1945-04-06

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I desire to move that this house shall be adjourned to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. My motion is as follows:
Whereas on August 3, 1940, the Prime Minister, with the concurrence of the then leader

of the opposition and of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, has moved a long adjournment of the house, provided that, "if in the interval for public reasons it should appear necessary to have the house reconvene, it will be possible for the government, upon consultation with His Honour the Speaker, to bring hon. members together in the shortest possible time";
Whereas that motion was carried and whereas similar motions were passed on December 6, 1940; June 14, 1941; November 14, 1941; August 1, 1942; July 24, 1943; August 14, 1944 and December 7, 1944;
Whereas from 1940 until January 31, 1945, with the exception of November 6, 1940, the opening of each session has taken place on the day immediately following the date of the prorogation of the previous session;
Whereas "parliament is the proper place to discuss the state of the defence of Canada should this country become further imperilled";
Whereas, especially in wartime, "the high court of parliament should be functioning";
Whereas, at ten different intervals since the beginning of this war matters of vital importance to this country and to the whole world have been referred to the consideration of parliament;
Whereas parliament is a democratic and national institution which could not be dispensed with, especially during the war;
Whereas the term of the present parliament is about to expire in eleven days, viz. on April 17, this month;
Whereas it would be in the public interest and in conformity with the British parliamentary traditions to extend the life of the present parliament for one year,
I move that this house shall be. adjourned to discuss a definite matter of urgent importance, the government should take immediate steps to provide for the extension of the life of the present parliament for one year.
That is the conclusion that appears on the motion, but I would rather make it a little different. The conclusion should be that we should either have an election right now, and parliament should be dissolved before its life expires-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. POULIOT:: -or we should have an extension of the life of parliament.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I have received a copy of this motion. It reached me immediately before my coming to the house, and I have read it carefully.
The standing order under which this motion is made is standing order 31 which reads:
(1)	Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business (standing order 15) has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon.
(2)	The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter.
All of which has been dlone.

Duration of Parliament
(3)	He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house. If objection is taken, the Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places-
And so on. My difficulty in reading over this motion is with regard1 to the degree of urgency. It is the responsibility of the Speaker to decide whether there is that degree of urgency which would justify sncn a motion being discussed. I would ask the hon. gentleman to give me some idea as to why he considers there is that degree of urgency in the motion before the house.
I would also point out to the hon. member that when the house goes into committee of supply he will have the right then to discuss that which is contained in the motion. But I want to be satisfied about the degree of urgency, and I frankly confess to the hon, member that I have considerable doubt in my mind that there is that degree of urgency which would justify me in giving him leave to move his motion. However,, in fairness to the hon. member I would be glad to hear him on the question of the degree of urgency.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I am most
grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to tell you why I consider this an urgent matter. As you so aptly said, according to the rules of the house a motion made by a member for the adjournment of the house before the orders of the day are called shall be "a definite matter of urgent public importance."
It is obvious that the life of this parliament will expire in eleven days. Between the date at which the term of the present parliament will expire and to-day there are two Sundays, so that there will be only nine sitting days before the end of this parliament. That is a matter of fact known to everyone. Before stressing my point I want to say that it is not the fear of the elections which has prompted me-


Thomas Vien: Order. I have allowed
the hon. member the privilege of speaking to his motion. This is rather unusual, but I thought the hon. member should have the opportunity at least to convince me that there is sufficient urgency to justify the motion. I ask the hon. member to address himself solely to the question of "urgent" as set out in our standing order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I cannot tell it to you, sir, with motions of the hand. That is what we do in conversations with the deaf who are not blind, but we are neither blind nor deaf. I have great respect for you, Mr. Speaker, but there is an axiom of law, "donner et retenir ne vautyou cannot give and keep the same thing. If you are giving me that right, and I am thankful to you for doing so, please allow me the privilege of using it.
I have to prove something that is just as evident as sunlight at noon. If parliament had died yesterday we would not be sitting here to-day, and I warn the house that after nine possible sitting days there will be no more parliament.


Thomas Vien: Order. I have given to the hon. member a privilege which is quite unusual, but I thought if it was not his right, at all events it was a courtesy to him that he should be allowed to address himself to the question of urgency. That is what troubles my mind in making a decision. As I read the motion I do not see that degree of urgency, and I have given an opportunity ,to the hon. gentleman to instruct me in that regard.


Jean-François Pouliot: I appreciate what you say, sir, but I regret the insinuation of what you are about to do. With the one hand you give it to me and with the other you take it away.


Thomas Vien: Order. I would not have given the hon. gentleman an opportunity to discuss his motion if my mind had been made up. I am asking him to justify his motion in regard to the degree of urgency.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir; but now let us speak of that right which every member of this house has. No member on the treasury or front benches has any more rights than the back bencher has. I am astonished to have to defend the existence of parliamentary institutions in this chamber alone. I hope that members in other parts of the house will rise to defend our own parliamentary institutions.


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. member is now getting all the privileges and rights which he enjoys as a member of parliament, and, as I have already said, perhaps more than I am entitled to concede. I wish the hon. gentleman would address himself to the question of urgency and to that alone.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I shall not repeat indefinitely the word "urgency" but shall try to establish that there is an ex urgency about this matter, and a very definite and clear urgency. It is quite clear in the motion itself. I have not a copy of my motion before me, because I sent you the first

Canada-India-High Commissioners
one and then afterwards the one from which I had read, and I also gave copies to the leaders of the parties, but one of them has now been kind enough to let me have his copy back.
To summarize the whole thing, we have reached the time when parliament is like a man on his death bed who is in a state of mind where his will could be questioned before the courts. The very reason why there is urgency is precisely the short lapse of time before parliament comes to its death in nine possible sitting days, and if that is not enough reason to permit us to discuss this whole matter in order that the atmosphere of uncertainty in which we have lived since the beginning of the war may be brought to an end, we will see to it that hon. gentlemen will have to record their votes and say whether they are for or against this motion. They will have to cease to fear public opinion and assume their responsibilities.


Thomas Vien: Order. I have given the hon. member an opportunity to give me some evidence as* to the urgency of his motion. I must say that the hon. gentleman has not in my judgment supplied the evidence to justify his motion.



CANADA-INDIA INQTJIBY AS TO EXCHANGE OF HIGH COMMISSIONERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister. A dispatch from London appearing in the press this morning states that the representative of India told the commonwealth conference yesterday that he had a definite promise from Prime Minister Mackenzie King that a Canadian High Commissioner to India would arrive there soon and that negotiations with regard to the exchange of high commissioners are proceeding. I should be glad if the Prime Minister would inform the house on the point raised by the Indian representative, and, if possible, indicate who will be appointed as High Commissioner for Canada in India.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I say in reply to my hon. friend that the matter of exchange of high commissioners between Canada and India has been under consideration for some little time. It is wholly correct to say that Canada intends to send a high commissioner to India, and that India intends to send a high commissioner to Canada. The exchange of high commissioners will be reciprocal. The government up to the moment

have not been able to decide on the particular person to be appointed as high commissioner from Canada but I hope that an appointment may soon be made.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 5, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

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


Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: There was a certain amount of unfinished business last night arising out of yesterday's proceedings in committee, and perhaps I might be allowed to dispose of that first before further questions are submitted.
I omitted to mention in my opening remarks yesterday that the appropriation that is being asked for, for the armed services, totals 1699,235,000 for the five months period- $640,917,000 for the army services and $58,318,000 for sundry services, making the total I have mentioned.
The hon. member for Prince asked if it would be possible to give a statement of the total savings in casualties for the months of November, December, January and February, and he also wanted to know what proportion of the 11,836 N.R.M.A. men sent overseas were trained infantry. First, as to the savings in casualties, as my hon. friend will know, it is not possible for me to give exact figures as to casualties. The total casualties as reported in the newspapers are not the only source of wastage. There are also battle casualties and sickness, accidents and the like, to which I referred yesterday evening. I draw attention to the fact that in the period under review living conditions at the front were markedly adverse and coming at the end of prolonged action the normal wastage was exceptionally high. However, the officers of the department tell me that during the four months from November to February inclusive, as accurately as they can estimate it, the total savings in net wastage, that is after taking recoveries into account, have been somewhat less than 10,000; and, of the total saving in wastage, some 7,000 have been in the infantry. There have been some further savings in March, but figures on that are not compiled yet.

War Appropriation-The Army


Mr. RALSTON:: Has my hon. friend the
figures by months?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, not at the moment. I remember now that my hon. friend asked for that information, and possibly I can give the figures a little later in the afternoon.
As to the state of training of those N.R.M.A. personnel, I am advised that it is extremely difficult to give specific figures as to the number of fully trained infantry who have proceeded overseas out of the N.R.M.A. personnel in Canada in October last, and that is due to the fact that a substantial number of these converted to general service prior to proceeding overseas. I made reference to that yesterday evening. Up to the last minute, changes were occasioned by absenteeism and adjustments between infantry and other corps. The best information available, however, is that approximately fifty per cent of all those proceeding overseas had completed normal infantry training, that is either through the training system or through long service in one or other of the infantry battalions-sometimes both. In other words, fifty per cent of those who proceeded would have completed the minimum of the equivalent of basic and infantry corps training. Those who were considered as fully trained infantry received the normal reconditioning and refresher training in the United Kingdom, while those who were not fully trained as infantry at the time of dispatch either received reconditioning and refresher training for service in their own arm or received the appropriate retraining as infantry. In the normal course of events a large majority of those who could not be considered as fully trained at the time of dispatch will have completed any additional training required by this time. The committee will recall that the first flight arrived about the tenth of January, and the second . sailing, about the seventeenth of January.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that the
whole 11,000 were remustered for infantry?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, no; a considerable number of them were infantry personnel, I am informed.


James Layton Ralston: I know-either were remustered or were infantry personnel?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That I believe is correct,
yes.


James Layton Ralston: They were either remustered for infantry or were infantry personnel in the first place?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I believe that is right, yes.


James Layton Ralston: Does that apply to the
2,400, too?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot answer that offhand, but I assume that would be so. However I can verify that. I think those are the two questions asked by the hon. member for Prince.
The hon. member for Lake Centre asked me to give details as to the disposition made of the absentees or deserters. I mentioned in general terms that the practice followed was so far as possible to put these men on ships and send them over to the other side, and that disciplinary action would be taken there, because of the fact that the absenteeism or desertion had been for the purpose of avoiding going overseas. If they had been subjected to courts martial or other disciplinary action here, they would have achieved their purpose. In all, seventy N.R.M.A. soldiers have been tried by courts martial on charges of absence without leave or desertion after having been warned for service abroad. One case has been dismissed, and in three cases sentence has not yet been promulgated. I have here a record of the disposition. In the other sixty-six cases-I do not know whether my hon. friend wants me to give them in detail-the penalties vary from imprisonment with hard labour for fourteen months down to detention for fifteen days. I can give the particulars if my hon. friend wants them. But I repeat that the majority of the cases have been dealt with on the other side, summarily by the commanding officer of the unit. In most cases, I am advised, the punishment has been deduction of pay for varying periods of time. After all, the purpose was to make these men soldiers.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: What happened to the rest of them?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, that is what I am referring to now. I say, with the exception of the seventy odd who have been tried by courts martial, the cases have been dealt with summarily in the ordinary way by the commanding officers of their units; that the disposal of most of these cases has been made op the other side, where these men have been sent. In other words the effort has been to make them into soldiers, not to put them in detention for months or a year. They went absent or deserted in order to avoid going overseas. They have been sent over in the hope that they will be made into soldiers, and I am advised that the action I have mentioned has been taken in the majority of these cases.
I want to correct one point in an answer I made to the hon. member for Lake Centre on the matter of the status of these men on embarkation. He said, as reported in Hansard, page 582:
War Appropriation-The Army

I ask the parliamentary assistant now, has the right to conversion by the N.R.M.A. men been extended beyond the confines of Canada? Has it been extended so that those who are overseas are permitted to convert and thereby take themselves outside the ambit of the order in council?
I replied:
They have to convert before embarkation.
My answer is perfectly correct, but it may be misunderstood. An N.R.M.A. man may convert to general service after he is overseas, but that conversion does not avail against the 16,000 authorized by the order in council. In other words, in order to be considered as coming within the ambit of the order in council-to use my hon friend's language- they must have converted' before going on ship-board.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman permit one question? When this man, after arrival in England, converts, does he thereupon become a volunteer?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know whether he becomes a volunteer; he becomes a general service man and is entitled to whatever status that particular man has. I suppose he becomes a volunteer; I am not too much interested in refinements of meaning.


John George Diefenbaker: I think that is a fine example of "refinement." But what I have in mind is this. An order in council was passed recently extending, as I understand, rehabilitation grants to all those men who were sent overseas, regardless of whether or not they convert over there or in Canada. Why has this order been changed, or why was the direction changed which was referred to by General McNaughton, that conversion could take place only prior to embarkation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know the statement to which my hon. friend refers. I am not familiar with all the details of the rehabilitation grants. But my information is that by converting to general service overseas there is some financial advantage if the man returns to Canada. That is my information.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the advantage?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot answer my hon.
friend at the moment. I shall be able to give it to him in a few minutes. I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of these rehabilitation grants.


John George Diefenbaker: How many men
converted overseas, then, after arrival?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not that information either. I can tell the hon. member in general terms that there were comparatively few.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the committee would permit me to clean up a number of inquiries that were made last night. I did not have the information at the time.
The last question which the hon. member for Lake Centre asked me was to give a statement as to the selection of the 11,000 odd N.R.M.A. personnel by provinces, or districts, I think. I have that information and I wall summarize it.
The total of 11,836 N.R.M.A. dispatched overseas represents 19-7 per cent of the total of 60,000 available at the'time, and represents 28-2 of the 42,000 who, my hon. friend will recall, were all of a type suitable for training as infantry. That is split up between the various districts as follows: military districts 1, 2 and 3, Ontario 33-8 per cent of the number fit for infantry; military districts 4 and 5, Quebec, 14-7 per cent; military districts 6 and 7, the maritimes, 34-2 per cent; military districts 10, 12 and 13, the prairies, 39 per cent; Pacific command, 41-S per cent. I would add to that this statement, that the numbers dispatched, 11,836, did not include approximately
2.400	who had converted to general service status prior to embarkation, and if those are included, and if the absentees and deserters are included, these percentages by districts are approximately equal.


John George Diefenbaker: Could the parliamentary assistant give the percentages including not only those who actually went over but the absentees as well?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not got them here, but my officials tell me that by including the
2.400	and others it varies the percentages, although obviously this would not be completely accurate. That covers the questions asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre.
The hon. member for Lincoln asked me a question about rotation leave and the distribution as between the Italian theatre and northwest Europe. The total quota for December, January, February and March numbered 2,278, of whom 1,066 were from the Italian theatre and 1,212 from the United Kingdom and northwest Europe. Adding to those the numbers arrived or en route at the present time, we have totals of 1,431 from Italy and 2,370 from northwest Europe and the United Kingdom; or a total of 3,801 for the months to which I have referred.
The leader of the opposition asked about Canadian cigarettes. I am told that all rations to the Canadian army overseas, including cigarettes, are supplied by the British supply organization. Seven cigarettes a day are contained in each pack ration, and the field ser-

War Appropriation-The Army
vice ration provides six a day. It is not practical for the British to issue to the Canadian army overseas any type of ration, whether cigarettes or anything else, which is different from the general, issue. It is understood that cigarettes issued are sometimes of British manufacture and sometimes of Canadian. As my hon. friend knows, in addition to the cigarettes issued with the rations, Canadian cigarettes are available to our troops overseas from two sources, first the auxiliary services, which come from the pool, averaging about twenty-five per man per month-


Gordon Graydon: Are they always Canadian?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Those are invariably Canadian; and secondly, the Canadian tobacco depots overseas, from which gifts of 900 a month can be sent, or, if no gifts are available, each man can purchase 900 cigarettes a month for $3.


Gordon Graydon: Does the minister know what percentage of those rations of cigarettes which are given by the British organization to the troops represents Canadian manufacture? He said that some were Canadian and some were British. From information which I have from the boys, there are very few Canadian cigarettes among them. They seem to be all British, and that is what they complain of.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That may be. I have no information as to the proportions. These field rations are put up in tins containing cigarettes and what-have-you, and they are the standard for our forces and the British forces.


Gordon Graydon: Will the parliamentary assistant do this for me, in view of the fact that there have been so many complaints. Will he call the matter to the attention of the proper authorities there? It is worth a trial at any rate, to see if the situation cannot be remedied. These boys should not have to write back with these complaints.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be glad to do that. The hon. member for Souris asked a question about the much discussed subject of clothing allowances and deductions, and I said I hoped to be able to give information to-day. I may say frankly that the condition is not considered a satisfactory one. The complaints are justified], but the regulations as drawn create a very difficult administrative problem which our officers are working on now, and I think it can be safely said that it will be adjusted. When a plan can be worked out a rebate will be arranged, a rateable refund
in full. I may add that the problem is not a continuing one, since there are no new cases. As to the men who are now called who have been in the R.C.AF., the R.C.A.F. notifies the army, I understand, or selective service before a man is called and no clothing allowance is given, so that there can be no question of reduction. The matter is receiving the active and constant consideration of the officers, and I feel that a very satisfactory solution will be found.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: All those men will
be reimbursed the deductions?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a pretty fair assumption, yes.


Mr. GILLIS:: While we are on clothing
allowance, has anything been done towards removing the legitimate grievance that exists of paying one soldier $35 and another $65- and the allowance is up to $100 now. I am receiving letters that are pretty critical. Men who have been four and a half years, first over, have received the lowest clothing allowance, though clothing costs the same, while another fellow after two months gets $100.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The standard rate is now
$100, and so far as I know, no consideration has been given to reopening cases where at the time the member was discharged the scale was $35. I will make inquiries and see whether that is being considered.


Gordon Graydon: That should be retroactive.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Finally, there has been
some comment on the question of delay in the payment of war service gratuities. Payment of war service gratuities is a responsibility of the Department of National Defence, although it is really a part of the rehabilitation grant. I have been informed this morning that up to last night ninety per cent of applications have been sent to treasury for payment, and in the ordinary course the cheque issues within forty-eight hours on recommendation from the Department of National Defence. The total number on hand at the present time,, under consideration last night, was approximately 7,000, and that is being reduced every day. The matter is well in hand. I may say that the complaints arise largely from two sources: first, where no application has been filed, the soldier being under the belief that he does not need to file an application to get gratuity, and secondly, where the application has been turned down and the soldier feels that this is unjustified.

War Appropriation-The Army


Mr. LOCKHART:: What is the nature of
the reasons?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot say at the
moment.
Mr. McC'ANN:	Has application to be
filed?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Application for war service gratuities must be filed in every instance.
Mr. MeCANN:	What about the soldier
who is killed?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I should have
added that in the case of the soldier who is killed, that is a matter that comes exclusively within the jurisdiction of Veterans' Affairs.


Mr. BENCE:: You have not even got the forms for that yet.


Mr. CHURCH:: Last night I asked the parliamentary assistant some constructive questions. Some of the matters I touched upon have been already dealt with and I will not refer to them. I saw the McGill battery under Colonel Stack over at the Niagara camp during the last war. The young parliamentary assistant to the minister of national defence was, I believe, a member of that battery. I wish to compliment him on the answers he has given in Hansard. I have no criticism to offer against anybody personally, but I wish to point out to the government one or two mistakes made in this war in connection with first, overseas work and our army at the front, and second, the home army, so that we shall not fall into the fatal mistakes we made between the two wars.
My only object in coming to Ottawa as a member of parliament some years ago was to try to assist the returned soldiers and to do something for them and for the defence of the country. My particular object was to improve the conditions of the soldiers who had enlisted in the last war. Between the two wars there was a conflict in the house. Everybody seemed to think we would not have any more wars. The result was we threw away our defences and our friends and with the mother country threw away the finest army, navy and air force the world had ever seen. It will take a generation to get it back.
I was disappointed in some ways with regard to the overseas part of this war. I do not criticize the gentlemen who have occupied the office between the two wars. I found the former minister of national defence (Mr. Ralston) very obliging. I could get an answer in a day or two. So far as I can see he did his best to meet the situation. But there are 
some mistakes that have been made in the conduct of the war. In the first place I was very much disappointed that some of our forces overseas were kept so long in England and had no chance to march across the desert with Generals Montgomery and Alexander. We did not have any representation in that particular campaign. That may be due to the decisions of the officer commanding overseas; however, I do not blame him for it, but I do say that the former minister of national defence was absolutely right in what he said, namely, that in the last analysis the conduct of the war is on the minister of national defence and on the government of the day so far as they are the government of the day. The minister said-and he can correct me if I am wrong in this-in the final analysis it was the minister of national defence who would have the say. These are not his exact words but I think they are the sum and substance of what he said.
I believe that we have prolonged the war on the western front by withdrawal of ships and the air force to be used in other theatres -I do not know about the army. I do not believe we have sufficient over there for replacements at any time, and some are being withdrawn from there to be sent to the Pacific. There is no doubt that that has lengthened the war. There was a debate on this very matter in the British House of Commons and it was shown from the lists of divisions given that Britain and the dominions with France and Belgium had only about fifteen divisions on the western front whereas our opponents had a very much larger number. It has been claimed that that has lengthened the war. It was also shown that owing to lack of shipping by withdrawals the liberated countries through which our armies are marching had not the food with which to supply them, with the result that they were beginning to turn on the allies who had redeemed them. I do hope that that will be improved in the next few days.
There are one or two other matters to which I should like to refer. I believe that considerable time has been taken in returning men home. At Christmas only about one-fourth of one per cent got home, five or six hundred or a thousand. I do hope that those who have been overseas and borne the burden and heat of the day for going on to five years will be given some form of leave. There are a great many complaints coming in from the dependents of these men in Canada. I do not blame the department. War is war. As Sherman said, " war is hell." It is worse than that at present.

War Appropriation-The Army
Other mistakes were made, and I shall now refer to one of them, namely, the use of the properties of the municipalities at home for camp purposes. We have a large camp at the exhibition grounds in the city of Toronto. Those grounds, buildings and permanent exhibits cost the city about $27,000,000. They gave that property free to the government during the war. There have been startling changes in voluntary recruiting during the war. There have been changes in the mobilization of our men. Men were sent to camps all across Canada. Some soldiers from Hamilton and the Niagara district went out to the coast. Some were sent to the maritimes. In the great war those overseas units were attached to some militia unit near home for overseas training. I think that was the better principle. They were attached to a militia unit with the result that they had local support for recruiting in their own community the overseas units they raised. The change was a great mistake in this war. The transferring of all these men across Canada was a waste of money. They were taken away from their own people. They could have got just as good training at home.
True it is that I do not wish to criticize any man in the department. I do not wish to criticize any official because probably some of them know more than members of the House of Commons. But I think a great mistake was made in connection with the work of the records offices with the result that we cannot find from the records office how many men have enlisted from each municipality. That information will be needed after the war. Other departments of government can give that information. The victory loan officials can tell you the next day how much money was invested all across Canada, how much from Hamilton, Vancouver, and so on. The income tax department can give that information next day and so can the Red Cross, by municipalities. There should be a different system in the records office. In my opinion it is a relic of the South African war.
The same thing is true with regard to the use of buildings. Very few Toronto soldiers now are housed in the buildings in Toronto. The government has spent a large sum of money, $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 on Camp Borden. The Niagara camp could have been extended by camps on the highways right around Toronto to Niagara which could have been used in that connection. After the war the government will have to decide on some new army policy. We are going into this nationalism in a very large way. We shall have to supply an army for service for overseas for some years after this war. We shall have to supply an army of a hundred thousand men if we are to carry out
the programme that has been proposed by the internationalists at San Francisco. This is the sixth year of the war. Before the session closes the government will have to give us an answer as to their plans for the regular army, our militia, the reserve army, the home guard and the cadet services.
We are being told by individuals in Toronto that we have no right to sit as members of parliament because parliament's time has expired. I received two letters from constituents of the hon. member for Parkdale, saying that we have no right to sit here at all, because the life of this parliament has expired. Judging by what one reads in some of the newspapers Toronto city has no members of parliament here at all. We might as well sit in secret for all the news the public sometimes gets of what is going on here. In connection with the armed forces it would be far better if we had an election immediately. The winning of the war is the most important thing; other matters take second place. I say it would be far better if we had the principle that is applied in Washington, a fixed day for a federal election such as the fourth of November, or some other fixed day. In that way the forces would not suffer the way they are suffering to-day.
If we are to have a programme of internationalism as visualized by the San Francisco conference we shall require an army of 75,000 men. As I said before, I think the late minister was right. He was quite sympathetic with me when I said that every person in Canada should be able to use a rifle. They have that principle of recruiting in Norway. They had it years before this war started, and I pointed it out to the government between the two wars. I hope something will be done about that.
With regard to the cadet service, it is the most important branch of army work and has been so since confederation, and from confederation up to the second year of this war that work was carried on by the school boards and the boards of education of this country. It should be immediately restored and grants given all along the line, such as was done before. Uniforms and all that kind of thing should be given. No outside organization should have control of the cadet services in state schools. Some principals of the schools object to it. They object to other organizations coming into the schools and interfering with the cadet services. The cadet services were in many respects the backbone of the militia. I am in hopes that something can be done for them.

War Appropriation-The Army
Then, I asked that some consideration be given to the situation at the exhibition grounds in Toronto. How many soldiers are housed there? Will the property be given back to the city? As we know, the members of the Royal Air Force who were housed there have gone to Trenton, and there is a large new barracks being built for the use of the navy on the waterfront next to the baseball grounds, and will be ready in a few months. I walked past some of those buildings two or three times last week, and did not see any soldiers in them-with the exception, of course, of a few guards. But the fact is that there were scarcely any soldiers around the exhibition grounds at all. There is a large building in those grounds, the live stock arena, formerly used by the air force. I believe I laid the cornerstone of it, 'but I have not been in it since the war started. Toronto members of parliament have, during this war, not been invited to see anything up there. The live stock arena is now used for demobilization purposes; it could be located elsewhere in Toronto, and especially when the Department of Munitions and Supply has control of a number of huts along the waterfront. I know thatt because I walk past them almost every day. I see very few people around them. They could be used by one of the departments of government for demobilization purposes and the entire exhibition grounds could be given back to the city. I understand two or three millions of dollars were spent on the exhibition buildings by the government for renovations, under the control of an official of the fair board.
It is my understanding that few Toronto soldiers were housed in those buildings in this war. Soldiers from all over Canada had to go to Camp Borden and other places to which they should not have had to go. The army at the start of this war seemed to have been the forgotten agency. Certainly it was in that position before the war started. Between the two wars the permanent force was ridiculed right in this House of Commons. We did not hear a good word for the militia and the military colleges and all that sort of thing. We were told that there would be no more war; we heard all sorts of statements of that kind, with the result that when war broke out Tommy Atkins was the forgotten man. There were some who thought that through Divine Providence or some other agency the air force would simply go over and destroy Germany, and that as a result we would need no army and no expeditionary force. Between the two wars I contended that an expeditionary force would be necessary, and that at least such force should be supplied with the most modern equipment.

Then, another thing is this. There are too many spokesmen respecting the forces over the radio and in press interviews. In my view radio has been one of the mischievous institutions we have had between the wars. I remember that during those years we heard over the radio a great amount of support for disarmament, and all that sort of thing. We never heard one good word on the radio about our militia forces or rearmament. I believe the late minister went into this matter, and I was glad to see it. The parliamentary secretary will remember that between the two wars members of the militia had to put their hands into their own pockets to buy typewriters, to pay office rent, to have cadet services, and other things of that kind. A condition of that kind should not exist. The government is spending four billions of dollars on the war, and it should be ready to remedy a situation like that in the peace army to be. I am now pleading for better treatment of the militia, better treatment in the future of the army and their dependents. I should hope the government would have something to say about it.
The treatment of soldiers' families requires consideration, too. We heard a long statement respecting the paying of gratuities, and the application of the means test before the payment of allowances. I admit that the Minister of Veterans' Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) did bring down an order in council respecting the Northwest Field Force, but I was sorry to see that a means test was applied. The result was that it affected men who in that northwest rebellion had walked across lake Superior at temperatures reaching forty degrees below zero, to save the dislocation of western Canada. We see a lot of men advanced in life, some of whom cannot be given old age pensions, and others of whom are receiving only very small amounts-possibly $40 a month by way of old age pension-to whom this means test is applied. That is the treatment they received, instead of having this money paid to them as a right, and not as a privilege. Between the two wars many of those conditions could have been remedied.
There is one further point I would make for the benefit of the parliamentary assistant. This is something the late minister tried to do, and affects soldiers of the forces who are not supposed to write to the newspapers. One of them wrote to a newspaper last Saturday complaining of my use of the words "ready, aye, ready". I know that the parliamentary assistant follows that motto too. I knew all about the Grenadiers and the Queen's Own, long before the writer of the letter knew about them. We know that according to regulations

War Appropriation-The Army
army personnel are not permitted to write letters to newspapers or carry on correspondence with members of parliament making complaints to them, and discussing camp conditions. This was pointed out to the former minister, and I believe he rescinded the order. Then a new minister enters the department. I could bring down a whole bale of correspondence, a pile a foot high, concerning the present Minister of National Defence, upon his return to Canada. I have a pile of newspapers containing interviews with him, both before and since he came home. Is there to be one rule for the private, another for the colonel and another for the captain? I say, no. We have a citizen's army, and a citizen who enlists in that army should not lose all the rights and privileges he enjoys as a private citizen. Those rights and privileges should be preserved for and applied to him. I hope the parliamentary assistant will bring these matters to the attention of the minister.
I should like to ask three or four questions, and then I shall have completed what I have to say. Perhaps I could finish in about five minutes, because I should like to see these estimates passed this afternoon. First, has the government any plan for the post-war? Have we any plan for the army and the militia, any plan for the reserve army or the home guard? Has any survey been made of proposed oversea services, in view of the coming international conference att San Francisco? Has any survey been made to ascertain what overseas bases will have to be given protection by Canada, and where? Are we going to make the same mistake in respect of the army as we made between the two wars? We know what a fatal thing it was so far as the defence of this country was concerned. There was a definite lack of everything an army needed when at last war broke out. When war came we knew that we lacked everything necessary for the conduct of a war. We had heard talk that there would be bombing from the air, that an air force was all that would be required over Germany, that no expeditionary force would be needed. If we do continue to have an army, a number of years will be required to equip it in modern fashion, because we know that modern warfare between modern armies is a highly technical affair. Those armies cannot be got together in a day.
War now is a complicated business, as is amply shown in the mechanism developed by the Department of Munitions and Supply. Before the war the army was starved. The same thing happened in the mother country. If I remember rightly, they had a standing army of about 225,000 men when war broke
out. At that time they were twenty-five thousand men short, and could not get recruits.
We as a house should have something to say as to what is to be done in respect of mobilization plans, and particularly if we are to have all this internationalism. As I said last night, in view of our high income tax, no country can afford to have the same degree of mobilization in peace days as it would have in a time of war. A government can go only as far as the people of the country will allow it to go.
Before the beginning of this war I supported a policy of national service and equality of service and sacrifice. Conditions are changing. Under the voluntary system we have recruiting. In 1940-41 I saw recruits standing on University avenue because they could not get into the army. Those men came in from Aurora, Mimico and other points. The result was our voluntary system fell down through nobody's fault.
Ever since I have been a member I have advocated national service. In the light of our experience in this war can anybody say that the voluntary system has been sufficient to provide a regular and adequate army in time of trouble or for home defence or for overseas or home guard purposes? Can that be said in the light of the experience gained in the past war, in the period between the wars and in this war?
When the navy, army, and air force men return from overseas I believe that the government of that day will be forced by a revolution of public opinion to accept liability for national service by all citizens irrespective of class, creed or anything else. I believe that is coming.
No sport, either amateur or professional, should interfere with a citizen's duty under national service. These sports should be regulated as they are regulated in some countries. If participation in sport disables a man from military service who otherwise might be fit for it, then the state should step in and regulate that sport. It is the duty of the state to see that there is equality of service and sacrifice on the part of all our citizens.
In my opinion the voluntary system can never provide an adequate army, and I hope something will be done about it. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is starting a programme of physical fitness. Instead of leaving this to a civilian in the department who has had no overseas war experience, it should be left to the different boards of education. Grants should be provided along the
War Appropriation-The Army

lines I have indicated. I should like to find out the policy of the government in that connection.
We need a home guard for home defence, and what should be done must be quite apparent to the government. Our troops overseas have borne the burden and heat of the day. They have written the most glorious record in the history of this country. I have received letters from dozens of these men and they all tell me that they hope something will be done to establish an equality of service and sacrifice so that there will not be so many "stay at home" people who long ago should be at the war.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with everything the hon. member for Broadview has said, but he has made some excellent remarks. Throughout the country people are saying that the hon. member for Broadview and some others have not sold their birthrights for pullman tickets to San Francisco.
I have a few questions to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. I am sorry his predecessor resigned, because my dealings with him had been most happy when I was looking after the welfare of soldiers. The present parliamentary assistant is a lawyer with considerable experience, a man who is well educated, a gentleman as was his predecessor. It is always pleasant to have discussions between gentlemen. I have a few questions I want to ask, but first I should like to get an answer to one in particular.
I have been informed that there has been a change made in the head of the Department of National Defence. I suggested to the present incumbent of this office that some reforms should be made at headquarters. I should be thankful to my hon. friend if he would tell me what reforms if any have been carried out at the headquarters of the Department of National Defence since the new minister took charge of the department. After he has answered this question, I shall have a few more to ask.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have been in the department only a short time and I am quite sure I cannot give my hon. friend particulars of all the reforms that have been instituted. Of course improvements are constantly being made. I shall make inquiries and endeavour to give my hon. friend an answer perhaps later to-day.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would not think the reforms have been so countless that it is impossible for a man of the intelligence and experience of my hon. friend to enumerate them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would not be sure about that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have sympathy for the present Minister of National Defence because of the abuse he was subjected to before, during and after the election in Grey North. As a defender of Widows and orphans I have always had a soft spot in my heart for those who suffer persecution. I always am ready to lend a hand to those in trouble and to those Who suffer from injustices. There are things neither I nor anybody else in this country can understand in connection with what happened in the Department of National Defence. What we do understand is that during the election in Grey North the issue at stake was not the welfare of the army; it was not the welfare of the country; it was purely a matter of putting out political propaganda for political advantage. I see the new member for Grey North is in the chamber. I congratulate him upon being elected, but I cannot congratulate him upon his victory, because the victory was not his; it was Doctor Shields' victory.
If the Minister of National Defence was defeated in Grey North it was also because the government afforded every facility, to use the Prime Minister's expression, to John Bracken to go overseas during the election to canvass the army against the Minister of National Defence. Then he came back to Canada after a trip he had made mbstly at the expense of the taxpayers of this country with a halo of glory and glamour which he never would have had if some people had not been stupid enough to send him overseas at public expense to get that halo. It is most natural that crowds of people in Grey North filled the hall to listen to the man who had just come back from overseas. That would have happened in any constituency, because John Bracken was carrying a message from the soldiers overseas to their relatives in Canada; he was coming to tell them how the soldiers were whom he had met over there. He had travelled from battlefield to battlefield in aeroplanes that belonged to this country, and had been surrounded by brass hats. He was not photographed with them, but he was photographed with a few Tory nurses overseas. He came back to Grey North to give news of the soldiers overseas to their relatives. The board of strategy of the party had never thought of that; it was the government that thought of it, probably with the idea of getting John Bracken out of the way during the by-election in order that the minister might be elected by acclamation. I find, sir, that that was just silly-s-i-l-l-y-and if the Minister of National Defence was defeated

War Appropriation-The Army
in Grey North he can thank in the first place Doctor Shields, and in the second place his colleagues in the government who organized to send John Bracken overseas at public expense.


Gordon Graydon: And the Labour-Progressives.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who would have gone to
listen to John Bracken if he had not gone overseas at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer? But he came back a hero, the carrier of a message-not a message to Garcia, but a message not only to the people of Grey North but to the Canadian people at large, to all the relatives and friends of the hundreds of thousands of Canadian soldiers who are overseas. Therefore, unfortunate as it is, if the present Minister of National Defence was defeated he can thank his colleagues in the cabinet jointly and severally.
Another thing that I cannot understand is this. John Bracken and some other Tory stalwarts complained on the one hand of the mess in the Department of National Defence, and then on the other hand John Bracken was bold enough to suggest to the Prime Minister of Canada. that he fire General McNaughton and replace him by his immediate predecessor, who was precisely the one responsible for that mess that he was complaining of. Where is the logic in that? Who gave the opportunity to think of saying that to the bright and .intelligent electors of Grey North, one of the finest counties of this dominion? It is important to afford to the electorate the opportunity to think about certain matters, but the fact is so clear that it is not necessary to underline it to make the people understand that the issue at stake was partisan politics.
The suggestion, I say, was made by John Bracken that the Minister of National Defence should be fired and replaced by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Ralston), although John Bracken had complained of the disastrous management of the department of which the member for Prince had been head for nearly five years. That is beyond my understanding. When the issue was mentioned by the hon. gentleman who now sits as member for the county of Grey North, I know very well that the whole thing had been organized by two men who were in government employ and who resigned at the same time, on the same day, and are now in the same law firm. They said: We need conscription in Canada for overseas service. Who were those two? Harry Borden and McTague, two of the principal advisers of John Bracken. Harry
Borden had been appointed controller of controllers in the Department of Munitions and Supply, the most important position that a civilian has held during this war, and the other one had been chairman of the national war labour board-two fine images of fine citizenry. They were there, having everything in hand, to control the war effort of this country. They were inspiring the speeches of John Bracken-if they were not dictating them.
And now, sir, I will ask you one question. Who recommended Harry Borden for his job as general counsel of the Department of Munitions and Supply, and who recommended the former Judge McTague as chairman of the national war labour board? These are some of the questions that I have asked, and an order of the house was passed that the answers be brought down as a return, but they have not yet been answered. They should have been answered before this discussion began. There is no excuse for not answering them. Many of my questions were so easy to answer, requiring just a simple "yes" or "no". Why were they not answered? It is a matter of privilege for a member of parliament to have a return to an order of the house brought down promptly.
Do you not believe, sir, that it was pure political propaganda on the part of Borden and McTague to use John Bracken as their tool to boost the member for Prince as Minister of National Defence at the expense of the present incumbent of that high post? I submit the question to you, sir, and to my colleagues. It is a matter that interests the people. They were shaking hands under the table. I warned the Prime Minister more than four years ago, on February 21, 1941. I told him then that some people were there to stab him in the back. I was ridiculed. I was told to mind my own business. I was told that I was not a good Liberal. At that time I was not defending my own party only; I was defending parliamentary institutions, as I did at three o'clock this afternoon. But there, again, I was alone.
There are perhaps two or three members of the Conservative party in this house'-no more-who sometimes talk against my native province. They have no reason for that. Outsidle of this chamber they are pleasant colleagues. Nearly all the hon. members who compose the Progressive Conservative party in this house are worthy of their electors, andi I will say the same thing of the new member for Grey North. I have no grouch against him; the electors put him here, and he will be judged not by what he said during

War Appropriation-The Army
the election but by what he will do in this house. I have many friends on all sides of the house, and I respect them. I regret that the Conservative party, which was a great party, is led at the present time-and I do not say this of my ho;n. friend the house leader of the opposition, a personal friend of mine,, who does very well, and should have been the leader of his party-by asses who are not members of parliament: ass No. 1, John Bracken; ass No. 2, Harry Borden; ass No. 3, former Justice McTague; ass No. 4, the former private secretary to R. B. Bennett who broke the glass in all the windows of the members' offices on the sixth floor the day he was fired, and Bennett had to pay for it. And they are the brains of the Progressive Conservative party! If I were a Progressive Conservative I would revolt against it, and I would tell John Bracken: Drop ass Borden, drop ass McTague, drop Bennett's ex-ass, or I will resign. That is the way they should speak. Now they have nothing to say; and imagine how humiliating it is for them! They should not trust John -Bracken, because he is not a dyed-in-the-wool Tory; he is not an honest Progressive Conservative; he is a false Liberal. They should not trust him too much. And besides that, why should they trust Harry Borden, who is on the board of Barclay's bank, an institution which is the hyphen between international finance and the government of Canada? And former Justice McTague: "Justice", -what a name, "Justice"! And then the other fellow is just a scribe, who has a great facility for writing speeches which are read by the man who does not compose them. If my ho,n. friends of the Conservative party want to talk politics I am ready to talk politics with them, and paint a picture of their saints. I never visited their lobby, but they must have the ikons of all those great minds which are substituted for theirs in the framing of policies.
Now let us come back to Grey North. Here is something which has been repeated many a time-"equality of sacrifice". And those brass hats who are here in Ottawa and have never been to any theatre of war are supposed to sacrifice themselves much more than the drivers of trains who are in their cabs, than those who manufacture explosives, than those who are in the bottoms of merchant ships, than the farmers, than everybody else. The question of conscription is not new. I have fought it for five years, and1 never on political grounds, but for the benefit of this country. There will shortly be a victory loan. The Canadian people, who are heavily taxed,

will nevertheless subscribe to the victory loan. Naturally the army will give a fine response, as it did before. But the main subscribers will be people in civilian clothes who contribute not only money but also work in the war effort. But what is done? What is said? The influence made by all those who spoke for and on behalf of the Conservative party is that it is only the man in the army who is doing his share for the war effort. I will ask each one of them-I will ask the hon. member for Grey North, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and one of the hon. members for Peterborough- not the one who is in the chamber, the other one-


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: There is only one member for Peterborough.


Jean-François Pouliot: Peterborough is a great place.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Thank you.


Jean-François Pouliot: And there are two members there.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No no.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, it is the hon. member who usually sits nearer us.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hastings-Peterborough.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not want any confusion, beeatise the hon. member for Peterborough West is not at all to blame. He is a first-class member who discusses things sometimes with a little, violence, but that is all right; I am all for it; he has the right to do it and he does it very well.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We are getting that way now.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask those three hon. members and the hon. member who has just been elected: when they speak of equality of sacrifice, do they mean that the farmers are not doing their duty in this war? Do they mean that the railway men are not doing their duty in this war? Do they mean that the miners-et cetera, et cetera-all those engaged in the war effort, are not doing their duty? Do they mean that those who make munitions, some of whom have been burnt alive in their work, are not doing their bit for the war effort? They will never put it that way, but that is the fact.
Seeing that we are faced with the question of selective service and of man-power, I suggested this afternoon that there should be

War Appropriation-The Army
an extension of parliament, and I still believe so, because the question is so tremendous. An effort has been made to impress upon the house the real meaning of man-power in this war. For some members, though not for all, man-power means all men being fit for a training camp; but there are many occupations which are essential to the war effort and which cannot be filled by people coming out of hospitals or from homes for the tuberculous. Once I asked the Minister of Labour, what is the first duty of an able-bodied man of military age, and he told me his first duty was to join the colours. That is wrong. I am not at all an isolationist. I am supporting the army; I am supporting the soldiers and helping their dependents, and at times I have been alone in pressing the claim for better medical care for the army. Again I thank the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Macdonald) who was parliamentary assistant to the minister, for what he did for these men, in spite of the fact that I was ridiculed in some quarters because I was so persistent.
But if that is "selective service" the government should never speak of selective service. Why keep in the army men who are sick? Perhaps they could be useful somewhere else. I know men. who were busy at essential occupations doing very necessary work as technicians and now they are peeling potatoes in camp, something that could be done by CWAC'S, by young girls or women who need no other experience. Such men, would be much more useful in their previous occupations. I am fighting for the labouring man and I am surprised that some so-called labour members are speaking so loudly while I am defending the rights of the very people whom they should be looking after.
I have mentioned railway employees before. Who came to the defence of railway employees, pointing out that they were essential in their post? The minister for naval services and the former minister for air wrote to the Minister of Labour that they would have no objection to relieving those men if they were required for the railway. The only one who objected was the minister of national defence at that time. If men were sometimes objecting when enlisted into the army it was simply because the former minister did not pay any attention to the remarks I made for the improvement of his department. I suggested reform, but I have had the same success as I had when I talked to R. B. Bennett. I thought I was talking to a stone or a pillar post. No reform was possible. The brass hats were always right. "You are a civilian and you
are wrong." It was enough that I was a civilian; I was considered wrong when I was fighting for the prosecution of the war.
I will tell the hon. member for Grey North that he made a great mistake in suggesting the return of the former minister of national defence of that post. He made a great mistake. He was probably inspired by Borden, McTague or someone of that sort. I regret it on his account.


Mr. CASE:: I was inspired by the former minister.


Jean-François Pouliot: He asked you to boost him?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I followed his record pretty closely.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is even worse than I thought. I regret it, I say, for my hon. friend's sake. He is one of my contemporaries, but as a parliamentarian he is younger than I am. He is one of my colleagues and I will not dare to give him any advice, though I will tell him that he should not be too quick to believe what may be said by those who are experts in afterthought, unless he is able to read through their skulls to see what they have in the back of their heads. I will tell him that the fight that was carried on in Grey North was deplorable if considered from certain angles. It was deplorable not only in the way the hon. member was elected but in the fact that it was an encouragement to the handful of men who pay no attention at all to what goes on in the Department of National Defence, who have not at heart the welfare of the soldier or of the returned man, but who want to grab control of the natural resources of the country for five years after the war.


Mr. GREEN:: There are several questions I should like to direct to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. First, I would repeat a question I asked the Prime Minister on April 4, to be found at page 435 of Hansard. The right hon. gentleman had been announcing the policy of this government with regard to the Pacific war, and after he had made that announcement, questioned by the leader of the opposition he made this statement:
There will be no compulsion in connection with the service against Japan.
Then I asked him whether or not the same principle was to apply to the men who will serve with the Canadian troops of occupation in occupied Germany. The Prime Minister in his statement had also said that there would be Canadian troops in the army of occupation in Germany. I pointed out to the Prime Minister that there would have to
War Appropriation-The Army

be continual replacements of the men of the Canadian army of occupation; that there would be new men coming from Canada all the time, and I asked him this question: "Is there to be compulsion in regard to those men?" While the Prime Minister answered "yes" in one case, I think perhaps that was not a definite statement. He then threw the ball, or passed the buck, to the parliamentary assistant, and1 I should be very grateful if the parliamentary assistant would answer that question now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; I anticipated that the hon. member would want an answer to that question, but I thought he would appreciate it is not one that can be answered by a simple "yes" or "no". The position in that respect is this. Our commitment for the occupational forces in Europe is very small in relation to the present strength of the Canadian army overseas. On the conclusion of hostilities in Europe a rigid pool of shipping will be used, with first priority given to reemployment of the forces in the Pacific. The hon. member knows that all the shipping of the allied nations is pooled and is subject to direction of the general staff. That is the prinicple which will be followed with respect to that pool, and for that reason I am advised that it is bound to be some months before we are going to be able to repatriate enough Canadian overseas troops to reduce the size of our forces overseas to that of the occupational commitment. The problem therefor does not present any serious difficulties in its early phase. Should it become necessary to meet the situation other than by use of troops necessarily remaining in Europe because of the shipping pool then the following will be the policy:	(1) those who express a
desire to remain on such service will be given the first opportunity of employment, subject of course, to their possessing the required qualifications, and so on; (2) the remaining personnel required will be detailed from among those having served the shortest time overseas.


Howard Charles Green: But they will be detailed
from those having served overseas?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The shortest time overseas.


Howard Charles Green: In other words there is no
intention of sending any troops from Canada at all, either general service or NiR.M.A., to take part in this army of occupation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, I would put it this way. There is no intention of sending any troops, let us say, three, four or five months from now, or whatever it may be. There is no intention of using shipping to send additional troops over from Canada. The first opportunity will be given -to those who are over there to volunteer if they wish to do so, sub-

ject, of course to their qualifications. If a sufficient number do not express a willingness to serve, the remainder, enough to make up the required establishment, will be detailed; in other words, will be told to stay, and the persons detailed will be those who have had the shortest service overseas. The problem will not arise as a practical question for months, probably for a year at least.


Howard Charles Green: That is definitely the policy of the government?


Douglas Charles Abbott: So I am advised.


Howard Charles Green: If this government is in
power after the election, the army of occupation in Germany will be made up in the first place of men now overseas who volunteer?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend says "the
army of occupation"-our relatively modest portion of that army.


Howard Charles Green: I realize that. May I repeat: it will be made up first of those troops now overseas who volunteer for service in the Canadian army of occupation-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I wish my hon. friend
would not refer to it as the "Canadian army of occupation." It will not be an army of Canada. Canada will have a unit in the occupation forces.


Howard Charles Green: -second, those now overseas the shortest time will be detailed to make up any deficiency?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Again, not "now overseas," but overseas at the time the force is constituted. The hon. member realizes that men are continually being sent over now. I think I indicated pretty clearly in my statement what it will be.


Howard Charles Green: I am going to try to get the parliamentary assistant to indicate a little more clearly.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Then the hon. member will have to try pretty hard.


Howard Charles Green: There is no intention whatever of sending N.R.M.A. men to Germany when the fighting stops there in order to enable the men who are there now to come back to Canada; is that correct ?


Douglas Charles Abbott: So far as I know, I have given the hon. member a pretty clear statement in plain English of what I am advised the policy is. I cannot elaborate any further.


Howard Charles Green: Would the parliamentary
assistant state-


Mr. GARDINER:: State what you think.


Howard Charles Green: You keep out of it.

War Appropriation-The Army


James Arthur Ross: You had better stick to the hogs and chickens.


Howard Charles Green: Will the parliamentary assistant say that my statement is incorrect?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will not say the hon. member's statement is incorrect, but I will repeat what I said before as the statement of government policy, and it is in plain straightforward English. First, those who express a desire to remain on such service will be given the employment, subject to their possessing the required qualifications. Second, the remaining personnel required will be detailed from among those having served the shortest time overseas. The hon. member is at liberty to draw his own conclusions from that statement. I think it is a perfectly clear statement.


Howard Charles Green: The parliamenary assistant said yesterday that there are 20,000 N.R.M.A. men available as infantry at the present time in Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I said there were
10,000	in the training stream at the moment.


Howard Charles Green: I thought the parliamentary assistant said that when they had finished their training the total available would be about 20,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is probably right. I have not the figures before me at the moment. If that is what I said, it is correct.


Howard Charles Green: Are more men being called up all the time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: There is no doubt that there will be enough N.R.M.A. men on hand in Canada, should the fighting in Germany cease within the next two or three months, to comprise the Canadian commitment in the army of occupation.
Mr. ABBOT!': I should not be prepared to say that. I do not know what the qualifications would be. I do not know that the occupation force is to consist entirely of infantry. I assume it will contain representatives of other arms.


Howard Charles Green: There are now N.R.M.A. men in the other arms, are there not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Could the parliamentary assistant give us some idea of the size/bf the Canadian commitment in the army of occupation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot.


Howard Charles Green: I saw a report in the press just a day or two ago that the United States commitment was to be 200,000 men. Will
the parliamentary assistant give to us and the Canadian people some idea of the commitment? This has to do with the post-war period, after the fighting is over. I do not see how there could be any contention that to reveal the figure will hurt the war effort. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and to this committee that it is the responsibility of the government to give the Canadian people at least an approximate figure of the Canadian commitment in the army of occupation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I am not at liberty to give it. for one very good reason, namely, that it is not settled yet. When it is, I daresay it will be possible to give it promptly.


Howard Charles Green: Will the Canadian commitment be at least a division?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not in a position to answer the question the hon. member has asked. I think the Prime Minister said in his statement the other day-I have forgotten his exact language-that it was relatively modest in comparison with our army overseas which, as the hon. member knows, now amounts to 285,000. That is the only information I am at liberty to give the committee at the moment. It seems to me the question is a little premature. We have not won the war yet, and we are now into an elaborate discussion on the army of occupation.


Howard Charles Green: If the number of men in this Canadian commitment were a division, what number of troops would be required to keep up that division? In other words there would be the division itself; then certain troops along the lines of communication, and more for replacements. It seems quite clear that there will be guerrilla warfare in Germany. There may be many casualties. Of course we all hope there will not be, but there is a possibility of heavy casualties. Then there will be sickness, and men coming back for one reason or another. What number of men would be involved if Canada is to maintain a division in the army of occupation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is a'skilful enough lawyer to know that I am not going to answer a hypothetical question.


Howard Charles Green: The parliamentary assistant cannot evade the question in that way.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not evading it. I am answering it by saying I will not answer a hypothetical question.


Howard Charles Green: That is not a hypothetical question. The parliamentary assistant has not condescended to bring his officials to the chamber, officials who could answer questions of this kind offhand.

War Appropriation-The Army


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is my responsibility, as to whether or not I answer a question-whether I have officials here or have not officials here.


Howard Charles Green: Although General McNaugh-ton, as the minister, did so at the session last fall. He did not know so much that he would not have his leading men come down to help him answer questions.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is not fair. Surely my hon. friend does not mean that. If the committee insists, I can have my officials here. But the other ministers have not done so. I admit I have not the background or the knowledge the others may have, but they proceeded without their officials, and I think possibly I can do so.
In any event, even if I had a dozen officials in front of me, I would not answer the question my hon. friend has asked.


Howard Charles Green: There is an atmosphere about the army estimates which would seem to be summed up in this way. "We have made our statement." Government supporters tried to rush them through last night, and get the whole thing over with. I submit that the committee is entitled to have answers to these questions.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can answer it in this way, that that is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course.


Howard Charles Green: What? The number of men?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. Whether our occupation force is or is not to be a division is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the parliamentary
assistant need not get excited1 about it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not excited-just having good clean fun.


Howard Charles Green: Whether or not it is to be a division is a question of government policy. But I am asking a question which the parliamentary assistant's experts can answer. What would be the number of men required to maintain an infantry division in the army of occupation in Germany? If his officials cannot answer, they should be able to.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend can probably answer the question as well as they can.


Howard Charles Green: Will the parliamentary
assistant get an answer to that question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; I do not see why I should. It is purely hypothetical. My hon. friend asks, if our army of occupation is to be a division, how many men must be main-

tained? Perhaps I am being a little narrow. It may be that there is no objection to giving that information; I do not know.


Howard Charles Green: I thought not.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall give the question some consideration to see if it can be answered.


Howard Charles Green: Thank you very much. In
each preceding year the former minister of national defence was careful to give the house and the Canadian people the plans of the government for the ensuing fiscal year in regard to the number of men o be recruited. For example, a year ago he told us that he would require 60,000 men during the fiscal year from April 1, 1944, to March 31, 1945. The hon. member for Prince, who was then minister of national defence, will correct me if I am wrong. My recollection is that
12,000	were to be N.R.M.A. men and 48,000 were to be general service.
The parliamentary assistant this year, perhaps because of an oversight, has not given us that information. I say we are entitled to it, and should know what the plans are for the present fiscal year ending March 31, 1946.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think my hon. friend will realize that conditions are somewhat different from what they were last year. Future plans naturally have to be on a somewhat different basis from what they were last year, in view of the probable end of the war. I can tell my hon. friend that the call-up required in March was 7,500, which was on a higher scale than was contemplated last year.
So far as I know-and I would not be positive about it-I think the scale for the current month may be a bit lower. But decisions will have to be made this year almost on a month to month basis. In other words, we will maintain our training system so long as the military advisers of the government feel that the military situation is such as to necessitate it.


Howard Charles Green: Then at the present time the plan is to get into the army 7,500 men a month?


Mr ABBOTT:: That was done in Marchroughly 7,500 men. I cannot be quite positive about April, but it is probably not very far below that.


Howard Charles Green: The parliamentary assistant
canDot say what it will be after the month of April?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; the plan as I understand it at the present time is that we have to look at the situation almost from day to day and from month to month. Perhaps I

War Appropriation-The Army
should have mentioned that in my statement. But since we were not figuring for the full year on that basis I omitted to do so.


Howard Charles Green: Has not the parliamentary
assistant some idea of the number that will be required in May and June, as a minimum? There must have been at least an estimate made by the Department of National Defence. It may be that the estimate would have to be changed subsequently. All hon. members could appreciate that. But has there not been any estimate made as to the number required for the whole fiscal year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not sure about that.
I presume my hon. friend is right, that some estimate has been made. But all the information I have at the moment is that we are operating on the basis I have indicated-so many in March, and so many in April. The situation is being constantly reviewed, because indications are that the war, in its more active stage, will probably be over within, we hope, a comparatively short space of time. Obviously it is not in the public interest to take too many men out of civilian occupations or off the farms, more than are necessary.


Howard Charles Green: Would the parliamentary
assistant have any objection to letting the committee have that estimate?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not prepared to do
that on my own responsibility. I would have to see whether or not I can give my hon. friend that estimate. Frankly I do not know what particular advantage it would have. However, I can make inquiries about it.


Howard Charles Green: During the last fiscal year
the requirements were 5,000 a month.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Originally 4,000 a month, I think.


Howard Charles Green: If I remember correctly we were told in November that 5,000 were being requisitioned each month.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct; it had been increased. But the original plan was for 4,000 a month, or 48,000 a year.


Howard Charles Green: And each month only 4,000 of those 5,000 were obtained; is that correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would have to verify this, but I think pretty well the full number of general service men were obtained for the year. As I indicated in my statement yesterday, a bit over the full 60,000 were enrolled and enlisted.


Howard Charles Green: 
Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot say whether it is correct or not.


Howard Charles Green: Was that the experience?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot answer my hon. friend. As he knows, I have not been long in the department.


Howard Charles Green: But is that correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps the hon. member for Prince could say from memory?


James Layton Ralston: Not without having the-officials before me.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would have to verify that.


Howard Charles Green: What has been the experience in the department in connection with the requisition for 7,500? What number have come in as a result of that requisition?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will get that information and give it to my hon. friend a little later.


Howard Charles Green: There has been a considerable reduction in the number of N.R.M.A. troops in Canada. The figure given by the Prime Minister about November 9 of last year was approximately 68,000, of whom about
9.000	were out on farm or other kinds of leave, leaving 59,000 actually serving in Canada; is that correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is approximately
correct.


Howard Charles Green: As I understand the figures-: given by the parliamentary assistant, there-are now 35,000 serving in Canada, with about
6.000	out on farm and other kinds of leave;; are those figures correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: So that there has been a considerable reduction in the number of N.R.M.A. troops in Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Very considerable.


Howard Charles Green: Quite a few have been sent overseas. Is it the plan to wipe out the N.R.M.A. army in Canada; I realize that it is not an army, but is it the plan to do away entirely with N.R.M.A. troops in Canada?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I can say that the plan is to do away with them. I think the policy will be continued of endeavouring to reduce the numbers of N.R.M.A. men as much as possible by their conversion to general service or otherwise. An appreciable step has been taken already. As I pointed out in my statement yesterday, there
War Appropriation-The Army

is a considerable number of N.RM.A. men here who are not in a physical' category which would make them suitable for service overseas and who are now engaged in various housekeeping activities here in Canada which otherwise would have to be done by general service personnel.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any thought of stopping the call-up system?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not so far as I know.


Howard Charles Green: Is the call-up system to be used during the Pacific war if this government is in power?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Presumably not.


Howard Charles Green: In other words, as soon as the war in Germany is over call-ups are to be stopped?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a matter of government policy, but I would think that is a fair inference to draw from the statement the other day.


Howard Charles Green: That is the parliamentary assistant's statement?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is only my personal understanding, I must confess.


Howard Charles Green: That is not good enough. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to find out what is the government policy in that regard.
.Mr. ABBOTT: I shall be glad to do that.


Howard Charles Green: What is the position now -with regard to the efforts being made to get N.R.M.A.. troops to convert to general service? Is the Departrnent of National Defence still -carrying on the campaign for conversion?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I would call it a campaign. Some instructions are in the hands of district officers commanding to do all in their power to induce N.R.M.A. men to go active, but so far as I know there has been no change in policy in that respect.


Howard Charles Green: I ask that question because of a press dispatch which appeared in the Victoria Colonist of February 16, 1945, headed "N.R.M.A. men overseas may still volunteer." That confirms the statement made to-day.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: The newspaper report states:
Notwithstanding the conscription policy adopted by the dominion government last November personal appeals on a planned basis are being stepped up to persuade N.R.M.A. troops to convert - to general service status, whether such N.R.M.A. men are serving in Canada or overseas, it was learned yesterday.
Is that statement correct?
|Mr. Abbott.]


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not want to accept that statement at its face value so far as overseas is concerned. I do not think there has been any -change so far as overseas is concerned. It is really a matter of the man's conscience once he is there.


Howard Charles Green: There is no campaign to get them to convert?


Douglas Charles Abbott: What would be the purpose of doing that? They are over there fighting.


Howard Charles Green: The article goes on:
This was the first indication that the policy of appealing to N.R.M.A. men to convert to general service had been extended to overseas, and that N.R.M.A. soldiers compulsorily sent abroad may transfer to a voluntary service basis even after they have reached or served in a battle area.
It is understood that instructions have been received by all recruiting officers-
As I pointed out, this is dated February 16.
-and commanding officers in the dominion to conduct an energetic campaign among N.R.M.A. men with a view to obtaining as many conversions as possible.
Is that correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can only repeat what I
have already said. So far as I know there, has been no change in policy, but I will make inquiries as to whether any additional instructions have been sent out. I am inclined to think that news item simply refers to what has been going on fop several months.


Howard Charles Green: Would the parliamentary
assistant check up to see if there was not an order sent out by the adjutant general some time prior to the date of this article, which was February 16, setting out just what was to be done to get conversions from N.R.M.A. to general service?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will verify that and be
able to give my hon. friend an answer in a few minutes.


Howard Charles Green: If any such order has been
sent out I ask that we be shown a copy of it.


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


Howard Charles Green: The article continues:
It is pointed out that an N.R.M.A. soldier may volunteer for "G.S." status at any time during his service in Canada or overseas, and commanding officers are requested to assist in a continuous effort to obtain conversions.
These efforts are to continue during all stages of an N.R.M.A. soldier's training and after, it is stated, and are to be designed on a planned basis.

War Appropriation-The Army
It is believed that this planning is to be given priority among the duties of recruiting officers and all those concerned with the training or administrations of N.R.M.A. personnel.
Of course the answers to those paragraphs would be the same.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would think that is accurate but I will verify it.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant, does not know whether the call-up system is to be continued for the Pacific war, but if it is will the same attempts be made to get men to convert from N.R.M.A. to general service?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I can answer that by referring to the announcement that the government policy as far as the call-up system is concerned will not be in effect for the Pacific war. That will answer my hon. friend's second question.


Howard Charles Green: There is to be no call-up system for the Pacific war?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: The whole plan of the
Department of Labour to get in men will be dropped, and men for . the Pacific war or who go from Canada to join the army of occupation in Germany will be straight volunteers?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is true, provided that the present government is returned to power. If my hon. friend's party is returned I do not know what it will do.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The hon. member for York-Sunbury did not say so.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know, but I am just pointing that out.


Howard Charles Green: In his statement the parliamentary assistant referred to P.C. 8891, which was the important order in council passed last year giving the government power to send 16,000 N.R.M.A. men overseas, and he said that up to date 11,836 had been sent over.


Douglas Charles Abbott: To the end of March.


Howard Charles Green: There was some question about the other 2,400.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Those men had N.R.M.A. status last October but they had converted before going over. I used that figure to show that 14,000 men who had N.R.M.A. status at the time of the special session had in fact gone overseas. The 2,400 are not charged, if I may use an accounting term, against the 16,000.


Howard Charles Green: The number charged against the 16,000 would be 11,836?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I could clarify my
statement a little. I do not think we have the figures right up to the end of March. I shall have to -verify that because I can see there is a bit of confusion over it.


Howard Charles Green: Will the parliamentary assistant give us the number of the 16,000 who have been used up?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be able to give that in a few minutes.


Howard Charles Green: Why is the government unwilling to pass an order in council now, taking power to send over the other 20,000 N.R.M.A. men -who are available in Canada now as infantry?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Because it has not yet become necessary to do so.


Howard Charles Green: How many N.R.M.A. men are there in Canada who are actually fit to go overseas? The former minister of national defence and the Prime Minister told us in November that there were then 42,000 N.R.M.A. men fit to go overseas. How many are there at the present time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are 20,000 who are suitable for infantry reinforcements. Whether there are some few additional who would be suitable for other branches of the service I cannot say at the moment. But of the 35,000 N.R.M.A. men in Canada 20,000 are of a medical category and type suitable for infantry reinforcements.


Howard Charles Green: That was not my question. How many are fit to go overseas?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Have been trained, you mean?


Howard Charles Green: No. The parliamentary
assistant said that 20,000 could go over as infantry. Are there additional numbers who could go over for other arms of the service?


Douglas Charles Abbott: 
Howard Charles Green: So that to date there have been 11,836 sent over of the 16,000?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, and the additional number I referred to who have converted from N.R.M.A.


Howard Charles Green: General McNaughton announced as his policy, last fall that 5,000 of the N.R.M.A. would be sent over in December, 5,000 in January, 2,000 in February, 2,000 in March and the remainder in April.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: Will that estimate be
reached?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not a prophet. It was reached by the end of March, and I have every expectation that it will be reached by the end of April.


Howard Charles Green: How many men sent over -[DOT]are over and above the normal reinforcement .stream?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can only answer that by saying that the 14,000 who have been sent over were in addition to the planned dispatches as discussed at the November session.


Howard Charles Green: The parliamentary assistant has given some figures on the numbers of men who have converted from' N.R.M.A. to general service. Can he break down that figure to show what numbers of those men converted during the first month after their enrolment, how many of the remainder were infantry and how many were for other arms of the service? Those figures were given last fall I think, and it would be interesting to have them up to date. I ask that because it is my understanding that a large proportion of the men who convert do so within the first few weeks of their enrolment, and that can hardly be regarded as conversion, certainly not in the same way as one would regard the conversion of men who had been in the N.R M.A. for a year or two.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Those figures are available. It might take a little time to compile them but there would be no difficulty in getting them.


Howard Charles Green: To travel over to the Pacific theatre of war, is the Canadian force which will fight against Japan to be merely a token force say a brigade or less.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot give
my hon friend any information on that at the moment, since it is a matter of government policy which will have to be announced in due course.
{Mr. Abbott.]


Howard Charles Green: Again I should like to point out to the house and the country that there would seem to be no reason why the Canadian people who will have to send their husbands and sons to do the fighting should not be given some idea of the number of Canadian troops that are to be sent to the Pacific, because that is the only way in which they can reach a decision as to what the policy should be with regard to Canadians fighting in the Pacific. It looks as though the government is just going to refuse to give any statement, any basis on which the people can make a decision, and I suggest to the parliamentary assistant and to the ministry that that is not being fair to the Canadian people. Certainly they are entitled to know and this house is entitled to know whether the Canadian force that is to go to Japan is to be merely a token force. Is the parliamentary assistant unwilling to answer that question.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not unwilling, but he is
not going to answer it. I repeat again what I said, that it is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course, but I am not going to announce it to-day.


James Arthur Ross: You have not a policy.


Howard Charles Green: This house is asked to vote money to carry on a war against the Japanese and surely we are entitled to know something of the plans. When the former minister of national defence gave his statements to this house he was always scrupulously careful to tell us w'hat the plans were. He told us what they planned' to do each year, how many troops would be sent over, how many men w'ould be available, and so forth. All that information was given. But here, where there is not the same need for secrecy-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Why?


Howard Charles Green: There is no definite date
for troops sailing or anything of that kind. The Prime Minister said that this whole question of the Pacific war was discussed at Quebec last fall.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not suppose that my hon. friend would suggest that we should announce the sailing dates of the troops?


Howard Charles Green: The parliamentary assistant cannot duck out from under that easily. Surely the ministry should tell us at least whether the Canadian force against the Japanese is to be merely a token force. Will the parliamentary assistant say?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. I am not under crossexamination. I have said two or three times that it is a matter of government policy which

War Appropriation-The Army
will be announced in due course and I am not announcing it to-day. I do not know how many times I must repeat that. My hon. friend is entitled to his opinion that the policy should be announced; I do not quarrel with that, but he has had my assurance that I am not going to announce it and I can add nothing more.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest to the house and
the Canadian people that the government knows what the plan is, but for election purposes consider it wiser to give the people of Canada no indication of it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think any such
inference is justified.


Mr. CRERAR:: My hon. friend is asking
his question, may I suggest, for political purposes. He is accusing the parliamentary assistant and the government of acting for political purposes. I would just like to throw that back across the chamber at him, and the remarks he is making.


James Garfield Gardiner: Purely a political question.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I say this to my hon.
friend-


Howard Charles Green: Say all you like.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Very well; I will say it
whether I have the permission of my hon. friend or not.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Oh,
no, you won't. He has the floor.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are in committee.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I say to my hon.
friend that he knows as well as anyone else that the war in Europe is not yet over.


Mr. JACKMAN:: So does the Prime Minister. He makes the statement.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He knows that many problems will not be clear until the war in Europe is over.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Then why does he
announce the policy?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As the Prime Minister told the house, it is in the light of the circumstances then existing that the decision of the government will be made at the proper time. When my hon. friend says, "You must tell us now how many men are going to go," I say that is an unreasonable position for the hon. member to take.


Howard Charles Green: The minister must not twist my words. I asked whether or not this means
that it is to be merely a token force. That is the question which the parliamentary assistant refuses to answer.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I ask my hon. friend what he means by "a token force"?


Howard Charles Green: If the minister had been in the chamber he would know. I said, a brigade or less.


Mr. SLAGHT:: I wonder whether my hon.
friend would permit me to refer him to the Prime Minister's words.


Howard Charles Green: No; I have the floor.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no such thing in committee of the whole.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I must ask to be allowed to put my question. I have the floor.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are sitting down.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Order. The hon. member has now been on his feet for more than forty minutes.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, no. I rose to obtain a
reply from the parliamentary assistant.


William Henry Golding: No;	the	hon.	member	has	been speaking for more than forty minutes-about forty-five minutes. It is, I think, an act of courtesy to permit a question to be asked.


Howard Charles Green: Is the chairman ruling that
I have to stop?


William Henry Golding: No;	the	hon.	member	can	go on with
his question; I think it is an act of courtesy to permit a question to be asked.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Let me say to the hon.
member I shall spend only a moment on the exact point he is discussing, because he referred to the fact that this matter was dealt with at Quebec. He heard the Prime Minister tell the house exactly what Canada arranged at Quebec. I am just going to read that, and it makes it crystal clear what the position is; then I am going to sit down, and if the hon. gentleman wishes to go on I do not want him to feel that I desire to cut him off. Will he give heed to this, as reported at page 434 of Hansard:
The matter was discussed in principle at Quebec. It was agreed at that time that the actual form and extent of the Canadian forces to be engaged could not be finally settled until the strategic situation, which will exist after European hostilities have terminated, could be assessed with greater accuracy, and that when that time came the appropriate Canadian contribution to the defeat of Japan would be
War Appropriation-The Army

determined with United Kingdom and United States authorities in the light of the situation then existing.
So I conclude by saying that the hon. member, having indicated that he knew the matter had been determined at Quebec, was putting a purely cheap political question to the young parliamentary assistant when he endeavoured to ask him about token force or no token force, because he well knew, unless he had forgotten it-I should like to think he had forgotten it-that the position I have indicated to the committee was exactly the position agreed to at Quebec.


Howard Charles Green: Now that that little outburst is all over-	[DOT]


Mr. CASSELMAN:: He will have another one in a minute.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: You asked for it.


Howard Charles Green: -I will go on and ask my question. The position apparently is that the government itself does not yet know what number of Canadians will be needed in the Pacific war.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think I am going to dignify that further question with an answer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Will my hon. friend please sit down when I stand up. He has been standing here and conducting


James Arthur Ross: Well, well 1


Douglas Charles Abbott: -a most devastating crossexamination in his usual swaggering style. My understanding of the rules of parliamentary debate is that when one speaker is on his feet the other one sits down. I will sit down and listen for another question. But let us pop up and down alternately, as it were.


Howard Charles Green: I would not have sat down if I had known the parliamentary assistant was going to sit down. What I want to know is this. The Minister of Mines and Resources
has stated-he can correct me if I am wrong_
that the government is not yet in a position to know what-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The Prime Minister's words are quite clear. He stated the position clearly in the extract from his remarks which was read by the hon. member for Parry Sound.


Howard Charles Green: I am asking the minister the following question-


Arthur Graeme Slaght: If the hon. member did not understand it the first time we will let him have another lesson.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Vancouver South has the floor.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Minister of Mines and Resources, if the situation is that uncertain, if the government itself does not know, why does it announce to the house as a policy that service in the Pacific war is to be voluntary, and further, that the whole call-up system is to be scrapped? Can the minister answer that?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The Prime Minister stated the policy of the government the other day.


Howard Charles Green: I should like an answer to-my question.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Why don't you look at ' your own policy?


Howard Charles Green: Is the Minister of Mines and Resources unwilling to answer that question?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What question?


Howard Charles Green: He is senior in the cabinet; he should know something about these things-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, repeat the question again.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And then sit down, of course.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: And then sit down and give me a chance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He has forgotten which question it is.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Mines and Resources said in his remarks that the Prime Minister had explained that sufficient facts were not known for the government to be able to decide a policy as to the number of troops that would be sent; and so on and so forth; and the minister has been ridiculing me for trying to get an answer to a question along that line. What I want to ask him is this: if that is the position, that the government does not yet know what Canada's commitment is to be, why does the government announce as its policy that Canada's share in the Pacific fighting will be done by volunteers-exclusively; furthermore, that the whole callup system will be scrapped?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Your leader said so last year in the house.


Howard Charles Green: That is a fair question. I should like an answer.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The Prime Minister stated the policy to the house the other day. My hon. friend, for the last fifteen minutes-


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Twenty minutes.

War Appropriation-The Army


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Forty-five minutes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: has been making a great deal of the point that the government should state now the number of men it is to send' to the Pacific area.


Howard Charles Green: I have never asked for the number of men; I said, an approximate idea.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Chairman, I did not interrupt my hon. friend, and I would be very grateful if he did not interrupt me.


William Henry Golding: Order. Just a minute. I wonder if the hon. member would take his seat.


Howard Charles Green: I am sitting.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member is only taking the edge of his seat.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The quotation from the Prime Minister's remarks the other day, which was read a few moments ago by the hon. member for Parry Sound, stated the matter clearly. The situation after the European war is over will be reviewed with the other- allies in the Pacific area, and I take it that in the light of the circumstances as they may then exist the contribution that Canada shall make will be determined. No one knows. It may be that Japan will collapse before Germany does.


Howard Charles Green: Why do you announce your man policy now and your call-up policy, before you know the facts.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You announced yours in two different ways last year through two different leaders in two days.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps we can get back to the parliamentary assistant. When he has the information-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have some of it now.


Howard Charles Green: -concerning the number of men who will be required to maintain the division in the army of occupation in Germany, will he also get the figures with regard to maintaining a division in the Pacific field? That must have been very carefully worked out by the officers of the department. It is of vital importance, the question of casualties, and of course the ratio of casualties will probably be far heavier than it has been in Europe. I should think the ratio of sickness would be much higher than it has been in Europe.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is all speculation.


Howard Charles Green: Could the parliamentary
assistant get those figures and also for a corps 32283-40
made up of two infantry divisions and a corps made up of an infantry division and an armoured division?


Humphrey Mitchell: While my hon. friend is speculating, has he given any thought to the possibility that the war in Japan may be over before the war is over in Europe?


Howard Charles Green: May I say to the Minister of Labour that no one hopes more fervently than I do that it will be over to-morrow.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I wish to say, of course, that I have not given my hon. friend an assurance that these figures will be made available but I will see what can be done.
Perhaps I had better clear up one bit of information asked for. Charged against the 16,000 N.R.M.A. under the order in council is the number of 11,836 who were dispatched to the end of March. The other figure is 2,454, and they converted before going over and are therefore not a charge against the 16,000. I make that statement in order to clear up that point.


Howard Charles Green: You still have how many?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The difference between
11,836 and 16,000. My mental arithmetic is not very rapid but the number will be arrived at in that way.


Howard Charles Green: Another statement made by the Prime Minister with regard to the Pacific was that the army would be fighting beside United States troops.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think he said they would be fighting under the United States, did he not?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Forced to operate with the United States army.


Howard Charles Green: Last fall we were told that Canadian troops had been sent, to Australia. A small number of men were sent there. I believe the explanation given was that they were either going on special work or going over to see conditions, and the thought at that time was apparently that Canadians would be fighting beside Australians. I am not making any statement as to where they should be fighting, but I should like to know when the change in that policy was made and what provisions will be necessary so that the Canadians may use United States equipment, in order to obviate the difficulty of one lot of troops having one kind of equipment and the other a different kind, which can be very serious, as the parliamentary assistant knows.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That second point is very important. I agree with the hon. member in that regard, but he does not expect me

War Appropriation-The Army

to give an answer on it now, or perhaps even during the course of this debate. Naturally, the question of equipment is a very important one.


Howard Charles Green: Will the parliamentary
assistant give us the reason for the change of policy?	>


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I could not do that. I do not know that there ever was a change.


Howard Charles Green: Some question- was also asked about rates of pay for men who would be serving in the Japanese war. The British have increased the rate for men who have to serve in the orient. Why does the government not plan for an increase in the rate of pay to the Canadian troops?


Douglas Charles Abbott: One answer is that our rate is now so very much higher than the British that it is hardly appropriate to compare the two. I believe that the Minister of National Defence for Air referred to that point the other day in the discussion of his estimates. The increase in the British rate for service in the far east is moderate, but our rates are so far above the rates of pay for the British army that that is probably the main reason why no consideration, so far as I know, has yet been given to any increase in pay for service of that kind.


Howard Charles Green: I would ask the parliamentary assistant to have that question- discussed, because if our troops serve beside the Americans their pay will be much -lower than the American pay and nothing is more apt to cause bad feeling. It would be very unfair to Canadian troops if they were put in that position, and I suggest that some plan should be made whereby our men receive additional pay.
When General McNaughton an-nounced his plans last year he stated that there was to be a Canadian employment corps of N.R.M.A. men. They were set up to do labour jobs, public works, and he expected that the number would be about 9,000. The corps was to be composed of men who were not in the top physical category. Could the parliamentary assistant tell us whether that plan was put into effect and, if not, why not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: P.C. 4729, dated October 3, 1944, provides for the employment of Canadian army personnel, including N.R.M.A. men on projects in Canada, which the Ministers of National Defence and of Labour deem to be in the national interest. The men so employed continue to be subject to discipline and the provisions of the army, and they 
are considered to be performing military duty. The following were considered to be in the national interest: 1. Department of Pensions and National Health hospitals; 2. Brickyards supplying brick for hospitals; 3. Flour and feed mills; 4. Cold storage plants; 5. Sugar refineries; 6. Food processing; 7. Grain handling; 8. Railway track maintenance; 9. Sawmills; 10. Malleable iron industry; 11. Nursing profession engaged in civilian and Department of Pensions and National Health hospitals; 12. Building of elevator to store soya beans; 13. Base metal mines; 14. Shells, components and filling; 15. Manufacture of synthetic rubber tires; 16. Coal yards and helpers in coal delivery. Of these, however, the troops were employed only in Nos. 1, 2, 8, 10, 12 and 16. Particular mention is made of those employed in railway track maintenance, comprising 500 in all, divided equally between the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways, 300 of whom were engaged from Port Arthur and Fort William to Winnipeg and the others in southern Ontario. This ceased after the coming of snow and was discontinued by December 2, 1944.
As of February 27, 1945, 171 soldiers were employed on industrial duty as follows: In Department of Veterans' Affairs hospitals under construction, thirty-two; brickyards eighty-five; malleable iron industry forty-four; coal deliveries in Toronto, ten. The army problems are confined to the subject of pay and provision of board and lodging, and these were resolved as follows. First, as to pay, the soldier receives his ordinary pay and allowances. Any excess received on account of his wages is not credited to his pay account but goes toward cost of administration. Second, as to board and lodging, the employer pays the cost of board and lodging, taking the cost from the amount payable for the labour. In the case of supervising non-commissioned officers, it has been submitted that these receive the actual cost of board and lodging rather than the set rate. No other problems concerning the Department of National Defence have arisen in connection with this matter. The Department of Labour apparently was faced with some local opposition to the employment of troops in certain industries, including a reluctance on the part of some civilian workers to work side by side with home defence personnel, and the department also experienced in several instances some difficulty in providing accommodation and meals. A further P.C. 9148, dated December 5, 1944. provides that soldiers employed on industrial duties shall only receive pay and allowances of rank.

War Appropriation-The Army


Howard Charles Green: What is the total number employed on industrial duty?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As of February 27, 171. There were, prior to December 2, a total of 500 on local maintenance work.


Howard Charles Green: Instead of 9,000 there were only 171 now


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do riot know anything about the "instead of". There were 171 at the end of February.


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon. friend permit me to mention a matter? I am very sorry but it is impossible for me to be here to-night. There is a matter that I should like to mention before six o'clock, namely, the question of the factors which will enter into consideration in connection with demobilization when the long looked-for time comes. I do not think any announcement has been made so far as the army is concerned.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; I can make only a very general statement. Essentially the policy will be based on the principle of first in, first out. But the committee, or some of them, will remember the difficulties experienced after the last war by the British army adhering strictly to that plan. Officers of the department are now working hard on the plans to carry out demobilization in the fairest way possible. Essentially it will be based on the principle of first in, first out. But there will have to be taken into consideration compassionate grounds, the desire to see that families are reunited as soon as possible, the question of married men, and so on. I do not know that I am in a position to go further than that at the moment. That is the position in which it stands at the present time.


James Layton Ralston: This is a matter about which I heard a great deal when I was in Italy and France last October, and I had hoped that plans for the army would have been pretty well crystallized and an announcement made by this time. I talked with the men over there and I tried to indicate to them what I thought might be the factors which would be considered. I just give these to my hon. friend for consideration by the department. I think the officers of the department know my views pretty well, but this is such an important matter that perhaps I should repeat them again. My view was that, as my hon. friend says, length of service should perhaps be the basic factor in connection with demobilization of men overseas-I am speaking particularly of men overseas-but that it should be weighted to some extent by the length of time a man had been overseas. In other words, you may find a man who has had four years' service
32283-40i
altogether, three months of which were served .overseas. Perhaps he might not be entitled to as much consideration as a man who had had three and a half years' service of which eight months or a year was in Canada and almost two and a half years overseas. To my mind there ought to be some method worked out whereby a weighting factor could be provided and length of service overseas given some additional advantage as it is in connection with rotation leave. The principle on which I go in connection with this is as follows: I realize that we have in Canada quite a few men who desire to serve overseas. Nevertheless they are in Canada in comparatively close touch with their families. When they get leave they have an opportunity to go home to their families; whereas the man who is overseas has not that privilege and that opportunity. Second, they have conditions in Canada which are quite different from those overseas. It seems to me that the element of separation ought to be taken into consideration in deciding which men should come home first: that is to say, the man with the short service overseas but perhaps with long service altogether in the army might perhaps wait until after the fellow who had a little shorter service in the army but longer service overseas had come home. That was one factor which seemed to influence the men overseas. I am not saying that a vote was taken on it. There was no discussion on it by way of criticism, but that was what I gathered from the talks I had with the men overseas.
Another factor I had in mind which should be taken into consideration-and it was on the same basis-was marital status. Take a married man and a single man of equal service all the way through. It seems to me that the married man ought to be given the advantage and that principle ought to prevail.
As I understand it, the air force and the navy have made their announcements. I know the British made their announcement a long while ago, before I went overseas. It was with the idea of canvassing what the men had in mind that I talked with them about the matter.
There is one further factor that ought to be considered. It was mentioned here last year and I have strong views about it, namely, that some assurance ought to be given that if the N.R.M.A. men are discharged first, measures will be taken to protect the right to employment of the man overseas when he comes back. It is quite possible that men will have to be discharged in Canada before the men overseas, because those who are overseas will be a long while coming back on
War Appropriation-The Army

account of shipping conditions. Therefore some measure should be- taken and some, announcement made with regard to the preservation of the men's right to a job and the opportunity for employment, so that all the jobs would not be filled by men who were discharged in Canada, particularly N.R.M.A. men. I mention these matters to the parliamentary assistant for conveyance to his minister and to the oflicers of the department. I feel this is a matter that cannot be given too thorough consideration and cannot be announced too soon for the relief and information not only of the men overseas but of their families as well in Canada.
Have any changes been made in the physical requirements of recruits? I have heard that changes have been made in the requirements of the "S", meaning stability, in pulhems; that iis to say, that men who have been classed as :S-4 and S-3 have been reclassified as S-2. I .-must say that I am a little concerned about that, although I can understand that we may go too far and the recruiting officers have thought the psychiatrists have gone too far in setting men down in that classification. I throw out this thought. I think the experience has been that when you attempt to put in men who are classed too low, particularly in the "S" bracket, you find that it reacts later because the men go out of the line just that much more quickly and become problem *cases for consideration overseas in the retraining centres. I hope that the most thorough study and attention have been given to that matter and that a reduction has not been *made without the concurrence of the men who are most fitted to decide, the psychiatrists themselves and the medical men, and the personnel selection officers who have charge of it.
Could my hon. friend give me any information on either of those points?


Jean-François Pouliot: Six o'clock.


Douglas Charles Abbott: On the first point, I thank my hon. friend for what he said in connection with the demobilization plan. Specific recommendations are now before the war committee, for consideration, and I hope it will be possible to make an announcement in a few days.
On the second point, I am not in a position to answer my hon. friend immediately, but I shall be able to do so right after the dinner recess.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is going "to give, as soon as he can, the information with regard to casualties from month to

month. I should like him to include (a) infantry casualties and (b) total casualties.
I should like also one further thing, and that is information which I asked from his minister. His minister felt at that time that the information could not be given and that it was difficult to compile. Second, security reasons prevented its being given. I have in mind a comparison, by percentages, of the actual number of trained infantry men who were on hand in the field at the end of each month, December, January, February, and March if it can be given. However, for security purposes, the information for March may be too close. I should like to compare that with the number of men who were estimated to be on hand, in the estimate given to the house last November. I should like a comparison between the two, not by giving actual figures, but by giving percentages on the actual available infantry on hand at the end of those particular months as compared with the estimated number on hand at the end of each month at the time of the November session.
It seems to me that giving an answer by percentages would not in any way divulge information which . should not be given. It would give information to hon. members who were present on the earlier occasion. The minister did offer it to me personally, as confidential information, but I felt I could not accept it in that way because in my view it was information which should be in the hands of all hon. members.
In view of the fact that those figures will relate to a time which has passed-in the case of December a period of three months, two in- the case of January and one in February-I should hope the parliamentary assistant would be able to give the information.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall try.


Jean-François Pouliot: And the number of relatives who are kept in the army, although incompetent and physically unfit.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Douglas Charles Abbott: When the committee rose
the hon. member for Prince had asked me one or two questions as to whether there had been any changes in the physical requirements for the armed forces. I am advised that there has been no change of significance in the physical requirements since the hon. member was minister of national defence. [DOT]

War Appropriation-The Army
Then the hon. member for Vancouver South asked a number of questions and quoted a press clipping. He asked whether special instructions had been issued subsequently to November and prior to February 16 by the adjutant general relating to efforts to be made by the district officers commanding to obtain conversions to general service. The only instructions of that kind which have been issued to all district officers commanding is a circular dated January 13, 1945, which reads as follows:
It is important that all concerned understand that an N.R.M.A. soldier may convert to G.S. * any time during his service in Canada or overseas.
2.	It is of importance that as many conversions as possible are obtained before N.R.M.A. soldiers proceed overseas and efforts to that end must be energetic and continuous.
3.	The existing procedure at district depots which is designed to bring soldiers into the G.S. ranks on induction must be carefully examined to make sure that no effort is being spared or overlooked, for experience shows that resistance to converting increases as the soldier enters the training stream and takes on the identity of an N.R.M.A. soldier.
4.	Although a large percentage of conversions should take place at the point of induction, efforts to obtain conversions must continue during all stages of an N.R.M.A. soldier's progress through the training stream and after.
5.	The basis of securing conversions to G.S. from the ranks of the N.R.M.A. must be a plan, and the designing of such a plan, and its operation and supervision, must be considered as one of the first functions of D.R.O.'s. It must also receive a prominent place in the thoughts and duties of all officers and O.R.'s who are concerned with the training or administration of N.R.M.A. soldiers.
6.	G.O.'sC. and D.O.'sC. and commanders are requested to see that all D.R.O.'s and commanding officers are not only acquainted with these instructions, but that they pass them on to all ranks under their command. C.O.'s should be instructed to give this matter their personal attention and guide and assist their officers and men in a continuous effort to obtain conversions.
I am informed that those are the only instructions which were issued between the dates referred to by my hon. friend. With further reference to the N.R.M.A. and supplementing the answer I gave to the hon. member for Lake Centre with respect to conversions of N.R.M.A. men overseas, may I say that for the purpose of computing service for war service gratuities and general service the soldier receives credit regardless of where he is serving from the date he becomes a general service soldier. However, the N.R.M.A. soldier receives his gratuity only from the date he leaves Canada to serve in northwest Europe or the Mediterranean area to the date he returns home to Canada. The advantage gained by the N.R.M.A. soldier in converting to general service status to go overseas or while overseas
is confined to the gratuity for such period of time as he may remain in the service after returning to Canada.
I hope I have made myself clear on that point. Otherwise ,his gratuity dates from the time he serves overseas until the time he returns to Canada. If he returns to Canada as an N.R.M.A. soldier without having become general'service his gratuity is computed on a time basis from the moment he started serving, overseas until the time he returns to Canada, whereas if he converts overseas it is computed' up to the time of his discharge from the service in Canada. There were one or two other questions the hon. member for Vancouver South asked, in particular the hypothetical question as to how many men-


Howard Charles Green: I will not admit it was
hypothetical.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Subject to that reservation, he asked how many men we would have to have if our portion of the army of occupation in Germany were to be, let us say a division. It is impossible to answer that definitely. If it is to be an infantry division, it is public knowledge that the strength of such a division is around 19,000 men. The number required to replace the wastage would depend upon conditions in Germany. If there was some-sporadic figting and men were likely to be shot the rate of wastage would be higher than normal wastage due to illness, rotation leave-and so on. So that it is impossible for me to give my hon. friend more accurate information than that, according to what my officers tell' me. If the conditions of occupation were normal I am told that the wastage would run about one per cent a month, but it is almost impossible to give any useful statement as to what it would be.
As to the position in the Pacific I am able to be even less specific. The strength of a division presumably would be the same, but the number of men required to keep it up would depend upon the part of the Pacific in which the division was operating. Since that division presumably will be operating with the United States forces I am advised that I cannot give any useful figure as to what the rate of wastage may be.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any standard rateof wastage?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It varies a great deal, depending upon whether or not the operations are intense. I understand it is quite a complicated process and I cannot give my hon. friend a more definite answer than that. There were one or two other questions the hon. mem-

War Appropriation-The Army
ber asked, but since some of them involve the preparation of figures they are not available at the moment. If they can be obtained I will put them on the record.


Howard Charles Green: I asked the number of
N.R.M.A. troops who were in a category which would make them fit for service abroad.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have asked the officers to make the necessary calculations, but since I have not received them I assume they have not been able to get them ready.


Howard Charles Green: I thank the parliamentary assistant for giving me these answers. I think it would be helpful to the committee and the cbuntry to sum up the statements of policy that have come out as a result of the discussion this afternoon. I say that the government policy as explained by the parliamentary assistant is extremely unfair to those young Canadians who have been doing the fighting. First, let us take the army of occupation in Germany. This is to be made up of young men now overseas who volunteer to stay on. but, if there are deficiencies in the Canadian commitment they are to be met by detailing men who are now overseas.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend realizes that is far in the future.


Howard Charles Green: We have in Canada at least 30,000 N.R.M.A. troops available for use. If They are not to do any fighting in the Pacific surely they could be sent to Germany to allow The men who have actually been fighting in .Europe to come home.
As far as the Pacific is concerned we must mot take it for granted that there will not be iheavy fighting and heavy Canadian casualties. I hope just as ardently as any member of this committee, and for personal reasons, that there will not be any fighting by Canadians in the Pacific, but we cannot take that for granted. There may be very high casualties; the war has to be carried to the Asiatic mainland, to China and to Manchuria, as well as to the home islands of Japan. It is quite likely that the casualties from disease will be much greater than they have been in Europe, and perhaps as many as 100,000 young Canadians will be involved before the war against Japan is ended. Yet our men who have been doing the fighting in Europe are to be asked to volunteer again to fight in the Pacific. They should neither be asked nor expected to fight for this nation in the Pacific, while there are others in Canada who have done no fighting. Young Canadians in Canada are also to be asked to volunteer for fighting in the Pacific. The call-up system has never
I Mr. Abbott.]
been very fair, but now that the call-up system is to be thrown overboard for the war in the Pacific, this voluntary plan only exaggerates the unfairness. The British have gone at the matter in another way. Here is a clipping dated February 4, 1944, and the heading is: "British man-power to serve until Japan defeated." The dispatch points out that one of the Labour members in the British House of Commons had asked Labour Minister Bevin this question:
When the war with Germany is over, as many as possible of our men will want to come home. Then I suppose volunteers will be asked for to deal with Japan.
Then Mr. Bevin interrupted and used these words:
I think I ought to correct that false impression. There will be no volunteers called for Japan. It is one war and the National Service Act will be applied until the whole thing is seen through.
In Canada exactly the opposite policy is to be adopted if the present government remains in power after the election. The attempt by the call-up system to bring about equality of service and sacrifice is to be abandoned. Our bravest Canadian sons are to die in the Pacific. I hope that the Canadian people will demand that this shall not be. I hope that they will demand that in the war against Japan there shall be fairness to all and favour to none. Only on that basis shall we ever build a united nation.


Mr. McIVOR:: Mr. Chairman, I am not so much concerned about the sending of men to Japan because I think the Japanese leaders are more reasonable than the leaders in Germany, and therefore the war in Japan may be over before the war in Europe.
But I have a question to ask that is burning up a good many people in Canada to-day. Would it be possible for the Department of National Defence and the Department of Labour to get together and order that the sons of farmers now in uniform be put back on the farm? Some of those boys are badly needed on the farm, and on the farm they can contribute more to the war effort than in the kind of work they are now doing. The Minister of Agriculture would tell us that our farmers have been producing far more, with less help than ever before. This was brought home to me most acutely just about two months ago when I requested the officer commanding of a regiment to release a young man, a farmer's son, from service so that he could go home and1 help on the farm because his father was ill and had to be taken to hospital. I did not succeed and the father came out of the hospital before the doctor thought he

War Appropriation-The Army
should have. The next thing that happened was that I was called out to officiate at his funeral service. He had a splendid farm, and now the boy.must be released from service and come back to the farm if the farm is to be held. My question is, would it not be possible for instructions to be given to selective service or to the registrars to have a checkup made of all military camps in Canada with a view to releasing from the service every young farmer in order that he may go back to the farm to give a rest to the old dads and mothers who are badly overworked1 on the farm to-day.
Not long ago I went out to a farm about thirty miles from Fort William. The boy had been killed overseas and his mother wanted to keep the farm for the other boy. She was milking more than nine cows, tending other cattle, and getting the vegetables in, and she was wearing patched overalls. I think something should be done to remedy the farm labour shortage. Our farmers are deserving of consideration. It is of the utmost importance to our war effort and our post-war effort that we should keep on producing to the hilt.
Another question I want to ask is this. When will the registrars for the call-up be notified that no more men are needed? I received word from England that some of our# Fort William boys are just burning up to be the first to get into Berlin, and they cannot get across. But they may be first after all, because it is hard to keep them back. The question I ask is, when will this conscription end? I think the men are not needed now for military service and I should like to see particularly every farmer's son sent back to the farm, which is where they are needed. Their fathers and mothers have attained an age when they should be retiring and having a little rest and a little bit of encouragement.


Clarence Gillis: I am going to change the subject a little. The parliamentary assistant may be inclined at the outset to think the matter that I am going to discuss comes more properly within the purview of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, but if he will bear with me for a few minutes I may be able to convince him that there is something that the Department of National Defence should do in this matter.
I do not know whether hon. members noticed in the Montreal Gazette this morning an item stating that about twenty-five per cent of all discharges from the army were for mental disturbances, psychoneurosis and so forth. That is quite alarming when it is realized that from coast to coast right across this country there is not, to the best of my knowledge, an
institution of any kind where returning personnel suffering from that disability can be placed and properly treated.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not correct.


Clarence Gillis: It is correct so far as the province from which I come is concerned, and if it is not the case in other provinces I should like to hear some members elaborate on just what the situation is, because this is a most alarming development that we have to contend with among our discharged service personnel. The figure of twenty-five per cent given in the Montreal Gazette was taken from the latest issue of the Canadian Medical Journal, and it is an alarming proportion. What I have in mind is this. When the Pension Act was opened for review and related to the new forces in this war, the provision was removed completely that permitted a pension to be refused because of disabilities of a congenital origin. That led me to believe that, this time, service personnel suffering from neurotic conditions who were being discharged from the army would not be just thrown out indiscriminately on the ground that the weakness was there prior to enlistment, though having been aggravated slightly, and pensions refused and treatment neglected and no means provided for institutional care. I thought that phase of the pension machinery of Canada had gone by. Nevertheless you find that men are being discharged for that reason and with the assumption on the part of the board's examiners that the disability was pre-enlistment, maybe slightly aggravated by service, maybe not at all, and that the old scheme which was eliminated from the act by the pensions committee of this parliament is still being adminstered, to judge by the way in which this service personnel is treated.
As pointed out by the previous minister of national defence, in the army at the present time are expert psychiatrists whose duty it is to examine these men and determine the extent of their disability. I assumed, when that is done, provision would be made for their institutional care. That is not being done.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, it is.


Clarence Gillis: Well, the minister can show me where I am wrong. I want to give him a few examples.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must correct my hon. friend on a question of fact.
War Appropriation-The Army


Clarence Gillis: I will give the minister a few examples before I am through. With these psychiatrists, paid by Canadian taxpayers, occupying positions in the Canadian medical set-up in the examination and treatment of service personnel, when cases arise of soldiers coming out of the service after going through the war, many of them discharged for battle exhaustion and similar troubles, these are the cases upon which these psychiatrists should be operating. When a man whose mental condition is impaired is discharged he should be treated by them, instead of being sent back, after four or five years in the army, to civilian life, weakened mentally, thrown out on the labour market to seek employment for himself. If his condition is impaired when leaving the service he will not be out long before he is ready for some kind of institution.
Just before coming to the house I had a visit from a young man who had been four years overseas and had been home for some seven or eight months. I have his name and regimental number. He had not received any gratuity. He had gone the rounds of selective service offices, but mentally the man was in no condition to take employment. Work had been found for him on two or three occasions, but he could not stay after a day or two, He was sent to the regular insane asylum in Halifax, spent some time there and came out. At the time I met him he had no place to stay, no one to look after him, and no funds. He came twenty miles to see me, and at that time he was in such a mental condition that he should have been in an institution with someone to care for him. Nevertheless he was "on the loose". Before my departure from Sydney I left him with the selective service people, so that they might try to do something about his case. In the meantime I endeavoured to start his gratuity coming forward.
I said a moment ago that I do not believe there is in Canada any adequate institution exclusively provided by the pension department to take in that type of case and see that it gets proper treatment. I know there is none in Nova Scotia.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is incorrect.


Clarence Gillis: There is none in Nova Scotia. A commission, known as the Dawson reconstruction commission, has been sitting in that province for several months, probing general conditions; and it would be worth the minister's while to read an editorial in the Halifax Herald of April 4 on public institutions and welfare matters generally. I will read one short extract only on the question 
of the county asylums, which are the only institutions in Nova Scotia to which a case of this type can be sent. It is to such an institution that the man to whom I referred was sent. The report of the Dawson commission cannot be construed as being propaganda for political purposes, since the commission was appointed by the government of Nova Scotia, whose political complexion is the same as that of the federal government. Quoting the report, the Herald editorial states:
"Visits were paid to nine of these local institutions in the course of the survey field-work, and a distressingly wide degree of variation was evident as between the better and poorer county units. Some of the larger ones, more modern in their construction, provided clean, wholesome, comfortable surroundings in which it is possible to give decent and humane custodial care to the inmates; others, particularly the older and smaller units, are dark, dismal, evilsmelling and filthy to the point of almost nauseating the visitor who passes through them. What they must be to the poor wretches who are condemned to live the greater portion of their lives in them cannot even be imagined."
That is the only kind of institution in that province at the present time to care for what are estimated in the latest issue of the Canadian Medical Journal as twenty-five per cent of the disability cases coming out of the .service to-day.
I raised this matter last year because of that type of disability in the air force. The former minister of national defence for air emphasized it and said that it was becoming quite a problem across Canada. I stressed at that time the necessity of institutions of this kind. I am not blaming the Minister of Veterans' Affairs, and I want to caution hon. members that we are not setting up a department to which the whole problem belonging to the three defence departments can be conveniently shelved until after the war is over, and everything blamed on the Department of Veterans' Affairs, because they are not going to be able to handle the problem.
I think it is the responsibility of the national defence departments, whether of the air, the navy or the army. They have experts in the service, along with their medical boards, whose duty it is, before service personnel are discharged, to examine them, determine their disability, assess it for pension purposes, and examine them as to the need of institutional care; for when a young man is going out of the service -with his mental capacity impaired because of war service, the .thing not to do is to send him back to civil life to try to take advantage of the complex machinery set up for rehabilitation purposes, but to see to it that he is placed in a proper institution

War Appropriation-The Army
where he can be adequately treated until he is in a condition to go out and take his place in the hurly-burly of eking out an existence in this country.
I have ran into several cases of this kind, and as a member from Nova Scotia I assert that there is no institution in that province where such problems can be taken care of. I am not expecting that that type of case will be treated in Camp Hill hospital. It is a medical-surgical set-up. It is staffed for that purpose. Experts in that particular line are not there. The institution is not equipped to care for them and the regular insane asylums are not the place for them. I think it is the responsibility of the medical set-up in national defence to see to it before they are routed out, and if the Minister of Veterans' Affairs is correct and there is an institution in Quebec, Montreal or Vancouver, then if a man is being discharged in Nova Scotia and there is no institution there, or in New Brunswick and there is none there, the thing for national defence to do is to see that that soldier, airman or navy personnel is sent to the part of the country where there is an institution. The wrong thing to do is to leave him to roam the streets in the condition in which I found that young man, endeavouring to work out his own problem.


Mr. RAYMOND:: What, is the number of
the Canadian forces at present engaged in the war against Japan? Second, out of the $2,000,000,000 involved in the present resolution the sum of $699,000,000 is asked for army service, as I gather from the statement made this afternoon. Can we get any details with respect to this amount? How is this sum divided?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As to the first question, I
can only say that the number of troops engaged in the war against Japan is very small, consisting of a few specialists, and it is not possible for me to give the actual numbers. With regard to the break-down of the expenditures, the total is $699,235,000 made up as follows:
Canadian army overseas	 $306,543,000
Active army in Canada and adjacent territories	 324,011,000
Reserve army C.O.T.C.'s and cadet
services	 10,363,000
That makes a total of $640,917,000 being the amount for the army and related services, together with the following items:
Experimental station, Suffield	 $	909,000
Internment operations, Canadian
cost	 1,025,000
Inspection board of United Kingdom and Canada	 3.576,000
Departmental administration		706,000
Dependents' allowance board		390,000
Dependents' supplementary grants
fund	 1,703,000
Imperial war graves commission. .	9,000
Military relief	 50,000,000


James Arthur Ross: With respect to the
order that the parliamentary assistant indicated under which N.R.M.A. men can convert overseas, I am not sure that I followed him, but I understand that some of these people have the privilege of converting overseas. I refer to those in Britain.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They all have the opportunity of converting overseas.


James Arthur Ross: At any time and anywhere ?


Douglas Charles Abbott: At any time at all. I dealt with that at some length this afternoon.


James Arthur Ross: How many N.R.M.A. men have actually gone to a battle theatre on the continent from Britain?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot tell my hon. friend that and I am not sure that the information could be very quickly obtained. Certainly it would have to be obtained from C.M.H.Q. in London because we do not have that record here when the men are off strength here and are on strength there. In that event I do not know whether they keep that detail. If my hon. friend wanted it I could have a cable sent over.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I thought I asked for that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That may be included in
the questions my hon. friend asked. If it is, the cable has gone over.


Mr. BRUCE:: I asked that question on
March 19.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, and that is one of the things holding up the answer to my hon. friend's question.


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member for Vancouver South asked a question with regard to estimated monthly requirements for the army. There must be some basis on which you operate. Young men are receiving their draft call to report on the first of May.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will elaborate the answer I gave on that.


James Arthur Ross: Before my hon. friend does, will he be good enought to tell us what requests he makes of the Department of Labour for men as the country is divided into military districts and they send the call for the following months? Can he give us something of the programme month by month? That would fit in with the question asked by the hon. member for Fort William, and information in that regard would give the farmers a lead so that they would know how many more of their boys may expect to be called. The other day I was speaking to certain young chaps who had been called in the last few days and who
War Appropriation-The Army

are now on farms. As they are coming of age their parents are in a quandary, wondering which of these boys who are approaching the age of ISi are to be drafted. Information in this connection would be of great help to many people.


Douglas Charles Abbott: At the present time that is done virtually on a month to month basis. The March quota was 7,500. The department has to notify national selective service a month ahead. I am not sure about the quota for April; I shall have to verify it. It is less than 7,500, but whether 5,000 or 6,000 I am not sure. I have just been informed that it is the same for April, 7,500. It has to be decided each month because, in the condition in which the w'ar is at present, the staff tell me that they do not care to project their requirements more than a month ahead. That is the basis on which we are operating, from month to month.


James Arthur Ross: What is the date for the filing of requests for May? I am trying to get information for these people.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised by the Minister of Labour that the requests for May should be filed to-morrow.


James Arthur Ross: Will my hon. friend
be able to tell us what the requests will be.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I can give that
information a little later this evening.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to have
it because it would be invaluable to people whose sons are coming of age.
There is another question that arises from the remarks of the ex-minister for air. There wras quite a discussion as to the number of senior officers who had been retired on retiring allowances. Can the parliamentary assistant put on Hansard a list of senior officers, those over the rank of lieutenant-colonel, retiring since January 1, 1940, to date, and the retiring allowance or pension granted? I have had questions on the order paper seeking information which the servicemen wanted with respect to pensions or retiring allowances that would be allow'ed the present Minister of National Defence. With respect to his retirement on November 1, 1944, what pension or retiring allowance would he be entitled to and on what basis?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The answer is being prepared. As regards the other information asked for, that also is being prepared and will be put on Hansard.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I quit before I was through, but since we are in committee I can start again. I should like to correct a misconcep-
[Mr. J. A. Rosa.l
tion of a hockey magnate who endeavoured to correct the western' common sense of the hon. member for Fraser Valley when he tried to tell us that a man is not fit for farm work when he is fit to go up against one of the best hockey teams in the senior league. Those of us who [DOT] have gone through the mill in athletics know what it costs in thinking and in physical endeavour to be in shape to hold a place on a team. In the face of that to be told that it is easier to play hockey than to supervise a milking machine or two milking machines does not go down with me. When that same team was at the head of the lakes training, I think, in Port Arthur there was a bottleneck in grain handling at that port. Through the endeavours of the Minister of Labour and his representative there, who was a former member of this house, these young men were taken out of the rink and put to work handling grain. To the credit of the manager of that team they were allowed to do that. It was either do that or no more hockey. The boys did well, and after their work in the elevator and when they got a good bath or rub-down they were just as clean as ever. I just wish to correct the misunderstanding that it takes more energy and more perfect manhood to milk a cow than to play any game.
Mr, DIEFENBAIvER: Since I made my remarks last evening regarding the enforcement of the regulations, and in particular in regard to the matter of desertions from those who were ordered' overseas from the N.R.M.A. army, the parliamentary assistant to the minister has answered this afternoon certain questions which I asked yesterday. I made the statement that there was not the enforcement of the law that there should have been of the men who have been ordered overseas under the provisions of the order in council that was passed last November, but have deserted. I shall now summarize the answers that were given and bring them together under one head. As I see the situation they reveal that the kind of enforcement which is taking place makes a farce of law and order in this country. It is a matter that deserves the serious attention of every hon. member. Laws unenforced, however good they may be, unless there is a serious attempt to enforce them, it causes a disrespect of the law everywhere and among all citizens.
The parliamentary assistant to the minister gave a list of the numbers who deserted from the various provinces and from the various military districts. I have summed up the records on a percentage basis. This summary is based upon the records set forth in Canada

War Appropriation-The Army
at War, November issue, 1944, No. 12, at page 47. There is set out in detail by military districts the composition of the 42,000 N.R.MA. men. suitable for employment as infantry as at that time. The records show that in Ontario, military districts Nos. 1, 2 and 3, there were 10,250. According to the answer given by the hon. member this afternoon 450 of that number deserted, or 8-6 per cent. That figure is based on the number actually called up, namely, 3,916. By "called up" I mean called up and directed overseas.
Next comes Quebec, military districts Nos. 4 and 5. The numbers that were available and suitable for infantry was 16,300. According to the answer given this afternoon, 4,791 were ordered overseas from those districts and 2,400 deserted, or just over 50 per cent. In the maritimes, districts Nos. 6 and 7, there were 2,600 available for overseas service in the infantry. Of that number 988 were ordered overseas and 100 deserted, or approximately 10 per cent. On the prairies, from military districts Nos. 10, 12 and 13, 10,000 were suitable for infantry service; 4,899 were directed overseas and 1,000 deserted, or 21 per cent. On the Pacific there were 2,850 available; 1,342 were ordered overseas and 150 deserted, or 11 per cent.
That is a serious situation. It is a record of desertions that merits the serious attention of all who believe in a proper and fair enforcement of the law. What is being done in the matter of enforcement? I cast no aspersions on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who operate as well as they can. having regard to the number of men they have in some of the provinces; but I ask you, Mr. Chairman, is there any serious endeavour to locate the over 4,000 deserters who are still at large in this country?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course there is.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course there is.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I point out that on February 2 the defence department announced with considerable pride that the number of deserters had then been reduced from 6,300 to 4,631; therefore on February 2 last there were 4,631 of these men who had not been located.


Mr. TRIPP:: How do those figures compare with the last war?


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad the hon. member has asked that because I have the records here and I shall deal with them. I did not intend to, but I will actually put on the record now the numbers who were sent overseas and generally the record in that regard.


Jesse Pickard Tripp: The number called up.


John George Diefenbaker: I will come back to that in a moment. I have not the number of call-ups, but I often hear it said that so far as the adoption of the draft in the last war was concerned it sent few men overseas.
I have the records here, month by month.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think Canada's record in respect of absenteeism compares favourably with that of any other of the warring nations.


John George Diefenbaker: I am only taking what General McNaughton said. I have shown this record with respect to the draft, a record ranging from 50 per cent down to 8-6 per cent of desertions.
Mr. ABBOTT; I am getting tired of this blazoning of Canada as a nation of deserters.


John George Diefenbaker: This is not blazoning Canada at all; this is pointing out the facts. I am trying to present my argument fairly, and I am pointing out the fact that there is no serious endeavour on the part of the government to enforce the law.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I deny that, and I deny it most emphatically. I can make an assertion just as well as my hon. friend can.


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly the only difference is that I supply the evidence.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What the hon. member thinks is evidence.


John George Diefenbaker: I am supplying the evidence.


Mr. GRANT:: Tell us about the guns.


John George Diefenbaker: And it is from the records of the department.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Tell us about the rifles they threw ovefboard.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are you still in the sea about that?


Humphrey Mitchell: Tell us about private Smith who tossed his rifle overboard.


John George Diefenbaker: Unfortunately I
cannot hear those undertoned interruptions of the Minister of Labour.	*


Humphrey Mitchell: What I said was this: Tell us about Private Smith, who tossed his rifle overboard-the only plank in John Bracken's platform.


John George Diefenbaker: You tell us about that. I am telling about records of the government. I am not dealing with matters such as those to which the hon. member has referred. But if we can have order restored I shall proceed.
War Appropriation-The Army

The parliamentary assistant has said that this is a good record. General McNaughton has said-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I wish my hon. friend would not misquote me. I used no such worcfe.


John George Diefenbaker: General McNaughton said quite the reverse. As a matter of fact a newspaper article, referring to what he said in connection with desertion, states this, in the issue of January 24:
It was all right, he said, for 6,300 of those designated for overseas service to desert.


Mr GRANT:: What did Bracken say?


John George Diefenbaker: It continues:
"It served to screen out the good from the bad."


Thomas Vincent Grant: What did Bracken say?


John George Diefenbaker: And then General McNaughton said:
"I had a feeling that a proportion of them were all right, but a good high proportion were neither good to God nor man."
That is what the minister said. That is quite different from what the parliamentary assistant has said.
On February 2, there were 4,631 deserters. The number at the end of March, sixty days later, was 4,082. In other words, in a matter of sixty days, with all kinds of offers that had been made, and with all the endeavours the government has put forth, the number who have been found comes to around nine a day. That is not good enough enforcement. That is not serious enough enforcement.
I know the parliamentary assistant is as anxious as anyone to have the. law properly enforced, and I should like to ask him this question: Why is not the widest publicity given respecting the names of these men? Are those who commit this very serious wrong in a time of war to be punished, regardless of when they are actually located?
Originally, on January 26, a public announcement was made by the department setting out the dire penalties wrongdoers would receive-


Richard Burpee Hanson: That they were liable to receive.


John George Diefenbaker: -and setting out
the nature of the offences against military law. Then, a little later, there were other advertisements. When these nien are located, what punishments are being meted out to them?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Nothing; all is forgiven.


John George Diefenbaker: The total number of punishments by way of court martial is around seventy. I ask the parliamentary assist-
ant to advise us what punishments were imposed by way of summary trial, particularly those imposed here in Canada by commanding officers. He says he has not the information from overseas. Certain questions were asked over two weeks ago by the hon. member for Parkdale, and they have not yet been answered. We are told that the information cannot be procured from overseas. But the information in Canada is available. Let us know, in the committee, just what penalties are being imposed here in Canada.
That covers, generally, the matter of enforcement, one which is now serious, and one which requires not derision but action on the part of the government, not ridicule but the whole force of public opinion designed to ensure that the law shall be enforced.
*Then, did the resignation of Major-General Pearkes have anything to do with the question of enforefement of the law? W'hat were the circumstances connected with his resignation? That information has not yet been made public. It was alleged by one member of the government that General Pearkes was deliberately holding up the war effort of this country. That statement has not yet been denied by any other member of the government. There is one man who. can deny it, and that is the representative of General McNaughton in this chamber. General Pearkes has the right to receive from General McNaughton, through ' his representative in the house, a repudiation of any suggestion such as was made against him recently.


Jean-François Pouliot: A general has not the right to be insubordinate.


John George Diefenbaker: What is to be done about the question of enforcement? What is the number of enforcement officers now operate ing to enforce the law in each of the military districts?
When the parliamentary assistant has covered these matters I shall deal with certain others. If the hon. member for Assiniboia wishes to have the record with regard to the last war I shall be glad to put it on Hansard. From January 1, 1918 to December of that year 71,550 were sent overseas. The number of draftees who were enrolled during the entire period was 83,355. According to the director of the historical section of the Department of National Defence the number who went overseas was approximately fifty per cent of the number actually enrolled, namely, some 42,000.

War Appropriation-The Army


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many of the zombies got to the front? Not one of them has got to the front who has not volunteered.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: How do you
know?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have
been after that information for three weeks and they will not tell me. Therefore I have a right to make a deduction.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member for Lake Centre has asked two or three things, one being the question of making public the names of those who are absent without leave. I have taken a note of his remarks and the department will consider the advisability of doing that. I am not prepared to say anything more at the moment.
Then there is the question of General Pearkes' resignation. That took place before I became associated with the department but my understanding is that it was at his own request. If I may interject here I should like to say that the resignation of officers of high rank is quite a different thing from what applied to rear-rank gunners in the last war. The higher rank officers are permitted to resign but we were not.
Mr. DIEFENBAiKER:	That does not
answer the question.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that there is anything I can add to the statement which has been made public that General Pearkes retired at his own request.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He denied that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not seen that he has denied it; I have not seen any denial by General Pearkes. Can my hon. friend show me any such denial?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understood he gave an- interview that he retired at the direction of the department.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He did not give an interview to me and I have never heard General Pearkes say that.
Then on this question of deserting I repeat what I said a moment ago. My hon. friend is perfectly within his rights, as is any other hon. member, to discuss this matter at any time, but I should like to point out one thing. When the estimates of this department were before the committee last February it was stated that at that time there were 11,000 men who were unaccounted for, and it did
not even cause a ripple. Nobody asked any particular questions about enforcement and so on. Everybody knows that out of six or seven hundred thousand men many will go absent without leave and since this is a large country they may not be found.
Yesterday I gave the total number of 18,000 as the cumulative total of men who were still absent without leave. I may say that that figure compares favourably with the figures of the armed forces of any other country. Personally I am getting a little sick of this constant harping on this matter in our own country. A friend of mine who was in the United States tells me that Canada is being talked about all over the United States as having an army of deserters. It seems to me that we have had pretty nearly enough of that, and I am expressing only my own personal feelings.


Mr. ESLING:: War Appropriation-The Army
them in the future. One nurse states that she wants to take a health course at the university of Toronto and she would like to know if she will be entitled to it. Apparently there is no provision for benefits of any kind. They enlisted voluntarily but they claim that they were in the dark as to the payment they were to receive, as to maintenance deductions and as to gratuities when the war is over.
Many of them have signed up for the duration while others have come home. Then there are others in the central Mediterranean area. While they enlisted for service in South Africa, to-day they are nursing Canadian and other allied soldiers in Italy and other parts of the Mediterranean area. I feel justified in asking the parliamentary assistant to see that a definite statement of policy is made on the status of these nurses.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thank my hon. friend for bringing this matter to my attention. It is not a matter with which I am personally familiar, but I shall look into it and see if it is possible to make an announcement along the lines that he has suggested.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Mr. Chairman-


John George Diefenbaker: If I may just reply to the remarks-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I think the hon. member for Vancouver East has the right to speak according to the list of speakers I have.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I rise to a question of privilege.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I do not see any question of privilege.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Certainly the hon. member has a right to rise to a question of privilege.


Angus MacInnis: What is the point here?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Are you running the house?


John George Diefenbaker: I rise to a question of privilege.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Before the hon. member states his question of privilege may I say to the hon. member for York-Sunbury that the Chair has tried to be fair to every member of the committee. At the present time there is quite a long list of members who wish to speak and I want to be fair to those members. After all, each member has the right to speak but that cannot be done all at once, but by alternating one after the other.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member for Lake Centre rose to reply to the parliamentary assistant and he was stopped

by the Chair. He then said, "I rise to a question of privilege," and the Chair said "There is no privilege," which is altogether wrong.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The Chair did not say that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The record will bear me out unless it is changed between now and to-morrow, and that has happened lots of times.	.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I deny having used those words.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I heard them.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise, Mr. Chairman, to a question of privilege. My hon. friend sought refuge from answering the arguments I endeavoured to place before him by trying to leave the impression that it is I who raised the question of desertions. Let me point out this fact to him, that the man who first raised the question of desertions in this country was General McNaughtOD on January 26, when he pointed out how serious things were in view of the fact that 6,300 recruits had not turned up.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I pointed out that the question of desertions was raised in this house last February.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If the hon. member for York-Sunbury will look up Hansard of February 28 he will find that a list of desertions both from general service and from N.R.M.A. was tabled that day by the Minister of National Defence.


John George Diefenbaker: No one had raised the question of desertion in this house until the parliamentary assistant last evening as reported at page 578 of Hansard, took a page and a half to explain what to the people of Canada is unexplainable. He endeavoured to show what the situation was and gave statistics showing the number of desertions, and now when he is asked "IVhat are you going to do about it except talk?" he seeks refuge in abuse.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I gave that information yesterday because the question has been made a political issue in this country by my hon. friend and his supporters.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Tory machinations-that's all it is.


Angus MacInnis: If I can have quietness for a little while we might get on to something that matters. Something that matters

War Appropriation-The Army
to me is the question that was raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South a little earlier, and I had hoped that the parliamentary assistant would have made some sort of reply. I am convinced that the argument and the plea made by the member for Cape Breton South are worthy of a reply. I do not think we shall be able to settle all the problems that confront this country within the next five or six days that this house may be in session, but there are several very important matters on which we should be assured that proper steps are being taken to deal with them before this session ends, because it will be some time before parliament meets again. If the people of the country know that these important matters are being looked after, the smaller matters will take care of themselves.
I think it is of the utmost importance that the five or six hundred men-it may be more or fewer-who have served in this war and who are suffering mentally or emotionally because of their service should be looked after properly. That is far more important than that we should raise a hullabaloo about those who have not served at all. I am not defending deserters. I think they should be apprehended, if possible, and made to perform their duty to the country. But the point that was raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South was with respect to men who have performed their duty to their country and who are allowed to roam at large with no one to look after them in their difficulties. That is the point.
Fairly early in the war I brought such a case to the attention of the Minister of Pensions and National Health. A young soldier who became mentally deranged1-and there was no institution at that time, I do not know what there is to-day-in which this man could be put and cared for except an insane asylum, either on the east or the west coast. After a short period of treatment this soldier's mental health was restored' and he has remained so.
We should be assured, before this session ends that proper provision will be made so that ex-servicemen who are mentally or emotionally upset because of their war services will be properly cared for. If a person is ill or injured his condition is apparent on even a superficial examination, but that is not the case with a man who is mentally unbalanced or emotionally unstable. He may seem all right to-day but under a trying set of circumstances he may collapse altogether. His condition is more difficult of detection than injury or illness, and because of that he may
not be as sympathetically dealt with as a person who is ill or injured. I know the parliamentary assistant is personally sympathetic to these cases. I know also from actual experience of the sympathy of the Minister of Veterans' Affairs with cases of this kind. Indeed, I believe the general impression in the cabinet is that he is too sympathetic; they do not want him to be as sympathetic as he is. But the point I wish to make is that we should be assured that proper provision will be made to take care of these cases because very shortly -I hope before we meet again-our men will be coming back from overseas in great numbers. Not only will there then be more cases of this kind, but conditions in the country itself-the difficulty of finding employment and of making their way in a competitive world- will be much harder than they are now. I trust that some reply will be made to the hon. member for Cape Breton South for his able presentation of the case.


Douglas Charles Abbott: First I should apologize to my good' friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South for not replying to his remarks. I listened to them with a great deal of attention and a great deal of sympathy, as I did also to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East, but I do not really think they would expect me to make a statement of government policy to-night. I do say now that I listened very carefully to what was said on the subject; I shall bring the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Vancouver East to the attention of the minister and members of the government, and I express the personal hope that they will receive favourable consideration.
While I am on my feet I should like to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Souris as to the proposed call-up for the month of May. I am authorized by the Minister of Labour to say that the requisition for that month is 5,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are there not institutions where servicemen who are mentally or emotionally upset can go for treatment? I was astounded to hear the statement made that there was none. I understood that there were four or five of them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I
did not reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton South at the time because I intended to defer a considered reply until my own estimates, if they are ever reached, were before the committee. I must, however, take immediate issue with him on the general statement

1 War Appropriation-The Army
he made. Hon. members of this committee know very well from their experience that, no matter how good your legislation may be, dealing with any type of soldier or sailor or airman who has served his country, there will be a case or two in a community which does cause just criticism. But I tell the hon. member that the question of the treatment of nervous cases has received in the last two or three years the most careful attention, not only by the Department of Veterans' Affairs which succeeded the former department of pensions and national health, but in practically full cooperation with the three defence services and their medical staffs.
May I sketch very briefly this evening-I shall elaborate upon this later on-the measures which have been taken? In the first place, the Department of Veterans' Affairs has commenced something which has never been done in this country before, in relation to the type of case mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver East as a slight emotional disturbance. We have begun already the provision of health and occupational centres for the treatment of the type of nervous case in which the man has lost his confidence or, may I say, desire for employment-one of the most difficult types of nervous disorder. We intend to have one of these centres in every province.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was promised a year ago. You have not done anything.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, yes, we have. Three of these are actively under construction, and as I have said, it is intended to have them in every province. The basic idea is that there shall be about twenty small, unpretentious buildings, with farm land attached, that there shall not be overmuch discipline, but opportunity given to these lads to do voluntary work with a view of restoring their confidence and their desire to work in an ordinary way. This is largely based upon the successful experiment which has been carried out by the workmen's compensation board of Ontario. That is the first and the easiest stage. The average period of treatment for these cases is only about six weeks.
Then we have in some places special treatment centres organized upon the recommendation of the war-time committee on hospitalization, which represents not only the department over which I preside but the directors general of medical services of the three defence services, and meets, I think, two or three times a week and is giving constant attention to this question as it affects the dominion as a whole.

The question of neurological centres was raised in this house last year. These are for surgery cases, and we are expanding treatment centres for this class of case.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where are
they?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre)1: They are located at the present time in five centres. I believe that one is about to be established in the maritime provinces, and we have them at various hospitals in the west. This is an activity which must be extended all across the dominion.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South stated that there is no centre in Canada for the treatment of what I think he termed neuropsychiatric cases. I wish to tell him that two years ago we sent our medical experts to Great Britain, where they have, at Mill Hill, the most famous institution of its kind in the world for the treatment of the very cases he described. We have established a place at Scarborough Hill, fifteen miles from Toronto, where I spent three hours last Saturday speaking to the men who were there undergoing treatment. According to the medical experts the work being carried out there by Canadian specialists in neuro-psychiatry ranks with anything that is being done in any part of the world. The results have been marvellous. The number of these men who have been restored to the capacity and desire for employment is most encouraging. No doubt some few years hence, or sooner, we shall have to extend these facilities to other centres of Canada.
The last and most unfortunate of all these varieties of nervous case is the mental type. As hon. members are aware we have and have had for years our own institutions, dominion-owned, where the most expert treatment is given to such cases. Very often we need to cooperate with provincial institutions, and I must say that all provincial governments have cooperated with this department in the most exemplary way for the better care of these cases. I believe the institutions in the provinces, practically without exception, are doing splendid work.
I have touched as a layman

I hope, without saying anything which is medically wrong-upon the four great types of nervous disease with which the Canadian people must be concerned for many years to come. It so happens that unfortunately there is a good deal of truth in the first part of my hon. friend's statement, that a greater number of the returned men who are coming back for treatment are suffering from nervous complaints than from surgical complaints. They

War Appropriation-The Army
are, as he said, most difficult types to restore to normal activity and a normal view of life. That is a problem that parliament will have to deal with when many of us are not here. It will remain with us for twenty-five or thirty years. I am sure that, whatever the personnel of the next parliament, whatever the political complexion of the next government, [DOT]they must keep on with this work, they must expand it, so that every man who has been wounded in his mind shall, if possible, get as much care, comprehension, consideration, sympathy and help as the man who has been wounded in his body. The wounds of the latter are visible to the eye; they can draw ready attention; those of the former are unseen, but they are wounds of a kind which I am certain will always have the kindly attention and the full sympathy of this parliament of Canada.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will give a chance to the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Clarence Gillis: I want to thank the hon. member for Temiscouata for his courtesy. I merely wish to say that I am more pleased now than .ever that I raised this matter. The department is intending to do something; the centres the minister speaks of are under construction; other facilities are being organized. What I am concerned about is that the end of the war in Europe is approaching; we may be faced with demobilization in a few months, and there are numerous cases at present in the part of the country I come from that are not in a position to get any institutional treatment. If, as the minister has pointed out, there are institutions in- the centre of Canada where this type of treatment is available, I say that national defence, in discharging this type of personnel from the service, are falling down on their job by not routing this type of case to the centre which the minister says is available and is doing laudable work in Ontario. I did not know anything about it; I am very glad to hear of it, and I would urge that national defence boards, when dealing with personnel that are leaving the service, instead of sending this type into the street should be routing them to the centre which is established. I am very glad to hear the minister make the statement.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: With respect to what the former minister said this afternoon, does not the parliamentary assistant think that, as regards the men taken into
the army, their medical is lowered in connection with "S"? They used to be taken in "S-2" and now that is "S-5".


Douglas Charles Abbott: I answered that earlier this evening.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That would affect them to this extent that it would mean that the men discharged from the army would in many cases, be mentally unfit.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not want my hon. friend to suggest, and I do not think he intends the impression to go abroad, that the standards of the army have been lowered and that, therefore, there are likely to be more mentally unfit discharged. The standards have not been lowered. I made that clear at the opening at eight o'clock this evening.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But it has been lowered to "S-5".


Douglas Charles Abbott: There has been no appreciable change in the medical ratings since the hon. member for Prince was minister of national defence. There has been some rearrangement of the pulhems system which I must confess- I do not understand. I am advised by the officers of the department that there has been no real change in the medical standards.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: In the transfer of men to Scarborough Hill, from the point of view of dependents' allowance, is there a break whereby they are changed over in their status? I had a case brought to my attention this week where two months elapsed before the wife and children got the allowance. I was calling the matter to the attention of both ministers so that there -would be no recurrence of this. It was a serious case but it has been straightened out.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will take a note of my hon. friend's remarks.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It would depend largely on whether the cases have been discharged. If so they are in our care and entitled to corresponding benefits and allowances under the Department of Veterans' Affairs.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have profound admiration for the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. His job is a most ungrateful one, and I cannot conceive how experienced members of parliament can assume responsibilities which are not their own, to defend the management of a department over which they have no control whatever. Although the parliamentary assistants
War Appropriation-The Army

who are at present incumbent as such have done exceptionally well, I still find that their situation is absurd, especially when there are ministers who hold several portfolios. The parliamentary assistants should be promoted and should have the responsibilities of the departments which they are called upon to defend in the house. My hon. friend the member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Abbott) has done very well. He has answered questions very well but there are two points which have stuck me. With regard to the question that has been asked by the member for Peterborough West regarding medical category, everyone has read the official Gazette. The changes that have been made to the classifications in connection with pulhems are known to everyone.
Now to be unfit a man has to be nearly dead; he must be just as dead as this parliament. A man must be at least moribund. It is an ungrateful task, sir, to fight for the underdog. There are underdogs in the army; there are underdogs in civilian life. Those people are humble. Sometimes they are not afraid to speak, they are too shy. They need someone who loves them as fellow citizens to take up their defence and there is no better place to take up their defence than in this very House of Commons.
Well, now, the ratings with regard to grading under the pulhems system have been changed. They have been changed all through. They have been amended many times since they were first passed, so much so that a man who would have been rejected by the army as unfit two years ago when the pulhems tests were instituted is now kept in the army to do fatigue work, to wash the floors, to shovel the ashes, fire up the furnace and do things like that. It is absurd. When these men have a particular trade which is essential to the war effort they are kept there. They are specially trained in their occupation, a training that is most useful to the war effort and yet they are kept in the camp to do some common work that could be done by a man who is lame, who has one eye, who may have goitre and who may be unfit. Very often these men would do a much better job in civil life but they are kept in the army. It is impossible to get them out. Why? Because each sick man is one more soldier. It is not the ability of the man; it is not his fitness that counts; it is a question of numbers, one more man. Here we are. Let us keep him. It is impossible to let him go. And sometimes men have been kept in hospital under observation for more than a year. They were of no use to the army, they
[Mr. Poulict.l
were of no use to the country; they were paid and they were there under observation. I wonder if it takes a year of observation by the doctors of the army to decide if a man is fit or unfit.
But there was something worse. I have heard my hon. friend speaking of deserters. I know why some boys are deserters. They are not all deserters. Not long ago I wrote to the Department of National Defence and mentioned the case of a man who was reported to me as a deserter. Afterwards they realized that it was a mistake of those keeping the files in the unit. That man was not a deserter at all, but because of the stupidity of the officers in charge of his unit he had the stigma of a deserter attached1 to him. He was no more a deserter than General Crerar, but he was so called.
Do you think, Sir, it is very interesting for a farmer who has never been out of his village to be called to the army or called back to the army when he knows that a cousin of his has been sentenced to two years in the clink because he had been out of his unit for three months? The matter was mentioned to the parliamentary assistant to the minister. It was not interesting for him or when any farmer knows that a man who is an agronomist and who is unfit was considered1 as fit by the medical asses of the army and Was told to report. He did not. He was caught by the police and sent to the clink for nine months, and after his sentence was through was brought back for another medical examination and was found unfit. If the doctors had been competent that man would have been considered unfit for the army in the first place. He would ' not have been called a deserter and he would not have been a deserter.
Another thing, sir. Those men who are in charge of units are not all of the same type, but they are independent of each other and are free to interpret the regulations as they see fit. One says black; another says white. The third one says black, and another may say black or white. The rulings of the commanding officers are just as varied as the colours of the rainbow. But there is something worse. There was the classical case of a man who was suffering from a heart condition. It was indicated by the heart specialists on the pulhems sheet. It was erased by the chairman of the board. The man was sent to his unit afterwards. He reported to his sergeant that he was sick. The sergeant laughed and jeered at him, told him that he was a faker because his sheet was white. There was no indication of his heart disease on his sheet. He was sent to bed. He asked for the priest and the doctor. They were

War Appropriation-The Army
refused and he was found' dead in his bed the morning after. That is a fine inducement for a boy to enlist in the army when he knows about it.
I asked for one investigation. The investigation was a tragic farce. It was not under oath. I ask the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount to have an investigation at which I want to be present to ask the chairman what happened there, so that the department gets rid of all these fake mortar-board doctors. That is it, and after all' this the boys will know all about it and they will be glad to enlist. They would enlist when they know it is impossible for many French-speaking Canadians to have officers who speak their own language. They need interpreters to communicate with their officers. They are bullied; they are sent far away from home.
We are told we are in a free country. But they are put close to the wall, and those who do not want to volunteer must move one step backward. They cannot: the wall is there. They are humiliated. When victory loan parades are held, they cannot attend. They must endure all sorts of humiliations.
Then, afterwards, we hear hon. members, like the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) complaining about the deserters who come from one part of the country, the province of Quebec. He has always that province of Quebec in view. It will not help him. The hon. member is one of the brightest of our colleagues, but I regret most deeply that he does not .make better use of the gifts with which he was endowed by Providence. He could do much useful work to promote the bonne entente, to promote what is called national unity. But instead of that he plays always on the same string of his false violin. It is most saddening. I like the hon. member, personally; but I cannot conceive his jumping up, like a jack-imthe-box, when he has something in mind about the province of Quebec which, in his view, is the black sheep of confederation. That is a fair interpretation of what he says.
The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) leaves the same impression, and the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) the same thing. They give the impression that all the people of Quebec are untouchable, in the true Hindu sense, that they do not realize their duty, that they do not fulfil it, that the province of Quebec is the backward province, that the French Canadians are a bad lot, that they are ruled by the priests, that they speak a tongue that should not be spoken in this country, and that they are all isolationists.
That is the impression one gathers from the speeches of those hon. members-and it is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because we are bound to live together; we are bound to be in the same boat. And I cannot see how we of Quebec are to be thrown overboard, as some kind of Jonah.	_
When I see hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party, fine fellows, including those I have mentioned, I cannot understand why some of them do not protest against what is said by members of their party, and tell them that they are wrong. I invite them all to visit the province of Quebec and to come to my county. I invite them to meet the soldiers who have returned from the front, some badly wounded, some walking on crutches, some with glass eyes, and some with other disabilities. I want them to meet the relatives and dependents of the soldiers from Temiscouata who have died overseas, and others who have been decorated. I want them to meet the relatives of soldiers who have been, decorated for gallantry in the front line.-not only soldiers, but aviators and airmen. I want them to know about the soldiers and airmen who seldom get the promotions to which they are entitled, and which they deserve, but which are given to others. And why does that happen? Because in many cases they do not have French-speaking officers who put their names on the honour list.
And that is not all. With reference again to deserters; it was not the hon. member for Lake Centre who asked the Minister of National Defence, Mr. McNnughton, to see to it that the case of the soldier who dealt with the bomb which would have destroyed St. Paul's cathedral in London was considered. It was not the hon. member for Parkdale or the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough who mentioned to the Minister of National Defence that Sergeant Philip Konowal, V.C., of the Canadian Army, had not received the treatment he deserved, or who pointed out the shame of his having to clean spitoons and closets in the basement of the House of Commons-a man who was awarded the Victoria Cross by King George V, himself. We should be ashamed of that! I introduced the matter to the Minister of National Defence, who told me he would do something for him as soon as the reinforcement matter was attended to. But he did not realize that the best way to attend to the reinforcement matter is to make all grievances disappear, to hand out justice and fair play to the men who have come back from the army, to respect them and to give them jobs according to their valour.

War Appropriation-The Army
What is inscribed as a motto- on the Victoria Cross? It is "For valour". And the same thing applies to Major Triquet, who was a sergeant at Valcartier, a career soldier. I recommended him to the brass hats of the Department of National Defence, and they answered me that he was not the kind of timber from which officers are made. But everybody was honoured to shake hands with him. That was the answer I got from those people who have positively no war record, who have never been in any theatre of war, but who have won two wars in the capital city of Ottawa-wars and promotions.
There might be a certain amount of snobbery in that. There is a man who is a fool, and who is a brigadier over there in the judge advocate general's branch. He is a Tory, and he is boosted by the Tories; it is impossible to say anything about him. But he is a fool, nevertheless.
There are other fellows who suffer humiliation, and who are not treated as they deserve. They get nothing. I fight for them, and I shall continue to fight, for them. I shall continue until this parliament dies, and after it is dead-if it is not renewed-


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: -I shall go to Yorkton, and continue there. I will tell the people of Canada why we have to fight for the underdogs, so that they may be rehabilitated, and so that they may be treated in the manner they deserve, and as heroes should be treated.
I shall have something more to say, but I want to give everyone a chance.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Speaking last night briefly to the committee, I introduced a subject which I feel is of importance such as to warrant my pursuing it a little further this evening. The matter I was referring to was the plans that must be made fairly soon to bring back the men and women who are serving in Europe. I said last night, and I emphasize it again, that it is a quite apparent fact that the one abiding desire of the men serving in Europe, once the war is over or their particular task is terminated, will be to return to Canada, to their homes and to the familiar scenes they have been away from for so long.
I have been delighted to note that in this debate the great majority of the questions directed to the parliamentary assistant has been in connection with the welfare and rehabilitation of these men about whom I am speaking. All these matters are of great importance, and when they come back and are settled in civilian life these matters will be the things they will be most concerned

with. But upon the conclusion of the war these men will have an immediate and a natural desire to get home as quickly as possible.
In the conduct of our war effort we have profited greatly by the experiences of the past, and I am hopeful the government will display the same vision in dealing with the task of bringing home these men and women. This is something in the nature of an inter-allied problem. The problem facing the United States will be much larger than our own and perhaps the general problem will have to be approached on the basis of cooperation among the allies.
We have to keep in mind that the war with Japan may continue and that there will be a great demand for world shipping. We know there is a shortage of shipping even now to provide for the movement of men and supplies. Even when these ships are not needed to carry materials of war they will be needed to carry supplies, foods and other necessaries to the liberated countries of Europe. So that we may have to search elsewhere for a solution of this problem.
The thought has struck me that if we have not ships and crews to bring back these men we have planes and aircrew quite capable of doing a goodly portion of this particular job. The science of aviation has found it possible in this war to move great numbers of troops by air. Air-borne troops have played an important part and in all likelihood they will be called upon to play an increasingly important part in this war. But on the cessation of organized hostilities we shall probably find we have a great surplus of planes. It is quite true these will not all be suited for the transport of human beings, but at least some of them could be fitted up and made suitable to assist in the task of bringing back our men from Europe.
Let me make another suggestion. Of all countries in the world Germany has perhaps developed the transport plane to the greatest extent and of the largest possible size. Upon the cessation of hostilities there should be great numbers of these transport planes formerly owned by Germany available to the allies. It seems to me that the Canadian government in cooperation with other allied governments should see to it that these planes are made available to Canada, to the United States and perhaps to other allies for the purpose of assisting in relieving the shipping shortage and getting our men back as soon as possible.
The Canadian makes a remarkable soldier. In the face of danger or in the face of the

War Appropriation-The Army
enemy he accepts discipline because his mind tells him that discipline is necessary for the achievement of the task he has to do. But when the task is done, when there is no clear-cut purpose in sight, he shakes off that necessity for discipline; he becomes restless and inclined to resent having to take orders, much more so than the soldier of those countries where the war tradition is stronger. We may have the same problem we had in the last war if we delay too long in bringing home those who are not needed to complete the job in Europe.
I hope that not only the Department of National Defence as represented by the parliamentary assistant, but the Department of National Defence for Air, the Department of National Defence for Naval Services, the Department of Reconstruction and any other department that has to do with this problem will see to it that plans are carefully laid for the bringing back of the greatest number of our men from Europe as speedily as possible after the task there is done.


Mr. ISNOR:: I doubt if the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Breton South were worthy of a reply, but I was pleased indeed when the Minister of Veterans' Affairs replied so fully and completely to the hon. member. I do not think the hon. member for Cape Breton South was quite fair to his native province when he intimated in his remarks that there was no institution capable of taking care of mental cases from the armed forces.


Clarence Gillis: I said, "equipped."


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Or equipped; I will add that. Evidently he is unaware of the hospital facilities that exist to-day in Nova Scotia. His remarks w'ould almost lead one to believe that not only was he referring to hospitals dealing with mental cases, but he was referring also to all medical institutions throughout the province.


Clarence Gillis: I was quoting the Dawson report. That body was set up by your own government.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member has a habit of always interrupting. He read an editorial from the Halifax Herald. I think that was a fine editorial. However, when he read one particular paragraph he did so in such a way as to make the statement apply to all institutions, whereas it applied only to the smaller ones. I would suggest that he read the editorial again. I would refer the hon. member to
the report of the Nova Scotia hospital for the year just closed. He will find that there were 101 cases sent to that hospital by the armed services. The hospital is situated on the eastern side of Halifax harbour. It is very well equipped to handle mental cases. It has an ideal situation with beautiful grounds, and the whole surroundings are such as the minister had in mind as to bring a measure of comfort to those who are so unfortunate as to return in a mental condition which does not make for the best type of citizen. We hope that through the medium of these institutions, particularly the Nova Scotia hospital, these men will be able, after treatment, to take their proper place in the life of our community. For the benefit of the committee and in fairness to Nova Scotia I think I should place on the record the number of cases that were treated at the Nova Scotia hospital last year. I find that from the army there were forty-two cases; from the navy twenty-six; from the air force nine; merchant marine twenty-four; ex-servicemen other than those in the forces, eleven; making a total of 101 eases treated during the past year.
I would also remind the hon. member for Cape Breton South that since the outbreak of the war 325 cases have been handled by that institution, so that w'hen he makes a statement that we have no such institution in the province of Nova Scotia, he is hardly being fair to his native province.


Clarence Gillis: That is an insane asylum.
That is exactly what I am objecting to. An ex-serviceman has no business in an insane asylum, and if my hon. friend is satisfied with that, I am not.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I approach this question in
somewhat the same manner, although from a different angle, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South; that is, from the point of view of a layman. There are, of course medical men representing constituencies in Nova Scotia who can speak more expertly than the hon. member for Cape Breton South or myself on this question, but I think it is generally recognized both by laymen and1 the medical profession that the Nova Scotia hospital is well equipped, not as the hon. member would say to handle insane cases alone, but rather as a mental institution. True, it -was years ago referred to as an insane asylum, but to-day that term has gone into disuse and the hospital is now referred to as a mental institution.


Clarence Gillis: What is the difference?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: There is a big difference.


Clarence Gillis: What is it?
War Appropriation-The Army


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: My hon. friend might be a mental case but not insane. I do not mean that in a personal way, but, just in answer to my hon. friend's question. It applies equally well to myself or anybody. The Nova Scotia hospital has an exceptionally fine staff, consisting of a medical superintendent, an assistant medical superintendent, an assistant physician, a business manager, a dental surgeon, a consulting specialist, eye, ear, nose and throat, a superintendent of nurses, and a splendid staff of nurses, male and female, and day and night attendants.
This institution handled 841 cases last year, with an average daily number of patients of 403. I think the information I have given would lead any fair-minded person to say that we have in Nova Scotia at least one fine mental institution in Halifax hospital, apart from many others which are also giving splendid service. The Nova Scotia hospital treats patients throughout the province but is located in Halifax county. I felt in fairness that I should reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton South so that the record would be clear with respect to the situation in our province.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Chairman, as one of the medical men in the house, having listened to so much wisdom on medical matters from laymen, I think it is time that one of us spoke. I have noticed four or five other medical men present who have not yet participated in this discussion. For a time, as I listened to it, I thought I was attending a meeting of the Canadian Medical Association.
I find myself in agreement with what has been said by the Minister of Veterans' Affairs in regard to the attention which the subject raised this evening has been receiving from medical men in connection with the medical service, and I am sure that it will receive the same keen attention from the members of my profession in the Department of Veterans Affairs. I might point out that the former director of medical services, General Chisholm, is an eminent psychologist, thoroughly familiar with all the cases that have been referred to here this evening. If there is any man in Canada competent to handle that work now and after the war it is General Chisholm. So that I do not think we need have any fear as to the medical treatment of these patients, who, I quite agree with the member for Cape Breton South, are distressing cases and deserving of every consideration. I am confident that they will receive appropriate treatment and that arrangements will be made to take the very best care of them.
I hesitate to add any more encomiums to those already expressed on the splendid way

in which the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence presented his report yesterday. I was particularly impressed by the knowledge he seemed to have acquired in such a short space of time and by the clarity with which he presented it to the house.
May I say, to begin with, that I agree with all the praise he gave to the great service that is being rendered by our armed forces. We are all very proud of what they have done, and when he read the citation of that gallant soldier, "Smoky" Smith, I am sure that all our hearts were touched. It was a marvellous record of initiative, courage, endurance and cleverness to have accomplished what he did, and we share with all Canadians in pride at his great achievement.
I should like also while I am on this subject, because of a remark made by the hon. member for Temiscouata, to say that we were equally thrilled by the citation of Major Triquet, to whom he referred, another man who received the V.C., from the province of Quebec. I must say to my hon. friend that he is quite wrong if he thinks I have any particular grievance against the inhabitants of Quebec. I have many friends amongst the French Canadians living in that, province, and I admire them as citizens. Any criticism that I have ever made has not been of the French Canadians as such. It has been because leaders have educated them to believe that they would not have to serve in this or any other war under compulsion. In that respect they did a great disservice to this country. There is no doubt that national unity would have been promoted if during all these years they had been told that the privileges which they enjoy as citizens of this country, of freedom and sharing our natural resources, carried with it the responsibility of defending this country against aggression such as we have faced during the past five or six years.
Speaking of V.C.'s, I should like to present to the parliamentary assistant a petition. It is a very short one, and was sent to me to-day by one of the V.C.'s of the last war, an imperial veteran; I refer to Harry H. Robson, who is sergeant-at-arms in the legislature at Toronto. He submits the petition on behalf of himself and other imperial army V.C.'s, of whom there are four. H. H. Robson served in the second battalion of the Royal Scots Regiment; L. C. J. Toombs served with the Liverpool Regiment, Sergeant Best with the first battalion of the Derbyshire Regiment. All these are non-commissioned officers. He gives also the name of Captain H. Geary, V.C., East Surrey Regiment. All these men have resided in Canada for over twenty years; they have

War Appropriation-The Army
brought up their families here; they are paying taxes here, and he submits that Canada should take over the obligation of the very small yearly indemnity which is paid them. I am not sure of the amount, but it is small.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Ten pounds.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: It would relieve the British
government of the payment and the recipient would get it in Canadian money without the deduction because of the low exchange rates which obtain at the moment. I present that to the parliamentary assistant for his favourable consideration.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be very glad to see
that it is considered.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I inform my hon. friend that until last year all the amounts paid to holders of the Victoria Cross were from imperial sources. Last year this house altered that as far as Canadians were concerned; the amounts were increased and they are being paid now by the treasury of Canada.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Do you mean to Canadians?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Canadians, yes.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Those who are Canadian citizens now? Then it should apply to these men?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not yet, but there was an alteration made last year by this parliament.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I am anxious that it should apply to these men in the future.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I see the point.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: It seems to me a reasonable request.
Another item is that there are many units to which the prefix of "royal" has been given; for instance, the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps. But there is one unit, the Canadian Armoured Corps, which does not bear this distinction. I suggest to the minister that he might take the necessary steps to have this corps designated as the "Royal" Canadian Armoured Corps.
I wish to ask the parliamentary assistant with regard to a question to which I referred earlier to-day, which was asked on March 19 and which he said he could not answer in toto without getting reports from overseas. I quite understand and appreciate that. But there are two or three questions here which he did not answer in his report yesterday or to-day and to which I think I should have replies eitheT
now or on the next occasion. I do not think question No. 4 was answered, which is, how many of those A.W.O.L. are classed as deserters?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can give my hon. friend that information now. I have some of it here. There are 3,323 N.R.M.A. soldiers belonging to units which have proceeded overseas who have been struck off the strength as deserters pursuant to findings of courts of inquiry, and who have not surrendered or been apprehended. That covers the answer to question No. 4.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Then No. 5, I think I can work out the answer from what the parliamentary assistant said to-day.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I have given most of that information.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Yes, I think you have. No. 6?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have given that information, namely than seventy have been tried by courts-martial.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: And you have given the answer to No. 7. There remains the question of how many of these draftees got away with their rifles and their ammunition.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can answer that, as it happens: about one hundred and forty men who have been reported absent without leave were in possession of rifles. None had ammunition.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: And the next question follows naturally: have such rifles been recovered?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am able to answer that: 126 rifles have not been recovered. I am sorry to say that the other questions require information from the other side which we have not yet received.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I shall hope to receive the answer during the next week.
In the statement of the parliamentary assistant he made a comparison with what happened in the last war. May I remind him that we then had between four hundred thousand and five hundred thousand men overseas, included in five divisions, of which four served in France and the fifth remained in England and was broken up as reinforcements.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: These four divisions were
used in France as the Canadian Corps under Sir Arthur Currie. In this war we have five divisions overseas, as I understand, with 285,000 men serving.

War Appropriation-The Army


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I explained in my statement, we have five divisions, two of them armoured divisions; we have two armoured brigades, and two heavy artillery groups, I think they are called, and several groups of specialists, engineers, signals and the like.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: What are called ancillary
services?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are ancillary services in addition to that, but these are definite establishments.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The point I was wishing
to make is this. In 1911, three years before the last war, the population of Canada was 7,206,643. The population of Canada in 1941 was 11,506,655. This means that the population at the beginning of this war was practically sixty per cent more than at the beginning of the last war, and for that reason Canada should be able to supply a larger number to the armed forces. I have not taken into account here, perhaps the air force and the navy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I might say to my hon. friend, if he cared to use it in the development of his argument, that broadly speaking our total enlistments and enrolments in the three services are now over a million, about a million and twenty or thirty thousand.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Over a million?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Well, I have not added up
the number in the air force in the last war, so that the disparity, according to the figures which the hon. gentleman has given me, is not as great as I had thought at first, and I think it is a creditable showing for Canada.
I wish to lend my voice in support of what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver South, in the sentiments he expressed regarding the war in Japan. It was disheartening to me to learn from the Prime Minister that when our men who have served in the European theatre of war return home they will be asked to volunteer to fight in the Pacific. Those men have served anywhere from one year to five years overseas. They have been separated from their families and loved ones for a very long time and all of them have done this on a voluntary basis. When they come back I feel quite sure, if I know those boys, and I do know many of them, they will not be satisfied until they have volunteered to fight in Japan or in the Pacific in order to finish this war. For, after all, the conclusion of hostilities in Europe will not by any means finish the war. One or two members have said today that the war in Japan may end before.it 
does in Europe. I am afraid that is wishful thinking. I have had occasion to talk to a number of men who have seen service in the far east in this war and who have an1 intimate knowledge of what is going on in the vast expanse of the Pacific, and their opinion is that the war in Japan will not be finished under a year and a half or possibly two years. It means a long and difficult time before that treacherous race i.s subdued. They can easily ge( away from their own small island. Some years ago I visited Japan and China and am familiar with that part of the world. The Japanese can move into China, Manchuria, Manchukuo, which they took from China some years ago, where they have munitions factories established at the present time. I feel sure they can carry on the war for a long period.
We are committed to fight in the war against Japan and I should think something more would' be excepted of us than just a token force. The minister for the navy has said that a considerable naval force will be sent to the Pacific ocean, and I understand that squadrons of the air force will also be sent; but in addition to that, in the final work of winning the war, an army is necessary. I think that has been clearly demonstrated in subduing the forces in Normandy, Holland, Belgium, and now by what is going on in Germany.
It does not seem to me to be fair or just that we should leave the burden upon those young men who have already done such gallant service in Europe. Many of them are young; many of them have not established themselves in any career. When they come home they will have to find some occupation. It is quite easy to talk about full employment after the war, but I have not seen any plans yet that would1 cause me to believe that is assured. I hope it may be for these returned- men, but we have in Canada some 35,000 able-bodied men in the home defence army, and it seems to me that, before we ask those who- have stood the strain, of war overseas for a period' of two or more years to go abroad again to fight, we should1 send this home defence army to fight in the Pacific.
That would seem to be only a reasonable request, and, therefore I was greatly disappointed1 -when the Prime Minister announced the other day that it was not his intention to do so.
There is another point. Is this home defence army to be demobilized in Canada when the war in Europe is over? If so, will they take all the jobs that are offering? If that is the case, then it will be more difficult for the men who have served overseas to

War Appropriation-The Army
find anything to do when they return to Canada, aind in this regard it is unfair and unjust.
I should like to see equality of service and equality of sacrifice, and I believe that we shall never have unity in Canada until that is brought about. I will not prolong this debate further. Mr. Chairman.


George Hugh Castleden: I am sorry that the
member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is not in the chamber at the moment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He is getting ready to go
and help you in your election.


George Hugh Castleden: Anyway, he has been
sent an urgent invitation and I hope he accepts it. I have always enjoyed his remarks in the house, but when he casts aspersions upon members in this group, about not fighting for the underdog or not knowing what the soldiers' problems are, the record will speak for itself to all fair-minded people. If you look over the membership of this house you will find among our members those who served in the last war and who know what some of the problems of the soldiers are.
There is one question I wish to take up with the hon. member in charge of the department and this is with regard to demuster-ing. In the past six months there has been a great deal of remustering in Canada and overseas. There is a considerable feeling of resentment. I dealt with this matter in connection with the air force estimates, but in the army itself, when soldiers are remustered, often against their will, from other branches of the services into the infantry, they do not mind making the necessary move. But they do feel badly when, after having spent sometimes several years in training for special work in the air force and having received trades pay and promotion to corporals, sergeants, warrant officers and even commissioned officers, they find on remustering that these ranks are often taken away from them. Is it the policy of the Department of National Defence to bring these men down and have them revert to the ranks, cancel their trades pay and all their promotion when they are remustered to the infantry?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, I will make inquiries as to the point raised by the hon. member and try to give him an answer on Monday. I cannot do so at the moment. Of course these men are soldiers and they have to do what they are told and go where they are sent.


George Hugh Castleden: It seems unfortunate and does not seem right to these men. I believe it affects the esprit de corps.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will not discuss it now because I should like to discuss it with the adjutant general and see what the present policy is.


George Hugh Castleden: While the parliamentary assistant is doing that, will he get the number of men who have beeen remustered from other units into the infantry in Canada?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Since when?


George Hugh Castleden: Since last November; the same with the overseas men, both on the European and Italian fronts.
The next matter I wish to deal with is one that was brought to my attention. I have not the figures and facts completely, but it is in regard to the number of officers in the Canadian Army who during 1942, 1943 and 1944 were surplus to Canadian requirements and have been on loan to the British army. How many of these men have been transferred or are on loan to the British army? What period of training have these men had with their new units or their British units prior to going into action, and the number of casualties, both wounded and killed, of those Canadian officers on loan? What I want to get at is whether or not these men were given the proper period of time in training with their British units and whether thej' became properly acquainted with the personnel of those units so that when they did go into action they understood the men and the men understood them? As the parliamentary assistant knows, that is a very important matter.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Would the hon. member care for an answer to that now?


George Hugh Castleden: If you have it. yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In the fall of 1943 there was an acute shortage of junior officers in the British army, and the Canadian forces, not having been engaged in intense action had a favourable supply of officers. In order to give Canadian officers who desired service in an active theatre of war the opportunity of proceeding overseas at an early date, the possibilities of lending a number of junior officers to the British army was explored. By February, 1944, an agreement had been entered into with the British war office whereby Canada would lend whatever officers could be made available for service with the infantry of the British army. This was later extended to embrace a limited number of ordnance officers. Generally the terms of the agreement were that applications for service with the British army would be voluntary and

War Appropriation-The Army

officers were to be lent until such time as their services were required by the Canadian army. To facilitate their return if the need arose, service with the British army was restricted to the European and Mediterranean theatres of war. Officers on loan were to continue to draw their Canadian rates of pay and allowances, and the Canadian government would be responsible for pay, pension claims, et cetera. The war office agreed to accept Canada's selection of officers and retain them for a minimum period of three months. A special officers' training centre under the command of Brigadier Milton F. Gregg, V.C., was set up at Sussex, New Brunswick, and all officers volunteering for loan proceeded there for training and final selection prior to dispatch overseas. Between April 8 and July 9, 1944, a total of 623 infantry and fifty nontechnical ordnance officers disembarked in the United Kingdom. Infantry officers were immediately posted to field units or utilized as first line reinforcements, and individual officers were given the opportunity of serving with British units with a Canadian affiliation or with their friends if they so desired.
This loan of Canadian reinforcement officers to the British army was carried out at a very opportune time, and a large number took part in D-day operations. Their conduct in action has been most exemplary and their service with the British army considered a worthwhile contribution to British Canadian postwar relations. The following is an extract from the report of the Canadian loan liaison officer:
All formation headquarters were high in their praise of Can. loaned officers and D.A.G. rear headquarters, 21 army group said that they were not only pleased but well pleased with the Can. loan material and that they would gladly absorb all the infantry officers that could be made available to them.
I cannot give my hon. friend any information as to the casualties among those officers, but I will make inquiries and see if we have any separate break-down for that.


George Hugh Castleden: Does that include the number of officers who were transferred from Canadian units in England to British units on Canadian loan, or were there any?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not that information, but I will get it and give it to the hon. member on Monday.


George Hugh Castleden: Another matter that I should like to refer to is in connection with the number of men who are now serving on the Italian front who have had more than two and a half or three years' service in Italy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The number of men with more than two and a half years' service in the Italian theatre of iwar?


George Hugh Castleden: Who are still there.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will have to get that information and give it to the hon. member.


George Hugh Castleden: I have one other question which interlocks with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It has to do with soldiers' estates after discharge. I understand that on the death of a soldier the estates branch turns over the gratuity which he might have earned to his estate. What would happen in the case of a man who is discharged and is on one hundred per cent pension, but who had not received his gratuity allowance? Suppose the man died; what would happen to his gratuity? Would the Department of National Defence open up the estate of this man or would it be left to the Department of Veterans' Affairs?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The authority for the payment of the cash gratuity has been delegated from veterans' affairs to the various ministers of national defence; that is the cash part of it. The reestablishment credit part of the gratuity still remains directly under the Minister of Veterans' Affairs. In the case of a man who died or was killed a year or two years ago, that will be handled by the appropriate defence service. The application would have to be made by the person to whom his estate went in accordance with the terms of the legislation passed in, I think, 1940.


George Hugh Castleden: That application would not necessarily come from those who were receiving his portion of assigned pay?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under the legislation of last year those who qualify under the regulations of the dependents' allowances, and those who are partly dependents under the category receiving assigned pay were entitled, but that was considered to be too limited. Now the cash gratuity of a deceased soldier, sailor or airman, goes to the person designated as next of kin in his estate.


George Hugh Castleden: That applies also in the case where the soldier has been discharged and has been on pension for say a year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Alfred Henry Bence: In connection with that point I understood the parliamentary assistant to say this afternoon that in the case of the application of the next of kin or the one who

War Appropriation-The Army
is entitled1 to the estate under the will, it will have to be made to the Department of Veterans' Affairs.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This afternoon I was only referring to the application by the soldier himself generally. But my understanding is that, in virtue of the order in council which was passed the other day, payments are to be handled by the Department of Veterans Affairs.	'


Alfred Henry Bence: That is the point I am making.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct. I am so informed, and I think the minister of Veterans' Affairs will confirm it.


Alfred Henry Bence: But that is contrary to what the Minister of Veterans' Affairs told the hon. member for Yorkton.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Alfred Henry Bence: He said that it would be handled by the estates department of the particular branch, and that the application would be made to the estates department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The records of the terms of the estate as designated by the deceased may be in the possession of the defence services. These must be communicated to the Department of Veterans' Affairs before the appropriate payments can be made.


Alfred Henry Bence: Do I understand in connection with all these estates that the appropriate branch, whether it be army, navy or air force, will advise the Department of Veterans' Affairs as to who is designated in the will to receive that particular estate, and that will be done automatically?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The information, so far as it js indicated in the terms of the will, will be communicated. But there might be cases where the information is not given. My instructions from the officials are to the effect that persons who have been designated in the terms of the estate must make application.


Alfred Henry Bence: In connection with that point, in view of the fact that each department has its record of deceased service men, the person designated in the will should be advised of the fact of entitlement to war service gratuities. I say that because I believe *there are a great many, even under the legislation as it stood before the passing of the order in council, who were not aware of the fact that they were entitled to war service 32283-41J
gratuities in respect of a husband or son who had been killed. I am hopeful that each branch of the service will communicate with such persons and advise them that they are in a position to make application, or that the department will turn their cases over to the Department of Veterans' Affairs.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That very point has already arisen in connection with the payment of gratuities, where allowable, under the legislation of last year. In some cases applications were not made. But I know the army paymaster took very strong action. Where he thought there was a good claim he notified the people concerned' directly.
Then it was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver South that there might be some cases where those entitled to benefits might not wish to apply for or accept them. I was trying to emphasize that you must have a combination of notification to entitlement by the department concerned, and also give an opportunity to those who do not wish to avail themselves of the benefits to refuse such benefits if they so desire.


Alfred Henry Bence: I am surprised to hear the minister say that, because in a number of cases with which I came in contact no notification had been given, and they had no idea they were entitled.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was corrected later on.	[DOT]


Alfred Henry Bence: I understand notice will go>
out now as a matter of course.


Gordon Graydon: Would the parliamentary assistant give the committee some information respecting the policy of the department in connection with the provision of quarters for those in army personnel who are married? Would he indicate where such quarters have been given, and at what cost has the provision of quarters for married personnel in the army been carried out? I am anxious to have that information from the parliamentary assistant.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be glad to have that information on Monday.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I should like to make
some extended remarks respecting the health and welfare of our fighting forces, and particularly in regard to the establishment of a pharmaceutical corps. However, I could not complete what I have to say in four minutes, and I would therefore ask that we call it eleven o'clock.

War Appropriation-The Army


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for Parkdale wished to ask a question.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I just wished to correct a statement made by the parliamentary assistant, possibly because of a lack of medical knowledge. He stated yesterday that the casualties have been fewer because of improved treatment, and improvement in medical services. I agree that the treatment has been excellent in this war. and that there has been a great improvement over what we had in the last war, because of new drugs, such as the sulfa drugs, penicillin, and dried blood. Casualty clearing stations have been carried up close to the front line. All this has resulted in earlier and better treatment. They have not diminished the casualties, but many lives have been saved.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What I really said was-and I believe Hansard will bear me out-that deaths following wounds are very much fewer than they were in the last war.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: There is no question about that.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, April 9, 1945