additional to those who were let in under the previous grading.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


James Layton Ralston: I recall that in November when the matter was discussed there was a proposal whereby, by a certain lower grading, particularly having regard to the "S" classification in the pulhems system, and possibly the eyes, although I am not sure about that -anyway the proposal was that by lowering the grading it might be possible to raise five hundred more men.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Out of how many called?


James Layton Ralston: It will be remembered that at that time 4,500 additional general service men were to be found out of the general service resources in Canada, and it was proposed that another 500 might be found, provided that the pulhems tests were regraded to some extent. I at that time expressed my dissatisfaction with that, because I thought that we should not lower the grading, and my successor came to the same conclusion. I was wondering if the change that is now made is any reversal of that policy or in what respect the lowering is being made whereby "S.l' is now not as good a grading from the point of view of stability as "S.l" was prior to this change in February.


John Ritchie MacNicol: From what has just been said, are we to believe that men of lower physical category than formerly are now being taken in as A-l?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; this pulhems system is an elaborate and careful system of rating grades. Instead of having A-l and A-2 as they did in the last war, when they used to tap your chest and look at your eyes and say you were A-l, or A-2, or C-l, or C-2, in this war we have a complicated system of grading, the pulhems system. They weight you for different considerations, for how your sight is, how your chest is, and one thing and another, and these ratings are being constantly changed. There are I do not know how many permutations and combinations in connection with the system.
I cannot answer the question of the hon. member for Prince except to say this. On Friday afternoon, when I asked the officers whether any substantial change had been made in recent months, they told me that while there had been some minor changes made there had been no-I have forgotten exactly the word used, but 1 think it was no substantial change.


James Layton Ralston: Significant change.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think that was the word-no significant change made since my hon. friend was minister. I may have used a word

War Appropriation-The Army
that was a little too strong and that is why I have put this explanation on the record to-night. I have been assured that it does not mean that men of a low physical category are being taken into the army.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But that is exactly what has been going on. I have been very much interested in what has come out in the last few moments. I shall not take up much time because I want to follow the Prime Minister's advice to shorten the debate, and it will have been observed to-day that certainly this group has not taken up much time. But for some time I have said that the policy is to take into the army the halt, the lame and the blind, apparently with the desire to fill up the ranks. I have a case in mind. I made a call on the family. I had not known that the only son had been killed, but while I was there the family was in the greatest distress and upon making inquiries I was informed by the mother and by a neighbour who had gone there to console the family that the only son had been killed overseas, and that he was almost blind when he joined the army, that he had to wear very thick glasses. The neighbour indicated the thickness of the glasses, saying they were that thick. I said, "How in the world did this boy ever get into the army with such bad eyesight?" The mother said that the son had told the doctor that he could not see very well, but the doctor told him that he would be all right in the army. First, he was sent to Camp Borden. He was there for less than nine months and then was sent to England. On his arrival in England it was found that his eyesight was not good enough to fire a gun, and he was put in a tank wearing thick glasses because he was unable to see. The tank was struck by a shell and this young man with others of the crew was killed. Picture a boy wearing very thick glasses, and having those glasses knocked off with the concussion of the shell striking the tank; he would be quite unable to see. He would be wholly lost without his glasses. I should like the assurance of the acting minister that the halt, the lame and the blind are not being run into the army.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will give that assurance with the greatest readiness and the greatest certainty too. May I say to my hon. friend the member for Prince that I have just been advised that there is no "S.2" classification. Why, I do not know.


James Layton Ralston: They jump from "S.l" to "S.3".


Douglas Charles Abbott: Apparently.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I should like to make a few remarks in reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I regret that he did not like the attitude I adopted in rising in my place to defend the reputation of the institutions of his native province and mine. He read an editorial from one section of the press of Nova Scotia. I should like to read for the benefit of the committee an editorial from another newspaper in Nova Scotia closer to the hon. member's own constituency. I refer to an editorial that appeared in the Eastern Chronicle, New Glasgow, of Thursday, April 5, dealing with the same subject, namely, the Dawson report. The editorial refers to the fact that Professor Dawson came from Toronto to do certain work and presented a report consisting of a large number of volumes covering various matters and subjects, including a report on the hospitals of the province. The Eastern Chronicle sums it up in this one paragraph:
Then a special writer, George F. Davidson, an expert from Ottawa, went to town with the asylums and gaols in Nova Scotia, and scored them severely. Some may not be what they should, but apparently this chap did not visit all. We can inform him that there is an asylum in Pictou county that in care, conduct and equipment, will compare with the best in Ontario. He made no exceptions. He included all in his general survey; or, to be fair, he should have done. ... It was unfair and unjust.
And the closing paragraph of the editorial is this:
The Dawson report should be buried, and not embalmed. Don't waste time with it. Forget it. Pay the bill, and charge it up to error.
I pointed out and took exception to the words of the hon. member for Cape Breton South, when he stated that there was no institution in Nova Scotia able to take care of mental cases such as he described-


Clarence Gillis: I said, "equipped".


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: and I pointed out for the benefit of the committee that during the past year the Nova Scotia hospital had taken care of forty-two patients from the army, twenty-six from the navy, nine from the air force, twenty-four from the merchant marine, and eleven others, making a total of 101 cases handled by that institution last year. I further stated that since the outbreak of war 325 cases had been taken care of by this particular hospital. I will not refer to other institutions which enjoy a splendid reputation in our province, but let me say that for the life of me I cannot see why the hon. member for Cape Breton South should continually blacken the good name of our province in the manner in which he generally refers to matters per-

War Appropriation-The Army
taining to Nova Scotia. It is not long ago that, in the memory of all in this house, the hon. member went to Hamilton and made a statement with regard to the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Of course the hon. member nods his head; he recalls it. On another occasion he said we should do away with such men as Churchill.


Clarence Gillis: You are absolutely wrong.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: He meant, after the war; but still that was the general impression which was created. He makes statements and creates the impression that men of Mr. Churchill's calibre should be done away with-but, of course, after the war. What should we have done without Mr. Churchill during the present war?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Lost the war.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I would venture to say, what should we do without Mr. Churchill's calibre after the war, remembering his splendid reconstruction policy and programme?


Clarence Gillis: What has that to do with mental hospitals in Nova Scotia?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am just pointing out the extravagant statements which the hon. member generally makes. I would also recall, although it is not directly in point with this discussion, that the hon. member predicted in 1943 in Nova Scotia that we would have a federal election before Christmas of that year. We are now in 1945, and we are still without that election.
To come back to the Nova Scotia hospital, the hon. member is always ready to jump up and interrupt, and no doubt he will want to answer this.


Clarence Gillis: I managed to get you up, anyway; that is a good thing.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: That is all right. I will take care of myself and I will continue to defend Nova Scotia. I pointed out the hospital record and I gave the figures the other day. They have a record for cures of something like thirty per cen>' of mental cases which go into their institutions for attention. Right here I believe I should again repeat what I said about the Nova Scotia hospital, a splendid institution which is carrying on its good work along 'ffith many other smaller hospitals throughout our province. To have the record clear, I am going to place on Hansard a question for the Minister of Veterans' Affairs to answer when his report is before the house. It is this: Does the Minister of Veterans' Affairs consider the Nova Scotia hospital is a proper place ito take care of mental cases?
With that question I will rest my case as to whether the Nova Scotia hospital is a proper place for the purposes I have mentioned.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: A few days ago the
parliamentary assistant tabled the report of the national health survey conducted by the Canadian medical procurement and assignment board. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the former minister of national defence for authorizing the preparation and publication of this report. According to the order in council which was passed in July, 1942, "the primary function of the board was to secure physicians for the armed forces and at the same time to endeavour to preserve adequate medical services for the civilian population." Surely all hon. members and1 all citizens of this country are anxious that the very best possible medical services be supplied for the three armed services.
I understand that when the present premier of Saskatchewan, Hon. T. C. Douglas, who is provincial minister of public health, was in Ottawa a year ago he took up with the Minister of National Defence the question of making, available in certain parts of Saskatchewan personnel from the medical services of the army, navy and air force. I need scarcely remind the committee that the civilian doctors in all parts of Canada have been doing a very difficult job in recent war years.
According to this report, we now have over twenty-five per cent of our total medical personnel in the armed services; and from the table on page 21 it appears that Manitoba, with thirty-two per cent, has the largest percentage, followed by Saskatchewan, with 31-7 per cent. According to another table we find the population per physician by provinces as of March 1943 was as follows: New Brunswick, one civilian physician to 2,136 persons; Saskatchewan, one to' 2,078; Prince Edward Island, one to 1,659; Alberta, one to 1,626; Nova Scotia, one to 1,450; Manitoba, one to 1,438; Quebec, one to 1,206; British Columbia, one to 1,168; Ontario, one to 1,068. In Ontario, where there are paved roads and good communications, it seems difficult to understand why there should be one doctor to every 1,068 persons, whereas in Saskatchewan, with a very small mileage of paved roads and an extensive mileage of mud roads, there is but one doctor to 2,078 persons. In my own riding, for example, we have just ten doctors for 57,000 persons or one doctor for 5,700. In the town in which I live, at one time six doctors made a good living; now we have only two doctors, and they are work-
War Appropriation-The Army

ing literally day and night. I cannot understand how they stand the strain. I have been in their offices at ten o'clock at night, when the offices were still full of people waiting to see the doctor.
I understand that the Department of National Defence would consider releasing more of the senior medical men who have been in the service for some time, provided that there was a location where it could be definitely established that there was a shortage of medical doctors. Could the parliamentary assistant give us any information as to the number of medical personnel released to date, and the number that have been made available in Saskatchewan with a view of caring for the medical needs of the civilians?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I have not
that information here at the moment, but I could probably get it and give it to my hon. friend to-morrow. I doubt if there are very many, because we are still pretty short of doctors.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How about the general policy?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not in a position to say anything about that now, except, of course, that the general policy will be to release military doctors as far as it is possible to do so. Some have already been released. In my own city of Montreal I know of one doctor who had served overseas for two or three years who has been released in order to come back to a civilian practice in one of the large hospitals there, because of the serious shortage of physicians in that hospital. Just how far it has been possible to pursue that policy I cannot say.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I understand that men coming home from overseas who are entitled to thirty days' leave are granted for the period of that leave a ration allowance of fifty cents a day, in addition to their regular pay and allowances. So far so good; but I am told that in respect of officers-in any event this is true of military district No. 10- there is granted an additional lodging allowance of $1.20 a day. This means that on top of the differences which already obtain, there is this further difference, under which men on leave from overseas receive an extra $1.70 a day, if officers, but only fifty cents a day, if other ranks. Does the parliamentary assistant know about that situation? If not, will he look into it, with a view to seeing whether anything can be done to eliminate what appears to be a matter of discrimination against other ranks?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall make inquiries.
[Mr. Nicholson.!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have another question relating, this time, to the payment of gratuities to next of kin, where the service man has become a casualty. If it is necessary for the next of kin in respect of whom dependency has not been established to apply for the gratuity, to what department does that person apply? I may say it is clear that service personnel apply to the service with which they are connected. On the other hand, where a dependent is on pension, he or she applies to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. But what is the situation in respect of next of kin whose dependency has not been established, many of whom have already made application and have been rejected? To what department do they apply?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The Department of Veterans' Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And it is clear that application must be made?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the parliamentary assistant know whether notification to that effect is being sent to the large number of people who made application before order in council P.C. 2239 of April 5, 1945, was passed? Are people who made application before the order in council was passed and whose applications were rejected now being advised that they can make application again?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot answer yes or no. I doubt whether they are being advised, but I shall make inquiries to find out. There has been a good deal of publicity in the press within the last few days in respect of this new order in council which extends the right to the estate of the deceased. I should think that, human nature being what it is, most people who are interested would have seen it. But I cannot tell my hon. friend whether the people who applied for this benefit, when there was no legal right to receive it and whose applications were therefore rejected, will be notified to apply again to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. However, I shall find out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The reason why I feel they should be notified is-


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was suggested the other night that they should be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My reason for supporting that proposal is this, that during the time before the order in council was passed many of these people were deeply hurt by the letters of rejection they received. In fact, in many cases they felt insulted by the way

War Appropriation-The Army
in which they were written. Despite the press publicity, many of them will not readiiy apply again. It is only fair to those people that they should now receive notification.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I believe the matter is receiving consideration, and I shall see that it is looked into again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The Secretary of State this
afternoon stated there would be some difficulty with respect to getting information in answer to a question of mine for production of correspondence, including letters and telegrams, between General Pearkes and any of his officers and the Department of National Defence. He pointed out that it meant going through a great many files, both here and out at the coast. In order to simplify the question, so as to make it easier for the department to answer, I shall modify it. I see, upon looking at page 621 of Hansard, that the parliamentary assistant after recess on April 6 placed on the record a reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South earlier in the afternoon. That was in connection with a circular letter which had been sent out by the adjutant general to the district officers commanding on January 13, 1945. If the parliamentary assistant would produce a copy of the letter or telegram, or both, in reply to that circular, I should consider that quite sufficient answer to tlje question I asked. That should be very easy.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I am afraid, no matter
how willing the hon. member for Parkdale may be to expedite the matter, once the order is passed by the house-and I point out we are now in committee-no member moving a resolution asking for a return, without consent of the house, would have any right to vary that order. I presume the ordinary procedure is to put a question on the order paper. I do not think we could accept the willingness of .the hon. member for Parkdale, no matter how great it might be, and treat that as an abrogation of the order the house itself has passed.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: If I do that, it would take
two days before the question would appear on the order paper and a further delay before the answer would be received in the house. Of course that would defeat the object I have in view.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend's motion
was one for the production of papers. I allowed the motion to pass, with the usual reservation, that any correspondence which was
confidential was privileged, in accordance with the recognized rule, and therefore would not be produced.
I think the return in question will probably be brought down to-morrow. I find, however, on examination of the correspondence between General Pearkes and the minister and officers of the department, that all of it, without exception, is marked confidential and secret-apart altogether from the general rule that so far as I know it has never been accepted practice that correspondence between senior officers of the department and other officers of the same department would be producible in the house.
This happens to be a military department. General Pearkes was a district officer commanding. I can tell my hon. friend now that the return which will be brought down will not include any of the correspondence between General Pearkes and the minister or other officers of the Department of National Defence.


Mr. JACKMAN:: You are afraid of it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; we are not afraid of
it; and if my hon. friend insists I shall be glad to make a statement as to General Pearkes' position.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The parliamentary assistant
has replied in part to the question standing as No. 1 on the order paper, but he has not answered Nos. 2 and 3. Will he bring down that return to-morrow?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is not in order to ask it now. I shall do my best, certainly.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I should like now to refer
to a statement the Minister of National Defence is reported by the Canadian Press to have made on March 18 while visiting the London military hospital:
My biggest job at the present moment is to see that hospitals throughout the country are ready as soon as possible so that the men from the hospitals overseas can be brought back to Canada. I want to get those men over as fast as I can.
Is there any change in the regulations from those that existed before when the Minister of Veterans' Affairs or his department was responsible for the wounded men who returned from overseas?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not aware of any change. As my hon. friend knows, some men who come back from overseas go first to military hospitals before they are sent to Department of Pensions and National Health hospitals or Veterans' Affairs hospitals, but so far as I know there have been no changes in the regulations.
69S
War Appropriation-The Army


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Is it a fact that there is a very great shortage of those hospitals available, and as a consequence men are not now able to return home for treatment and are therefore kept overseas for a longer period than necessary?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; I do not think that is correct. Of course, in common with a good many other things, we are facing problems of hospitalization for our returning service men. My. hon. friend referred to a statement that the minister made in London. It certainly is a difficult problem and is one which is receiving the most constant and earnest attention. It will involve real difficulties, particularly in the period where a good many of our medical men are serving in the armed forces and are not yet available for veterans affairs hospitals. That was touched on a moment ago by the hon. member for Mackenzie. These are the difficulties that we are having to meet.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Is it not a fact that this refers to hospitals under the Department of National Defence and not under veterans affairs?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know. I have not seen the statement to which the hon. member is referring. I am afraid I cannot offer any comment on it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Earlier in his remarks I believe the parliamentary assistant said or admitted that a number of the N.R.M.A. personnel who had not volunteered before leaving Canada, on arriving in England still persisted in refusing to volunteer to go France.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; I did not say that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is done with these men?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think the hon. member for Lake Centre asked mei how many men converted overseas, and I said my latest information was that 189 of them converted en route and ninety-four after they got over there. None of them refused to serve as soldiers. There are still 11,000 of them over there who retain N.R.M.A. status.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What happens to those who refuse to volunteer?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Nothing. They are soldiers. They are over there. They will be sent to the front. Some of them already have been. There is no distinction between them and the G.S. troops.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They are not kept in England until they do volunteer?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: There will be no distinction made between them after they arrive in the old country and the others. When they are directed to a theatre of war do they get the G.S. badge on their uniforms?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; I do not think they do. I will not be positive about that, but I do not think they do. I did not know they wore the G.S. overseas.


Mr. HOWE:: "G.S." is not worn overseas by anybody.


John George Diefenbaker: There are certain questions that have not yet been answered and I should like to get an answer from the parliamentary assistant.
Before that is done I should like to refer to one statement made a moment ago 'by the parliamentary assistant in answer to the hon. member for Parkdale. The hon. member for Parkdale asked for production of certain letters that passed between General Pearkes and the Minister of National Defence, and the parliamentary assistant said that they would not be produced because they were confidential.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And privileged.


John George Diefenbaker: But first let us deal with the matter of their being confidential. Were they so designated on the letters?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: And General Pearkes' letters to the minister were so designated?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; all of them without exception?


John George Diefenbaker: All the correspondence without exception?


Douglas Charles Abbott: All that I have in connection with this matter are designated "confidential".


John George Diefenbaker: The question I had in mind was this: reference was made this afternoon to the matter of farm leave, compassionate leave, and the like. In the November issue of Canada at War is set out in detail the numbers of men of the N.R.M.A. personnel who are absent on extended leave.


Douglas Charles Abbott: About six thousand, is it not?


John George Diefenbaker: As of the date of this issue the number is 8,500. It sets out in detail the various duties for which leave was granted, farm leave, compassionate farm leave, farm duty and harvest farm leave; industry,

War Appropriation-The Army
logging, mining and other leaves. I asked this question as it appears on the order order paper, question No. 11:
How many of the home defence troops are on extended leave from depots and in particular (a) by province; (b) by military districts?
Is the parliamentary assistant now in a position to answer that question as well as the several other portions of it? It has been on the order paper since April 3.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not in a position to answer it now. I must confess that I did not come prepared to deal with questions that are on the order paper. That question will have to be passed as an order for return because question No. 9 of it is a justice matter. As I explained to the hon. member when I spoke to him privately to-day, I am advised that we can answer questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 comparatively readily. Questions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 would require a tremendous amount of work. It would involve going through part II orders all across Canada. I think question No. 7 could be fairly easily answered by the justice department. There is no possibility of questions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 being answered before the term of parliament expires. I hope I shall be able to answer questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to-morrow, which is a question day. I understand that for the reasons I have already given the question will have to be passed as an order for return.


John George Diefenbaker: I find it difficult
to accept the answer given by the parliamentary assistant, for this reason: question No. 4 reads as follows:
How many home defence troops ordered overseas or to some other part of Canada or who have been on leave, failed to report in each of the months, November. December, 1944 and January, February and March, 1945 . . .
Surely that information is at headquarters?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Possibly, but the hon. member has asked for it by provinces and by military districts. We may be able to do it by military districts; we do not keep break-downs by provinces. That has been told time and again. I pointed out it is not part of my duty to draft questions for the hon. member. If he frames his questions so that it is difficult or takes time to answer them that is not my fault. I shall be glad to get such information as is available and I explained that to my hon. friend to-day; but I do not produce the information myself. My officers are conscientious about this sort of thing, and when they tell me that it is difficult if not impossible for them to give certain information within a reasonable length of time I accept
their statement. I do not dig the information out myself, but any information that can be obtained we shall give.


John George Diefenbaker: That is convincing evidence that the information in regard to those who are absent without leave is not here.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It can be obtained, but I cannot assure my hon. friend1 that it can be obtained before next Monday.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER; Not before next Monday?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; I cannot, from what my officers tell me.


John George Diefenbaker: Therefore the position of affairs so far as those who are absent without leave and classed as deserters is concerned is that the department is in a position where it cannot furnish us a record of the numbers before next Monday. Is that the position?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have already given some information as to numbers. As I indicated in my statement the other night there are approximately 6,000 N.R.M.A. men on extended leave. I can give that to my hon. friend right now broken down by military districts, in round numbers.


John George Diefenbaker: I would think so.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But not by provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: Then let us have it by military districts.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend's question is not restricted to military districts; it includes provinces, and it has not been possible to secure that information. By military districts the numbers are as follows:
M.D. 1	 700
M.D. 2	 400
M.D. 3	 200
M.D. 4	 800
M.D. 5	 2,000
M.D. 6	 100
M.D. 7	 100
M.D. 10	 200
Pacific command	 300
M.D. 12	 700
M.D. 13	 500
Total	 6,000


James Layton Ralston: In reference to the figures which have been given by my hon. friend with respect to reinforcements on hand and the lowering of casualties, with what I assume to be a consequent improvement in the reinforcement situation, I was pressing upon my hon. friend the other night this proposition. Assuming that the forecast we were given last November represented a satisfactory situation

War Appropriation-The Army
if it was attained; assuming what my hon. friend has just said, that the situation has been bettered by. the saving of some 12,000 casualties in all arms and about 9,000 or seventy-five per cent of that total in the infantry, then I am asking whether it is not possible to utilize the additional 9,000 for the purpose of granting very much more extensive rotation leave than has been granted so far. I-t would seem to me that this would follow, provided that the situation without taking account of the savings in casualties was as forecast last November.
In that connection I wish to mention to my hon. friend that I think he ought to check the figures and see whether the position would have been as forecast last November if it had not been for that saving in casualties. Speaking in the house the other night my hon. friend said, at page 577 of Hansard:
The principal reason why the infantry situation is better than forecast is, of course, that battle casualties have been lower than estimated, although this has been in part offset by a higher incidence of sickness and other non-battle casualties brought about by the extraordinarily difficult conditions under which our troops have been operating.
I feel that on the figures given by my hon. friend to-night, if I know anything about it, the statement that the principal reason why the infantry situation is better than forecast is the lowering of battle casualties is really an understatement; and I feel that my hon. friend ought to look into the question as to what the position would have been if the battle casualties had been as forecast, to see what the reinforcement situation would have been in that event. I must say that on a quick calculation it would almost appear, but I wanted my hon. friend to cheek, that the situation would be worsened than forecast if it had not been for the decreased battle casualties.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I can assure my
hon. friend that that is not the case, at least relying on the assurance of my officers. They tell me that is not the case, but I cannot say from my own knowledge.


James Layton Ralston: I am glad to hear that, but if my hon. friend will take the figures which were forecast as being the numbers on hand at the end of each month, add the percentage he has given to-night and thereby arrive at the figure which is actually on hand now, and compare that with the saving in battle casualties he might find that not only does the increased percentage which he has given result from the lower battle casualties, but also that it takes these savings in battle casualties to make up a considerable part at least of the original number which it was forecast would be on hand.

I am emphasizing that if what my hon. friend says is correct, then there ought to be a substantial number of trained reinforcements on hand who could be utilized for the purpose of relieving men who have been in line four and five years, and very greatly increasing the number on rotation leave.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is being done.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend says that is being done. The other day my hon. friend stated that altogether some four thousand men had been sent home on rotation leave. I know what the figures were; there was nothing secret about them, and I think I gave them to the house. The fact was that in Italy in November there were probably between ten and eleven thousand men who were entitled to rotation leave, and four thousand is only four-tenths of that number. That was for Italy alone. I am saying that if there are on hand the number forecast in November plus the number which my hon. friend has given as a saving in casualties, then it seems to me, if the programme forecast has been carried out, there should be available sufficient to give rotation leave to. the other six thousand at least. I say this in all seriousness, because this matter was impressed upon me when I was in Italy; it was one of the problems that I brought home with me; and one of the things to which I gave first attention was preparing the plans for rotation leave, which were on the desk of my successor when he took over. As I said to the house in November, just the second day before I retired, we had received assent of an arrangement whereby we could provide transportation. This matter of rotation leave is all important, and I cannot impress too strongly upon my hon. friend and the department the fact that these men ought to be taken care of if there is any actual surplus of trained reinforcements on hand. I am pointing out to my hon. friend that I think he ought to check and see if the surplus really is on hand, having regard to the figures as given to-night.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am satisfied that it is.
The number of men returning on rotation leave this month is 1,500, and we are stepping it up just as quickly as shipping arrangements will permit.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I had in mind just what the hon. member for Prince has said. I have received letter^ from men who enlisted in 1939 and who have been overseas for years. They want to know when they are to get leave. They have been all through the Italian campaign. I do not know where they are now,

Housing
but they want to know when they are coming back here, and if the figures are as the parliamentary assistant has given them it seems to me that something ought to be done.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend surely
realizes that they cannot all come back at the same time. There is a shipping problem.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Then I will ask
the hon. gentleman another question. Is the department bringing back first all those men who went over in 1939.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; at least that is the
principle, and I believe it is being followed.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Are any men who
enlisted in 1940, or 1941 coming back from those areas on leave while men who enlisted in 1939 remain there? I have had letters from those men, and they do not think it is right for some of the fellows who enlisted later to be sent home while the 1939 boys are still over there.


Douglas Charles Abbott: All I can say is that
obviously the selection for rotation leave depends upon the officers in the theatres of war. The principle upon which leave is granted is length of service; the man who has been there the longest has a priority over the man who has not been there so long. Obviously you cannot lay down any definite, hard and fast rule in these matters, but that is the principle which is being followed.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: If it depends upon length of service why should any 1940 men be brought back while 1939 men remain there?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps the 1939 men do
not want to come back.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have had many
letters from these men, and I do not see why something cannot be done about it.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, April 10, 1945