1945-10-29

VETERANS' QUALIFICATIONS

Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copy of the report of the Royal Commission on Veterans' Qualifications which was established under joint recommendation of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of Labour, pursuant to the provisions of P.C. 2486 and P.C. 3342. This report is in three parts: the first interim report, the second report, and a list of recommendations.
The commission was composed of the Hon. Wilfrid Bovey, of Montreal, as chairman, and four other commissioners, including representatives of labour, the Canadian Legion, and the Department of Labour. Many sittings were held throughout the country, and the reports I think indicate that a good job was done in regard to there being proper recognition of the training of personnel in the armed forces upon their return to civilian life.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) moved:: That the petition of Andrew Prem-Das, presented on the 22nd instant, and the petition of Beatrice Lydia Ogulnick Goldin, presented on the 25th instant, each praying for a bill of divorce, together with the reports of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for the, purpose of considering the suspension of standing orders 92 and 93 (a)	(b) and (c) in
relation thereto.
He said: If I am in order, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement on this motion with reference to information that has come to me, I desire to do so, as I think it advisable that this information be given out. It is as follows. While I consider, judging from past practice, that this is an appropriate motion to lay before the house, I wonder whether it will be of any value to the persons concerned, by reason "of what might be termed a sort of traffic jam in divorce. I understand from officials of the other chamber that there is a large number of divorce cases to be presented to us in about three weeks, and that, by the time that is done, the number will have further increased very considerably; therefore it is possible that we may never get to the point of these cases being disposed of. It might be . well if the public were to know that, in order

Judges Act
that interested persons could save themselves money perhaps by changing their plans at the present moment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce a bill to amend the Judges Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Mr. Speaker, this bill
would add a new subsection to section 28 of the Judges Act, which is chapter 105 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927. The authority for legislation such as that proposed in this bill is to be found in section 100 of the British North America Act.
The purpose of the proposed addition is to provide that any judge of a superior court of any province or of the Yukon Territory who continues or is continued in office after attaining the age of seventy shall have his salary reduced to an amount equal to that which he would receive by way of retiring allowance if he were retired at seventy, less any sum which he might receive from a provincial government by way of other remuneration. The new salary rate would commence when the judge attained the age of seventy years, or on the first day of September, 1946, whichever is the later date. In the case of a judge appointed prior to the passing of the bill who would not be entitled to a retiring allowance if retired at the age of seventy, the operation of the act would be postponed until he is eligible for a retiring allowance.
This bill is similar to one which was passed by the House of Commons on May 10, 1933, but which was rejected by the senate. Apart from the effective date, the bill is exactly the same as the one passed by this house in 1933, but for two differences. In the first place the former bill stipulated seventy-five as the age at which provisions of that bill were to apply, whereas this bill stipulates the age of seventy. Secondly, the former bill made an exception in the case of judges not eligible for retiring allowance at the stipulated age whether appointed before or after the passing of that bill. In this bill the same exception is provided, but only in the case of judges appointed prior to the passing of this bill.
I may say that this bill is offered as a reasonable way of effecting a desirable change pending amendment of the British North America Act.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would draw to the
attention of the hon. member the fact that I am under the impression that this bill is out of order, because it involves an expenditure of money. So I rule the bill out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
that you defer your judgment until you have looked into it? It actually reduces the amount of money that the government would have to spend. I would point out also that the bill was allowed when I introduced it last year; it was given first reading by the house on March 6, 1944.


Ralph Maybank: Was it a private bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


James Horace King: As I have said, I believe that the bill as drafted deals with public expenditures, and therefore is out of order.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Who is the sugar controller?
2.	What authority has he to regulate supplies?
3.	From whom does he, get his supplies?
4.	Does the origin of his supplies represent the sugar cartel?
5.	Does the sugar cartel include all the sugar producing countries of the world?
6.	If not, what countries or major producers are excluded?
7.	Have any representations been made to the sugar controller or the government to sell sugar for Canadian use by countries other than those included in the sugar cartel, e.g., Peru and other South American countries?
'	8. If so, what reason is there for denying
Canadians this extra amount of sugar? '
9.	Has the government any knowledge of the quantity of sugar available in the united nations' countries which is not included in the sugar pool?
10.	What is the amount?	[DOT]


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	S. R. Noble is the sugar administrator.
2.	Order in council P.C. 2851 of October 3, 1939, and P.C. 3223 of October 21, 1939, as amended by P.C. 1983 of April 15, 1940, P.C. 2358 of April 4, 1941, and P.C. 6329 of July 21, 1941, and by order in council P.C. 545 of Janauary 26, 1942.
47696-100i
Questions

3.	At the beginning of the war, the Canadian government entered into agreement with the United Kingdom government whereby the United Kingdom Ministry of Food through its sugar controller would act as joint purchasing agent for Canada and the United Kingdom.
4.	Subsequent to the entry of the United States into the war, over-all sugar control for the three countries was vested in the combined food board and allocations of sugar are fixed by that body.
5.	Allocations by the combined food board do not include sugar from all sugar producing areas in the world but only from and to those areas which are net exporters and importers respectively. Central and South America are excluded as this is taken to be a self-supporting area as a whole.
6.	The only major exporting countries not included in the combined food board allocation are Peru and Brazil.
7.	Offers of sugar have been received from persons purporting to represent owners of Peruvian and Brazilian sugar.
8.	No extra sugar would have been available for Canadian consumption if these offers had been accepted. In order to make sugar available to liberated Europe and Asia, the governments of Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom agreed in the spring of 1945 to limit consumption to 70-8 pounds per head per annum. If the offers of Peruvian and Brazilian sugar had been accepted, Canada would have had her allocation from the Combined Food Board correspondingly reduced.
9.	The government has no complete knowledge of the exact quantities of sugar production in Peru and Brazil, but their exportable surpluses are deemed to be available for the deficiency countries of Central and South America.
10.	Answered by No. 9.


SYNTHETIC RUBBER-POLYMER CORPORATION
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What is the cost per pound for the production of rubber produced by the Polymer Corporation Limited?
2.	What are the prospects of this corporation being able to supply the demands of Canada for rubber during the next three years?
3.	How many pounds of rubber were produced, (a) since January 1, 1944; (b) sinee January 1, 1945, to date?
experience, a representative cost for the two types made at Sarnia has been established as
folIows:	Replacement
Unit cost	reserve	Total
cents/lb.	cents/lb. cents/lb.
GR-S	(BunaS type) 14-21	2-75	16-96GR-I	(Butyl	type). 15-97	2-75	18-722.	This plant will be able to amply supply for Canadian requirements during the next three years and also have rubber for export.3.	(a) Total rybber production since January 1, 1944 to September 30, 1945 by types is as follows:GR-S (Buna S type)	
1341206,019 lbs.GR-I (Butyl type)	21,281,452 lbs.Total	
155,487,471	lbs.
(b) Since January 1, 1945 to September 30, 1945:
GR-S (Buna	S type)	62,381,081	lbs.GR-I (Butyl	type)	15,081,487	lbs.
Total
77,462,568 lbs.


SURPLUS WAR ASSETS-POLYMER CORPORATION
Mr. MURPHY:: [DOT]
1.	Did the Polymer Corporation Limited sell or dispose of any buildings, machinery or equipment during the past year?
2.	If so, what are the particulars, including prices and the names of the purchasers?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	To September 30, 1945, Polymer Corporation Limited released to War Assets Corporation, buildings, machinery and equipment to the value of $1,757,740.31, and machine tools to the machine tool and war service committee to the value of $208,761.28. These transfers were made at cost to Polymer Corporation Limited. Direct sales and returns to manufacturers were made by Polymer Corporation Limited to the value of $144,861.47.
2.	Particulars on the volume involved are very voluminous. In general it might be said that the transfers consisted of construction camps and buildings no longer needed and surplus construction equipment and material. It was released as in answer No. 1 above and any further sales would be made through those agencies except for the relatively small amount sold by Polymer Corporation Limited.
h.m.c.s. "iroquois"-refitting


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	The exact cost of production of synthetic rubbers is subject to the normal variations of any manufacturing industry but, based upon


Mr. LENNARD :: 1.	On w-hat date did H.M.C.S. Iroquois arrive at Halifax naval dockyards for refit?
2.	When will this refit be completed?
3.	What is the estimated cost for this refit?

Questions


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	22nd June, 1945.
2.	15th November, 1945-completion was originally scheduled for 15th September, 1945, but due to the collapse pf Japan and more pressing work, completion was deferred to 15th November, 1945.
3.	$235,000.


POLYMER CORPORATION LIMITED
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What is the total cost to date of the plant, buildings, lands, etc., of Polymer Corporation Limited?
2.	Who are the directors of said corporation?
3.	What is the salary of each director and/or other officer?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	$50,826,001.41.
2.	Mr. D. W. Ambridge, vice president of Ontario Paper Company Ltd., Thorold, Ontario, president; Mr. G. A. LaBine, president, Eldorado Mining & Refining, Toronto, Ontario, vice-president; Mr. W. R. Campbell, president, Ford Motor Company of Canada, Windsor, Ontario, director; Mr. A. C. Guthrie, president, Simmons Limited, Montreal, P.Q., director; Mr. J. A. Hodgson, broker, C. J. Hpdgson & Co., Montreal, P.Q., director; Mr. A. J. Crawford, international representative, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Toronto, Ontario, director; Mr. J. R. Nicholson, managing director, Polymer Corporation Ltd., director. #
3.	The directors receive no salary, except Mr. Nicholson in his capacity as managing director and treasurer of the company. He receives an annual salary of $25,000.
The other officers of the company and their salaries are as follows: Mr. G. C. Weir, controller, $4,800 per annum; Mr. Ian P. Cameron, assistant treasurer, $4,800 per annum; Mr. W. J. Dyke, secretary, $3,200 per annum.


VETERANS' LAND ACT-REGINA DISTRICT
Mr. McKAY:: 1.	What is the number of applications made by veterans of this war for settlement under the Veterans' Land Act in the Regina regional district for, (a) small holdings; (b) farm lands?
2.	How many of these applications have been, (a) rejected; (b) approved?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1. The total number of applications for qualification received by the Regina regional office up to September 30, 1945, was 681. Information is not available as to how many of these veterans desired full time farms and how many small holdings.
2. (a) 80; (b) full time farming, 223; small holding, 40.


AIR FIELDS OBTAINED FROM THE UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MENARY;
1.	How many air fields did Canada obtain from the United States?
2.	Where are they located?
3.	What was the cost to Canada of each field?'
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I understand that the-Department of External Affairs has referred the hon. member to the Votes and Proceedings August 1, 1944, No. 112, where there is as an appendix full information on the matter inquired about in this question, and that the-hon. member is prepared to drop the question.
Question dropped.

Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: 1.	What countries have contributed to the organization known as UNRRA for the distribution of relief?
2.	What countries have benefited therefrom since the establishment of the organization and, in each case, to what amount?
3.	Have the countries benefiting therefrom contributed to the relief fund, and to what amount?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1. Australia Bolivia Brazil Canada
Dominican Republic Haiti Honduras Iceland India
Mexico New Zealand Panama Paraguay Peru
Union of South Africa United Kingdom United States Uruguay
The following countries have initiated steps-towards a contribution:
Chile	Egypt
Colombia	El Salvador
Costa Rica	Nicaragua
Ecuador	Venezuela
Every member country contributes to the administrative expenses of UNRRA.
2. To the end of September, 1945, the estimated dollar (US.) value of supplies shipped' by UNRRA to liberated areas, on the basis of vessels cleared (a), landed- cost, was as follows:
Albania	 $ 8,974,000
Czechoslovakia	 73,855,000
Greece	 189,756,000
Italy	 21,051,000'
Poland	 89,889,000-
Yugoslavia	 143,638,000	1
Other UNRRA operations (b)..	2,720,0001
China	 622,000-
Total

Questions

(a)	These figures cover the cargoes of the vessels which actually sailed (cleared) from their ports of loading. They do not include cargoes on ships which presented for loading (berthed) during the period but had not yet cleared. September, 1945, marked a heavy increase in shipments due to the termination of the war and the resultant release of supplies and shipping facilities.
(b)	Includes shipments to UNRRA camps, shipments under the emergency relief programme for western Europe, and shipments for displaced persons operations; does not include supplies estimated to amount to $10,000,000 taken over from military authorities.
3.	By resolution 14, approved at the first session of the UNRRA council at Atlantic City, th'e council recommended "that each member government whose home territory has not been occupied by the enemy shall make a contribution for participation in the work of the administration, approximately equivalent to one per cent of the national income of the country for the year ending June 30, 1943." By resolution 38, all countries which are members of UNRRA agreed to contribute to the administrative budget of the administration in set proportions. The following substantial recipients of UNRRA supplies have contributed to the administrative budget as
follows:
Czechoslovakia	 $175,000
Greece	 87,500
Poland	 175,000
Yugoslavia	 122,500
China	 875,000
The countries of western Europe which received UNRRA supplies under the emergency relief programme for western Europe, also contribute to the administrative expenses of UNRRA. They are not, however, recipients of UNRRA supplies on a large scale, since they did not apply to UNRRA for relief supplies and finance their own purchases.


OLD AGE PENSIONS-AGE OF APPLICANTS
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	In the establishment of the age of applicants, for old age pension, are the records of the dominion census bureau available to clerks of municipalities through whom old age pension applications are made?
2.	What are the limitations on the information available?
3.	Are the census records of the year 1931 available?
4.	If not, why not?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No limitation in the information made available to clerks of municipalities, but it is not given to individual applicants.
fMr. St. Laurent.]
3.	Details respecting individuals for old age pension purposes are not available.
4.	Under section 15 of the Statistics Act it is not permissible to divulge information respecting any individual. The Old Age Pension Act, section 18, provides, however, that "any pension authority shall have the right for the purpose of ascertaining the age of any pensioner to obtain without charge-any information on the subject of the age of such pensioner which may be contained in the returns of any census taken more than 30 years before the date of the application for such information."


RESEARCH ENTERPRISES LIMITED-CORNING GLASS COMPANY
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: 1.	Did the management of R.E.L. pay money, in the shape of salaries or other grants, to one or more employees of R.E.L. for the time taken while they were in the United States visiting Corning Glass company, preparatory to employment with a company in Canada?
2.	If so, who authorized these payments?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
^HOUSING-EX-SERVICEMEN-PLUMBING FIXTURES


Mr. LOCKHART:: Why are plumbing fixtures and such, presently in closed airport buildings and other government enterprises, not >made available immediately to complete veterans' homes rather than be required to pass through the channels of the War Assets Corporation?


Mr. HOWE:: This question is framed in such a way that an exact reply is difficult. The reason plumbing fixtures are not taken out of a building as soon as it has ceased to be used is that it is first necessary to determine the future use of the building, and whether the plumbing will or will not be required in that building to meet such future use. There is the further obvious fact that not everyone can be empowered to sell government property. Machinery has been set up for the sale of government property through War Assets Corporation and all sales are centred in that corporation.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	How much money has been expended by, or through, the wartime prices and trade board (by years) since it was established?

_______________Questions as Orders for Returns
2.	How much of such money (by years) has been expended on salaries and wages?
3.	How many persons are employed by the wartime prices and trade board?



RADIO BROADCASTING-HAVANA AGREEMENTS

Mr. ROSS (St, Paul's):: Under the North American regional broadcasting agreements of 1941, known as the Havana agreements:-1. How many clear channels, regional channels and local channels are now assigned to Canada for class IA, IB, II, III, IV stations?
2.	What is the frequency of each?
3.	What is the minimum and maximum power of each channel?
4.	How many of them are now occupied?
5.	What stations occupy them?
6.	What power are they using?
7.	What channels are exempted from the use of minimum power?
8.	WTiat stations since 1939 have applied for an increase of power, and what power was applied for, and what power increase was granted?
9.	Has application been made since 1939 for the use of unoccupied channels?
10.	If so, what power was applied for?
11.	What is the minimum power of the unoccupied channels?
12.	What stations have applied for permits to experiment or otherwise in frequency modulation, television, facsimile?
13.	Have any permits been granted?



WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What are the names of the officers of Wartime Housing Limited?
2.	What salary does each official of the company receive?
3.	What other employees aTe engaged by this company ?
4.	Where are these people located and what are their duties?
5.	What wages or salaries do these people receive?
6.	What office or other space is rented by this company?
7.	What rents are paid for each property?
8.	What, if any, expense account was allowed to any officer or other employee of the company ?



WELLAND CHEMICAL WORKS, NIAGARA FALLS

Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What was the total amount spent by the government on, (a) capital expenditure; (b) maintenance expenditure at Welland Chemical Works Limited, Niagara Falls, Ontario, to date?
2.	What is the present estimated value of this plant?
3.	What materials, and in what quantities, have been produced by this plant since July 1, 1945?
4.	Under what authority is the plant now operating?
5.	What persons have been employed in the management of this plant?

6.	With what companies or firms were these persons employed prior to taking over the management of this plant?
7.	What steps have been taken with regard to the disposal of this plant?
8.	Have any offers been received for the purchase of this plant?



VETERANS' LAND ACT-NEW WESTMINSTER OFFICE -JAPANESE FARMS

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	How many applications have been made through the New Westminster regional office by veterans of this war for settlement under the terms of the Veterans' Land Act, (a) farms; (b) small holdings?
2.	How many of these applications have been,
(a)	approved; (b) rejected?
3.	Have any of those rejected been reconsidered and if so, do they go before the local advisory committee?
4.	How many Japanese farms are available in the Fraser valley electoral district for sale under the Veterans' Land Act?
5.	How many applications have been received for their purchase, and how many applications have been approved?



ABBOTSFORD, B.C., AIRPORT

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	What was the cost of thd Abbotsford airport for, (a) land; (b) clearing; (c) buildings; (d) runways and taxi strips?
2.	What is the total acreage?
3.	What is the total cost to date?



SUMAS, B.C., EMERGENCY LANDING STRIP

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	What was the total acreage purchased for the Sumas emergent airport landing strip?
2.	What was the total cost for, (a) land;
(b)	construction?
3.	Has any of this property been disposed of? If so, to whom and for how much?
4.	Has any part been leased? If so, to whom and for how much?



CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS-NATIONAL REVENUE AND AUDITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE

Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: 1.	How many chartered accountants were employed by the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue at January 1. 1939?
2.	How many chartered accountants have been engaged by this division since first of January 1939, to 30th September, 1945?
3.	How many chartered accountants have left this division during that time?
4.	How many chartered accountants were employed in the auditor general's office at
* January 1, 1939?
5.	How many chartered accountants have been engaged since 1st January, 1939, to 30th September, 1945?
6.	How many chartered accountants have left this division during that time?
Questions as Orders for Returns



SURPLUS WAR ASSETS-CORVETTES

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many corvettes have been sold by
the government since the war closed?
2.	What are their names and what price was received for each ship?
3.	What was the cost of each such corvette and where launched?



WAR CASUALTIES

Mr. CHURCH:: What were the total casualties in the war just closed, to the last records available, (a) killed; (b) wounded; (e) missing?



NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE BENEVOLENT FUNDS

Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Are there so-called benevolent funds in connection with, (a) army; (b) navy; (c) air force?
2.	If so, how long have they existed?
3.	From what sources are they derived?
4.	For what purposes are they used?
5.	What responsible officer or officers are in charge of each respectively?
6.	How much has been expended in each case since the war began?
7.	How much remains in each fund as of the 1st of September, 1945?
8.	For what purpose will this fund, in each case, be used?



NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE-REJECTIONS AS MEDICALLY UNFIT

Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	How many men examined for enlistment in the navy, army and air force of Canada respectively were rejected as medically unfit, from the beginning of the war until January, 1942?
2.	What percentage of the total number examined does this constitute?
3.	What medical reasons were given for rejection?



ST. LAWRENCE NORTH SHORE AIR LANDING FACILITIES

Mr. DORION:: 1.	What airdromes and landing grounds are there on the north shore of the St. Lawrence between Tadoussae and Blanc Sablon?
2.	At what time of the year can these be used for mail and passenger traffic?
3.	What amount has been spent by the government on each of these airdromes and landing grounds ?
4.	By whom are they managed and under whose control are they?
5.	By whom is each of them used?
6.	Does the government receive any revenue from the use of such airdromes and landing grounds? If so, in what amount?
7.	By what company are mail and passengers carried on the north shore of the St. Lawrence?

8.	Is there any agreement between the government and the company operating such service? If so, what is such agreement?
9.	What grants, if any, are paid by the government for air service on the north shore of the St. Lawrence?



VICTORY LOANS

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What was the cost of selling the 7th victory loan?
2.	What was the cost of selling the 8th victory loan ?
3.	What amount was spent in each province by the national war finance committee during 1944 for each of these loans?
4.	What amount was subscribed to each of these loans in each province?
5.	What was the amount paid to organizers in each province for each of these loans?
6.	How many paid organizers were there in each province?
7.	What was cost of advertising each of these loans?
8.	What was paid for the making and showing of motion pictures in regard to these two loans?
9.	What commission, or discount, was allowed banks and insurance companies in the purchase ot each of these loans for their own accounts?
10.	What was the percentage cost of selling each of these loans?



WARTIME INFORMATION BOARD-PUBLICATIONS

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	How many publications did the wartime information board publish during 1944?
2.	What were the names of these publications?
3.	How many of each were printed?
4.	How many publications have been published since August 1, 1945?
5.	What were the names of these publications?
6.	How many of each of these were printed?



VETERANS' LAND ACT-TORONTO OFFICE

Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	Of the 2,010 applications made through the Toronto regional office under the Veterans' Land Act up to September 30, 1945, how many were, (a) approved; (b) rejected; (c) treated otherwise ?
2.	How many veterans from, (a) the city of Toronto; (b) the balance of York county, have actually been placed oni land through the said Toronto office?
3.	How many homes have actually been built and delivered through the said office?
4.	How many veterans have actually been settled through the said office on properties on which homes had previously been erected?



CARON, SASK., WATER STORAGE PROJECT

Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	What was the total cost to the dominion government of the Caron water storage project?
2.	What was the total cost to the dominion of the development of the saturation area, which forms part of this project, and the installation of sand points therein?
3.	Why were sand points installed rather than a gallery system?

Ford Motor Plant Strike
4.	What quantities of water were pumped into the canal from the river, and what percentages thereof were delivered to the saturation area, during each of the years this project has been in operation?
5.	Apart from capital costs, (a) what has-been the annua] operational cost of the project in each year, since it was placed in operation; and (b) what has been the cost per 1,000 gallons of water delivered to the saturation area in each year, since it was placed in operation?
6.	What quantity of water is the city of Moose Jaw authorized to withdraw annually from the saturation area in priority to the rights of others?
7.	Has the city of Moose Jaw, in any year, been able to withdraw from the saturation area,
(a)	the full quantity for which it has priority;
(b)	sufficient water to meet the city's requirements ?
8.	Did the P.F.R.A. engage a firm of consulting engineers to advise in regard to the intake system at the river?
9.	If so, what firm of consulting engineers was engaged?
10.	Did the P.F.R.A. carry to completion the recommendations made by the said firm in reference to the intake at the river, before the project was turned over to the city in 1944?
11.	If not, (a) why were such recommendations not carried to completion; (b) was the city made aware, before taking over the project, that such recommendations had not been carried to completion?


Mr. GARDINER:: I am going to ask the . hon. member to permit me to make this an order for return, in view of the fact that there is much documentary evidence which will have to be produced, and I shall have to send to Regina for it. I would ask his permission to amend the question in order to get all the information on the one return, and for that purpose I suggest that question No. 1 be:
1. What was the agreement entered into between the government and the city of Moose Jaw re the Caron water storage project?
If that could be added as question number one, the others being renumbered to make a total of twelve questions, the order for return would be complete.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all correspondence with reference to the resignation of Mr. C. C. Cardoza from the employ of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited.



EMPLOYMENT

Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all correspondence between the deputy minister or other officials of the Department of Labour and the advisory boards of the department, dated since V-E day, dealing with the question of suitable employment.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would ask my hon. friend to allow this question to stand until to-morrow, or until I have had a chance to look at it.
Motion stands.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL AND TREASURY BOARD MINUTES

Mr. BRACKEN:: For a copy of all orders in council and treasury board minutes approved by His Excellency the Governor General since the 6th day of September, 1945.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: I asked my hon. friend this morning to be good enough to allow this to stand until the next sitting, and he consented.
Motion stands.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: I would like to make a statement concerning the strike of the employees of the Ford Motor Company of Canada,, Limited, Windsor, Ontario.
I have forwarded the following proposals to the company and the union:
1.	That the union be requested to withdraw its picket line and instruct the power plant employees to return to their duties within forty-eight hours.
2.	That the company will facilitate the return of all its employees in seniority order without discrimination as soon as possible.
3.	Representatives of the company and of the union with the assistance of an umpire appointed by the government undertake forthwith to reach a mutually satisfactory collective agreement, provided, of course, that matters respecting wage adjustments will be dealt with by the appropriate regional war labour board.
4.	Any terms of either party to the collective agreement upon which the parties fail to reach an agreement shall be determined by the umpire, whose decision shall be final and binding.
I have asked the parties to let me have their views on these proposals.
Conditions in Europe



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence for Air, of which he has received notice. In view of the serious housing shortage in Winnipeg, and the numbers of people without homes, will the government permit the use of air force huts as emergency shelters, as requested by groups in the city.


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Minister of National Defence for Air):: The hon. member was good enough to send me notice of his question. I understand that negotiations are being carried on at the present time between officers of the air force and the housing officials, but that no decision has yet been reached.



CONDITIONS IN EUROPE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the orders of the day are called I should like to direct a question to he Acting Prime Minister, the extreme urgency )f which is felt, I am sure, by millions of Canadians. In view of the alarming reports, such as those made by Mr. Bevin, by officials of UNRRA and others, concerning the prospects of untold suffering and hardship in Europe during the coming winter, and in view of the responsibility our Canadian people feel for as much alleviation of suffering as we can provide, is it not possible for the government to indicate ways in which Canada might greatly increase the help we are giving? Can we not make an immediate increase in our contribution to UNRRA, send overseas surplus army blankets and clothing, together with more food, and facilitate bringing to this country as many as we can of /the children- thousands of whom are orphans-whose plight in Europe is so tragic?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Acting Prime Minister) :: Consideration will be given to the hon. gentleman's suggestions. I wish to point out, however, that Canada has never taken a narrow view of her obligations in these matters. Canada was, if I remember correctly, the first nation to pay its contribution to UNRRA, and joined cordially with other nations in making a second contribution-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is why I asked the question; let us do better.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -Of the same amount. Canada imposed meat rationing after the end of hostilities for the purpose of making extra meat available for people overseas. Canada has authorized national clothing drives, and in other ways has indicated the willingness of her people to discharge their moral obligations in these respects. It is just a question how far the people of Canada can be asked to go in these matters, but, as I said at the beginning, consideration will be given to the hon. gentleman's suggestions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES   INCREASE OF CAPITAL-CREATION OF CORPORATION TO OPERATE SERVICES UNDER CONTRACT

Clarence Decatur Howe: moved the second reading of bill No. 21, to amend the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937.


James Horace King: Shall the motion carry?


John Bracken: Does the minister not
propose to say anything on the second reading of the bill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The minister made a lengthy statement when the bill was in committee, and that statement stands as his remarks on the second reading. The purpose is to refer this bill to the committee on railways and shipping, which is now sitting, and to have it studied there and referred back to the com- ' mittee of the whole house, when further discussion can take place if hon. members so desire.


John Bracken: In view of the fact that the
minister made a statement on introducing the resolution a few days ago, I think perhaps I should make a brief statement now before second reading is given, in order that our attitude may not be in doubt.
The bill before us has for its purpose the extension of transportation by air within and outside Canada. In the earlier stages of the bill the minister made clear the government's position on air transportation. I hope I have not misunderstood the provisions of the bill or . the government's attitude towards the question.
At the outset of my very brief remarks may I say I recognize that this is a government bill and that the government, having a majority in the house will see that it is passed. I have therefore no intention of delaying it in any degree, and I am not hopeful that we can secure any modification of it. Under the

Trans-Canada Air Lines
circumstances I shall content myself with a brief statement setting out what I believe to be the weaknesses of this measure.
The bill, in the light of the minister's statement, is aimed to accomplish the expansion of mainline and international air transportation under government sponsorship, by practically denying private enterprise any share of either, and by risking the taxpayers' money in a government monopoly in these fields.
In my opinion this legislation will have five unfavourable results:	(1) it will discourage private enterprise in the whole field of civil aviation in Canada; (2) it will prevent private enterprise from serving efficiently the ' outlying communities of Canada; (3) it will extend state monopoly in this field to include international lines as well as trans-Canadian lines; (4) it will eventually drive the government into the position of subsidizing branch lines and thereby increasing the tax burden of the Canadian people; (5) it will eventually result in a huge state' monopoly with no competition to keep it efficient.
Our attitude with respect to this matter is the same as it is to other public enterprises of a similar character. It can be stated in two sentences: First, government owned projects such as this" must be encouraged and supported wherever and whenever they can serve the public interest best or improve the service already given. Second, monopoly, whether state owned or privately owned, in the field of transportation, should be discouraged, and competition, wherever practicable, should be encouraged if we are to ensure greater efficiency and therefore better public service.
I feel sure that all members of this house subscribe to the principle that Trans-Canada Air Lines must be made an efficient service. Certainly I do. To make it the most efficient service in the world might well be our legitimate goal. But we have had in the past [DOT] a tradition of competition in the field of enterprise in this country. Many of us believe it has had an important bearing on our economic development. The people of Canada, particularly the farmers of Canada, have been as much opposed to a public monopoly of the railway system as to a. private monopoly. They want neither private nor public monopoly. They want the two lines. This gives the man who travels or pays freight charges a chance to measure the efficiency of one against the other. In the light of this tradition let us examine what is happening to our air services.
By the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act passed in 1937 and since amended, the Canadian government went a long way in the direction
of giving over the air services of Canada to a state monopoly. When bill 21, now before us, becomes, law, we shall have gone a great deal farther along the same road. The fact that this is done by indirect as well as by direct methods makes the result none the less inevitable.
The practical effect of the legislation passed in previous years is that the government has been given power virtually to incorporate any feeder or subsidiary lines into the Trans-Canada air service organization. This power is a constant threat to those already engaged in the industry or who may wish to engage in it.
It is not only what the government has done under the present legislation that matters. The trouble is that the government's policy, and especially the minister's statements, keep those who are trying to develop air services under private management in a constant state of suspense and fear. No enterprise, public or private, can function efficiently under such conditions. If this state of uncertainly continues, private enterprise will be driven from the field. Meanwhile, the pilots and others working for the private systems do not know what their future is going to be. The fear is that the public system will become an octopus. It goes without saying under such conditions the private lines will be gradually absorbed by the government system or taken over by government-encouraged, subsidiaries.
I see no reason why a public air service especially with the resources of the Dominion of Canada behind it, should have any fear of its own ability to succeed on equal terms with its competitors, just as the Canadian National Railways compete with the Canadian Pacific Railway. If the power of parliament is to be used to destroy all competing services, then I say parliament is allowing itself to promote mbnopolistic policies. Such policies are in direct contrast to the principles of competition under which the great British merchant marine was developed, and under which the United States has grown to such power and influence. Such policies lead not only to a socialized state, but to all the inefficiencies that monopoly, particularly state monopoly, brings in its train.
In its present form, bill 21 extends the same dangerous principle into the field of international air transportation. The great majority of the members of this house, I believe, are opposed to adopting a policy by which all air services, external as well as domestic, are to become a state monopoly. I do not argue that we should have a second external air service to-morrow, but I think
Trans-Canada Air Lines

it is very shortsighted on the part of this government to announce to the world that is it practically foreclosing the possibility of a second service developing within the predictable future. I sincerely hope that-, on further consideration, the minister will state that this is not the government's intention.
I respectfully suggest also to the minister that before this bill comes out of committee the government incorporate in it a clause which will remove the fear of companies being taken over once they show any sign of becoming profitable. Before companies now in existence, and those that may later be formed, can be expected to expand or improve their services, they must have confidence that so long as they operate efficiently and give the best practicable service they are not going to be arbitrarily taken over cvr expropriated or without cause divested of the ownership and operation of their properties.
In the past few months there has been more talk by this government about encouraging private enterprise than we have heard for some years. I ask in all fairness, is this nothing but talk? In the face of legislation such as this, there is grave doubt that the government really intends to permit any private enterprise in this field. And if it is to be driven out of this field, what assurance has it that it will not be driven out of others?
The eyes of all Canada, particularly of Canada's youth, are to-day on the future prospects of this country. If this parliament is going to divert young and enterprising Canadians from seeking opportunities to develop their own lives and their own chances of getting on in their own chosen occupations in Canada, it will certainly add to its own future burden. If this parliament is going to discourage private enterprise, it is simply asking everybody to look for a government job.
I make these observations with all deference, because I feel it is important that this legislation do no more damage to private enterprise than necessarily follows from the provisions of the measure itself. As I said in the beginning, our attitude with respect to this matter is the same as it is with respect to other public enterprises of a similar kind. Government owned projects such as this must be encouraged and supported wherever and whenever they can serve the public interest best or improve the service already being given. Monopoly, whether state-owned or privately-owned, in the field of transportation should be discouraged, and competition, whenever practicable, should be encouraged if we are to ensure greater efficiency and therefore better public service.

As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, we have no desire to delay further consideration of this measure, but in view of the direction [DOT]in which this kind of legislation is leading us I thought I should make this brief statement before the measure becomes law.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the statement of the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) that a lengthy debate at this stage ought not to be necessary, and in that position we have been joined by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) by virtue of the fact 'that his remarks were brief. I rise , to make a few comments principally because of some of the things the previous speaker said.
First I want to say that I do not think we on this side of the house should make the statement that because the government has a majority of the members here all their legislation necessarily will carry in exactly the form in which it is brought down. There have been occasions this year when modifications have been made, and I can remember occasions in the last parliament, even when the government had a terrific majority, when government legislation was modified. So I feel [DOT]that on second thought the leader of the opposition will agree with me that there is reality to the discussions which take place in this chamber and that there is always a chance of our securing at least slight changes in the legislation which is brought down. In any case I would hope that we might gear our efforts to that end.
The leader of the opposition has made it fairly clear that he and his party are opposed to this bill, whether or not they intend to vote against it. In outlining the reasons for his opposition, if I heard him correctly, the hon. gentleman suggested three points. First he suggested that this bill was designed or'at least would have the effect of discouraging private enterprise in the -field of air transport. His second contention was that it would lead to ah increase in the tax burden upon the Canadian people, and the third point was that we were just heading toward another state monopoly, which in itself was a bad thing. I want to deal very briefly with each of these suggestions.
In these attempts to sing the praises of private enterprise, particularly when we are discussing transportation, my hon. friends are trading on the fiction that private enterprise by itself built up the railway systems of this country. I believe hon. members generally are conscious of the fact that the history of our Canadian railways does not bear out that suggestion; that our railways were given all

Trans-Canada Air Lines
sorts of assistance in the form of land grants and cash subsidies, and that they are still receiving assistance in the form of tax relief across this country. The plain fact of the matter is that the Canadian people have paid very heavily for every mile of railroad that has been built in this country, and I do not join at all in the paeans of praise which are sung to private enterprise on that score. The same thing is true in connection with air transport. The leader of the opposition paid a well deserved compliment to T.C.A. on their efficiency, and that implies a compliment to the government and to the Minister of Reconstruction on the job that has been done in building up this very efficient system, which is second to none anywhere else in the world. The fact also is to be noted, as we have tried to indicate a number of times in the debate on civil aviation, that huge government sums have been spent in building airports, in establishing meteorological services, beams and other aids to aerial navigation, all of which repeat the story we had with our railways. It is a story of the Canadian people putting their own money into the building of this new form of transportation.
The second charge against the bill made by the previous speaker is that it will increase the tax burden upon the Canadian people. There I feel that my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party are revealing the fact that they are living in a bygone age. They are thinking in terms of government as a body that should do as little as it can, spending as little money as possible. My understanding of government in this day and age is that it represents the collective effort of the people of the country as a whole to do in a cooperative way the things they could not do individually. Certainly we did not fight the war by a collection of private enterprise efforts. We fought the war as a people under the leadership of a government; and more and more this government, despite the fact that I find myself fighting it bitterly on many points, is yielding to the pressure of events and to the demand of this twentieth century that governments step into such fields as housing, for example, which we are discussing under another bill now on the order paper; transportation, and so on, to give service to the Canadian people. This continual cry for the spending of less money is completely out of step with the times. I would support my hon. friends in any effort they might make to curtail extravagance or wasteful expenditure, but as far as the mere shibboleth that you should not spend money is eoncarned, I suggest they are living in a bygone age. One of the jobs of government is to provide services, and one of
the things especially to the credit of T.C.A. and the job the government has done in building it up is that it is providing a service to our Canadian people which is enriching our life not only materially but in other ways as well. So I am not impressed at all with that argument.
The other argument advanced by my good friend, who comes from my province, where we have a number of public enterprises, was that we are setting up another state monopoly. There again I feel that my hon. friend is trading on a word. The word "monopoly'' in some connections has a very bad connotation, and apparently to use it is felt by my hon. friends to damn anything to which you apply it. But some things are natural monopolies. The postal service is something you would not suggest turning to a number of' private enterprises. So when you get into a highly specialized field such as air transportation we are satisfied that it is a natural monopoly and that as such it should not be in the hands of private individuals but should be run for the best interests of the people as a whole. My hon. friend used a phrase something like this. He said the power of parliament was being used to destroy competing services.
I want to tell my hon. friend that in so far as the minister obtains the power of this parliament to destroy the power of private agencies that are exploiting the people of Canada, all power to him. The power of parliament is not something which is being exercised against our people by some outside agency. The power of parliament is the people themselves attending to their own affairs. To the extent that the government is moving in this direction, I am happy as a member of the opposition to support them in the bill now before the house, and I take the strongest exception to the view expressed this afternoon by the leader of the Progressive Conservative party.
During 1944 and 1945 we have had a good many hours of discussion in the house on the question of civil aviation. Last year, throughout a number of stages of a number of measures, we had discussions, almost ad nauseam, on the subject, so that really it ought not to be necessary to discuss the matter at length on second reading to-day. I think I must point out, however, that despite the hours we have spent in discussion of this matter we have not yet had a clear statement from the Progressive Conservative party as to where it stands.
Without handing any bouquets to the government, I may point out that their position is clear. Our position, too, is clear beyond doubt. The government's position is
Tram-Canada Air Lines

that the main transcontinental services of this country shall be a complete monopoly of Trans-Canada Air Lines, and it takes the further position that all external lines shall be government controlled; they are to be operated by subsidiaries of Trans-Canada Air Lines. The government takes the further position that it may from time to time, through the governor in council, designate other routes in Canada, for government operation, and incorporate them into Trans-Canada Air Lines.
That is as far as the government goes in its domestic policy, with this exception: I feel it has admitted by its action' that it is prepared to be pressed along by events. By the policy it announced on March 17, 1944, it faced up to the monopoly which Canadian Pacific Air Lines was establishing, and in due course we are to have a divesting order so far as the air lines owned by the railways are concerned. Thus far the government has not said it will take over those feeder lines and incorporate them into a crown company. But the gradual designation of one line here and another there, and the simple fact that it will not be possible for a smaller company or individuals to take those lines over, makes it clear to me at any rate that in due course the government will have to take the position this group has advocated, namely, of incorporating those feeder lines into a national air system.


Mr. LALONDE:: Does the hon. member include private enterprise?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will answer that if my hon. member will let me put it in the framework I am trying to suggest. I am pointing out that the government's position is clear. They have stated how far they intend to go in the matter of government ownership, which covers the transcontinental route and our external services. Further they will compel the railways of Canada to divest themselves of air lines.
The government has not indicated that it is willing to go on and take over the feeder lines in Canada, but my contention is that the development of events will lead them in that direction-and my hon. friends to the right are quite justified in expecting that that is what is going to happen. The difference between the government and the C.C.F. on this point is that we do not just sit back and vait for these things to develop. We advocate that this should be done, that air transportation is a natural monopoly, that it is a field in which the interests of airmen are particularly at stake, and in which the interests fMr. Knowles.]
of the public must be protected, and that it should be a natural monopoly under government control.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: That, then, is apparently the programme the C.C.F. advocated in plank No. 14, where it states that the C.C.F. will not rest content until it has eradicated capitalism.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear. I am glad to know my hon. friend is familiar with our programme. I hope that he will give the house the benefit of other points contained therein. What I wish to point out-


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Will the hon. member answer the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said, "hear, hear"; in other words, I agree.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: The hon. member says "hear, hear" to a lot of things.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: We know what the hon. member means, then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend says that they know where we stand; that is right, they do. And in this instance they know where the government stands. But nobody knows where the Progressive Conservative party stands.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: The people know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The people of Canada do not know either.
In this particular instance we have a bill before us, and the minister has told us what it implies, although some of the things he told us are not set down in black and white in the bill. He has told us where these companies are to operate, namely that under section 20 subsidiary companies are to be set up for the purpose of flying routes across the Atlantic and Pacific, and so on. This bill is to provide that Canada's air transportation facilities across the Atlantic and the Pacific and to the West Indies are to be government controlled.
The leader of the opposition implies that they are opposed to this bill. The Progressive Conservative party as a whole has pointed out what it calls weaknesses in the legislation, but it has never told us whom they want to fly the Atlantic in the name of Canada, or whom they want to fly the Pacific, or whom they want to fly to the West Indies. All kinds of talk has gone on about Canadian Pacific Air Lines, and some of us have been led to believe that they would prefer to turn this field over to the Canadian Pacific. They appear to want it for them, but they have not yet told Canada whom they want to operate this international line.

Trans-Canada Air Lines


Mr. FULTON:: Were you asleep this afternoon? If not, you should have heard it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I listened intently to what the leader of the opposition said about what he felt to be weaknesses in the legislation. But he did not say what the Progressive Conservative party would do if it were in the government's place.


Mr. BOUCHER:: There are none so blind as those who will not see.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, it is all there in Hansard. The leader of the opposition made this interesting comment, that he would not want to see a second external air service. Now it is pretty clear that they are opposed to Trans-Canada Air Lines operating our external air service, and yet they do not want a second external air service.


John Bracken: I refuse to have the hon. member put words into my mouth. I did not say anything of the kind.


James Arthur Ross: A powerful imagination.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the leader of the
opposition say he did not say that he did not want to see a second external air service.


John Bracken: I say I did not say that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let it stand until Hansard appears. The point is that they have not told us whom they want to have operate these external services. One of the reasons I tried to get the floor immediately after the leader of the opposition was my hope that some others in that party might be tempted, from what I am saying, to try to answer those questions. I think the country has a right to know where the Progressive Conservative party stands on these matters. It already knows where the government stands and where the C.C.F. stand. If they are opposed to this bill, whom would that party have fly across the ocean? Whom would they have take charge of our Trans-Canada Air Lines and the subsidiary companies to be set up under section 20 of the bill before us, and with which contracts are to be made, under section 25, for this service?
Then, there is a further comment I should like to make in connection with letting the country know where hon. members stand, and it is this: Although we know where the Minister of Reconstruction stands, and although we know presumably where the government stands, the minister gets precious little support from his own back-benchers. I hope they have not been frightened by the hon. member for Vancouver South against supporting this measure, simply because we happen to be giving it our support.


James Arthur Ross: That is a pretty fair
ground for suspicion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No doubt hon. members across the way realize there is a measure of truth in what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver South, namely, that the government's aviation policy is moving in the direction of socialism, and it is our contention that the pressure of events in this fast-moving age, which is calling for an ever and ever higher standard of living for our people, is calling for just this sort of thing. I hope that this bill will be supported not only by the government itself but whole-heartedly by its own back-benchers. The leader of the opposition said that he had no hope of seeing this bill delayed or modified, but the fact of the matter is that unless the government supporters are behind their minister on this bill, something might happen to it, and so I appeal to the supporters of the govermment to stand solidly behind this measure.
With all that I have already said on behalf of this party both last year and this, I think our position is quite clear, and that there is not much more that needs be said, except this. When we were in committee on the resolution preceding the bill I asked the minister whether the subsidiary companies to be set up under the bill would be confined to flying external routes, or whether they might be given contracts for flying some of the feeder routes within Canada, and his reply was that he would have to consult his lawyer after looking at the terms of the bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will allow me to correct him, I do not think that was his question. His question was, could we under this legislation form subsidiary companies to operate in Canada, and I said that before saying whether we could or not I would have to consult the departmental solicitor, but at the same time I said that we had no intention of doing so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct. I accept the minister's correction as to the way in which I put the question. But I would point out to him that section 25, subsection 1, reads as follows:
The governor in council may authorize the minister to enter into a contract with any corporation incorporated under section twenty of this act, for the organization, operation and maintenance of air services designated from time to time by the governor in council.
I am not one of those lawyers or solicitors to whom the minister may refer, but it seems to me that the wording of that section is very clear and that the government could
Trans-Canada Air Lines

enter into a contract with one of these companies for operating an air service within Canada. I hope that when this bill becomes law and the government is faced with the pressure of events confirming what we have said, it will take the further step of enlarging ' the field of government control of air transportation to cover not only external but internal commercial flying within Canada on a much wider basis than, is now the case.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) put a misinterpretation on the words that I used a little while ago, and I think that perhaps right now is the best time to have it corrected. He said that we could wait until Hansard comes out to-morrow. We do not need to wait until to-morrow, because I have here the exact words I used, and this is exactly where we stand. I said: "The great majority of the members of this house, I believe, are opposed to adopting a policy by which all air services, external as well as domestic, are to become a state monopoly. I do not argue that we should have a second external air service to-morrow, but I think it is very shortsighted on the part of this parliament"-I think I used the word government before-"to announce to the world that it is practically foreclosing the possibility of a second service developing within the predictable future."


Stanley Howard Knowles: I accept that as the wording used by the hon. leader of the opposition and on that basis my remarks still stand.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I understand from what the minister said the other day that the passing of the second reading of this bill would not be taken as approval of the principle, but that there would be opportunity given for discussion when the bill returned from the special committee to which it is being referred.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will permit me, I said that if the bill could be sent on to a committee without discussion it would not be necessary to approve the principle of the bill. It has often been the practice in1 this house to send a bill to a committee without much discussion, and in such a case we understand the principle will not be approved. But there has been wide discussion of this bill and I think that when we give it second reading we will be approving the principle.	.


Howard Charles Green: The minister sometimes has peculiar ideas of the way we do things in the house, and the attitude he now takes as comfMr. Knowles.]
pared with the attitude he took the other day is along that line.
Before the bill goes to the committee there are one or two features of it which I think should be pointed out to the house. I rise not to attempt in any way to reply to the challenge thrown out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) or to enter into debate with him, but simply to deal with certain features of the bill. It is very easy for him and his party to take a clear-cut stand on this bill because they believe in the socialization of all means of transportation in Canada, and that includes, in my opinion, not only the airways but also the railways and shipping and the bus routes. He and his party are all-out for socialization of all means of transportation, I do not believe that the majority of the Canadian people want socialization along this line. In fact I am sure that a very small minority of the Canadian people believe in a policy of that type.
I think that the private members on the government side of the house have indicated their wisdom in being just a little reluctant to show any enthusiasm for the policy that has been announced by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, not only this year but also last year. The same attitude on their part was apparent last year. Obviously the Liberal members were not keen about the government's air policy; at least, they showed very few signs of keenness.
Coming to the bill itself, I do not think anyone can question the wisdom of giving Trans-Canada Air Lines power to increase their capital. The world is moving along; there have been great developments in the air, and money is required. Personally I think it was a wise move for the government to provide for an increase in capital. That provision is contained in the first section of the bill.
Another feature which is interesting is contained in the second section, which provides that the Canadian National Railway Company is to acquire this new capital, this additional $20,000,000 of capital. Of course that company already has the $5,000,000 authorized by the original bill, and now is to get an additional $20,000,000. Yet, as the minister stated the other night, in only a matter of a few months the Canadian National Railway, like the Canadian Pacific Railway, is to be forced out of the air picture. The Canadian National Railway will be covered by what the minister calls the divesting order, and when that is done, then under section 11 the shares of Trans-Canada Air Lines will all be held by the minister as a trustee for the crown. So that in considering this bill the

Trans-Canada Air Lines
members should keep in mind that the minister will be the sole shareholder of Trans-Canada Air Lines within the next six months. The Canadian National Railway will have no interest in Trans-Canada Air Lines. The accurate picture to be given to the Canadian people to-day is that of the' Minister of Munitions and Supply holding all the shares of Trans-Canada Air Lines within the next few months.
The main principle of the bill is contained in sections 10 and 3. Section 10 gives the governor in council power to create new government corporations. It is true that the shares of these new corporations are to be turned over to Trans-Canada Air Lines. In other words, Trans-Canada Air Lines is to have full control of these subsidiary government corporations. But the bill goes further: it gives the government power to subsidize these new government corporations. It is not only a question of how much money is to be put up for Trans-Canada Air Lines; there is also the power to subsidize the new corporations direct. And section 10 does not confine these new companies to international flying. The minister said the other day and repeated to-day that these new corporations would fly only on international routes, yet section 10 is in such terms that a new corporation could be set up by the government to fly domestic routes only. Surely if the government policy i3 that these corporations shall be set up to fly only international routes, the bill should give them power to go only that far; there should not be this additional power given, when the minister claims that it is not the policy of the government to set up new corporations to fly in the domestic field.
Section 3, which is the other key section of this bill, is much the same. It gives Trans-Canada Air Lines the power to acquire shares of these new government corporations, but there is no limitation to dealing with corporations flying outside of Canada. Under section 3 Trans-Canada Air Lines could acquire shares in a company set up solely for flying within the boundaries of- Canada, and I suggest to the minister that an amendment should be brought in to that section which would add, at the end of new subsection (e) the words "outside of Canada". I believe that when he made his statement that these powers were to be taken to deal only with international flying, he meant that, and if he did, surely the bill should read accordingly. If [DOT] the change I suggest were made, the power would be-

to purchase, hold, and, subject to the provisions of this act, sell and dispose of shares in any company incorporated under section
twenty of this act or in any company or corporation incorporated for the operation and maintenance of air lines or services of aircraft of any kind outside of Canada.
Without those qualifying last three words Trans-Canada Air Lines can acquire shares in any company whatever doing flying solely in Canada, and incidentally it could also acquire shares in a United States company which might be flying into Canada. I think this section should be given further consideration by the government.
Under the bill as it stands, Trans-Canada Air Lines could acquire all domestic lines. That is a very far-reaching policy. The minister says he has no intention of doing it. Well to make sure, let him change the bill so tha the power is not taken to do that.
Another feature of the bill is that it increases the powers of the minister and of the government. Under the present section 15, subsection 1, provision is made that there shall be what is known as a trans-Canada contract. Trans-Canada Air Lines was directed to enter into a trans-Canada contract with the minister. Now of course the position will be that the minister, as the sole shareholder of Trans-Canada Air Lines, will be contracting with himself as the minister-showing the anomalous position Into which the government is getting itself on this question. Then, under the present section 15, subsection 2, specific directions are given as to what this trans-Canada contract shall contain, and they are very important, for example, in paragraph (a) provision must be madefor the operation of the aforesaid lines of aircraft between points and over routes to be designated from time to time while the contract is in force by the governor in council.
The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of that provision is that if Trans-Canada Air Lines is to take over a route and make that a main route, it must be designated as such by the governor in council. That is as the law stands at the present time, and it is a very important provision.
The contract must contain other terms, such as a schedule of services, tariffs, the furnishing of adequate equipment and of service, operation and maintenance of landing fields, and so on. I will not take the time to review them, but there are set out in this section special matters which must be dealt with in the Trans-Canada contract; they were considered in 1937 to be of sufficient importance to have them set out in the bill. But now,
Trans-Canada Air Lines

under the present bill, blanket power is given to the governor in council to make a contract without any of these provisions. Perhaps the minister did not mean it to read that way, and if he did not, I suggest that he ask the committee to amend the bill. He will find in section 6 of the present bill these words:
The first line of subsection two of section fifteen of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) The Trans-Canada contract shall contain such terms as the governor in council may order, and in the absence of such order shall provide,-"
-and then it will fit in to pick up the terms of the original act to which I have just referred. That means that the governor in council can make a contract which contains none of these terms or which contains only a portion of them. There is a wide-open power given to the governor in council. I suggest that that is a move in the wrong direction; in any event the minister should explain why that additional power is being taken. In reality it gives the governor in council a blank cheque; and that means, for all practical purposes, giving the minister a blank cheque. For example, under that provision he could get away from the need of designating points and routes which are to be flown by Trans-Canada Air Lines; if that blanket power is to be retained, some provisions should be put in the new bill to show just what additional terms the government have in mind as being possible in these contracts.
This is another example of framework legislation. The house is asked to pass the framework and then the minister fills in all the walls and covers the roof. It is not right; the government should bring in this legislation complete and not ask us to pass just a skeleton on which the minister can put the flesh.
Under section 10 of the bill there is to be a new section 25 of the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act. Here again we find that the governor in council is given the power to authorize the minister to enter into a contract with these new government corporations which are to be set up. In other words, the minister can enter into a contract with these new corporations quite regardless of Trans-Canada Air Lines. He can deal direct with a new corporation, and he is given the power in that same section to subsidize these same corporations direct without having the subsidy go through Trans-Canada Air Lines. I do not understand why that was done. There may have been some very good reason, but I suggest that the minister should explain that also, and give consideration to providing that any subsidies which are to be paid should be

paid to Trans-Canada Air Lines rather than go to half a dozen different subsidiary companies.
It is all just one more step towards making the minister the dictator of aviation in Canada. It may be that he is the man in Canada best qualified to be dictator of aviation, but on this side of the house we do not believe in dictators. I do not suppose my hon. friends to the left would have any objection to having a dictator of aviation, a dictator of railways, a dictator of shipping, but the official opposition believe that is a move in the wrong direction. It is bad enough in war; it is intolerable in peace. No such power should be given any one individual.
Finally, a fe.w words about branch lines or feeder lines. There was some confusion in the discussion the other day as to which was which, but all members will understand what I mean when I use those two expressions. The minister said the branch lines and feeder lines were to be left to private enterprise. They include of course the lines into the north country, and the routes that will take in all the intermediate cities even on the present main line. One instance given was the route from Vancouver to Kamloops, to Revelstoke and Calgary. Lines of that type are included in the group to which I wish to refer to-day, and they are of vital importance.
There is no doubt the main line is the most important, but these other lines are also of vital importance. Take the lines from Vancouver into the Yukon, from Edmonton into the Yukon, from Edmonton into the Mackenzie river district, and from Montreal up the north shore of the St. Lawrence. These lines come within this group, and they are of the utmost importance. Now there is great demand to connect up cities by air lines; it will not be long until they too are of great importance, and they should be given every encouragement. Nothing should be put in the way of the development of lines of this type. Help should be given not only to the present companies but also to new ones; Canada cannot afford to have efficient operations of that type destroyed or handicapped.
I believe that the move of the government in forcing the railways out of aviation is having that effect. The minister has never been able to satsify me that he had good reasons for forcing the railways out of aviation. It seems to me there is something of spite work, something of that type behind that move. I do not believe it was sound government policy-just a little more of the dictatorial attitude of which we have seen quite a bit during the last few years.

Trans-Canada Air Lines
Here we have Canadian Pacific Air Lines fiying now into the Yukon and giving efficient service. The minister said the other night that he will now have an international route from Whitehorse into Fairbanks in Alaska but will not have Trans-Canada flying it. He has sublet that run to the Canadian Pacific Air Lines. Does that not show you the whole picture? That it is an efficient line? No one can question that fact, certainly no one who has travelled on the line. They are good enough to be given the right to fly from Whitehorse to Fairbanks on behalf of Trans-Canada Air Lines, but in a few months' time the minister will say, "Now you have to divest yourself of this line and the Canadian Pacific Air Lines has to be broken up." It means the breaking down of a good system.
There is some talk by members of the C.C.F. about Canadian Pacific Air Lines having picked up a lot of bankrupt companies. Actually the main company they picked up-and here again I ask the minister to correct me if I am wrong-was Canadian Airways Limited, a company which had been doing a great deal of pioneer work and which was more or less the leading air pioneer in Canada. At one time it was destined to fly the Trans-Canada route. It was a company that was backed by the late James Richardson of Winnipeg, to whom Canadians owe a great debt of gratitude for the interest he took in aviation. When he died his interest in Canadian Airways Limited was taken over, and that is the way in which the Canadian Pacific acquired Canadian Airways Limited. So that the members of the C.C.F. have not been entirely accurate in making the sweeping charges they have made in their anxiety, or their eagerness, rather, to destroy the system.
I suggest to the minister that the result of his policy may very well be, as my leader has said this afternoon, that strong new companies will never be formed or never survive. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is very hopeful about that. He boasted to-day, just as he boasted last week, that this government's policy was making it impossible for there to be any strong air company in Canada other than Trans-Canada Air Lines, and if that happens, the responsibility will be right back on the doorstep of the present minister.
The probable end of this government policy will be that the government will have to step in and subsidize a lot of weak companies trying to operate these feeder lines and branch lines. The treasury of Canada will be called in to back up a lot of lines that have not had a fair chance to succeed. The result may also be inefficiency in the flying of these routes,
and almost certainly it will mean failure to expand in the branch line field as Canadians would otherwise expand. The policy in reality, is half-hearted socialism-half-hearted socialism, I repeat-and I advise private members on the government side to let that sink in and to realize where this policy is leading them.
Canada can lead the world in aviation. Our young men have led the world in flying both in the last war and in this war. We had a splendid record for flying these bush operations before the present war. Canadians take naturally to the air. The government should encourage-I hear an hon. member to my left muttering something. I would say it is the C.C.F. who are up in the air most of the time. I was about to say, the government should encourage all types of aviation development. It should encourage Trans-Canada Air Lines; it should give them every encouragement; that is why I am delighted to see that their capital is to be increased. It should encourage all companies flying the branch lines and also the bush pilots. We must have a bold air policy in this country, and the policy of the government at the present time is not a bold one. It is a policy of drastic bureaucratic control, entirely out of line-and this is the sad feature of the policy-with the initiative and the independent spirit of the individual Canadian.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: This afternoon we have heard from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), as we heard last week when the resolution was before us, a great deal about the danger from dictatorship and monopoly and the absence of competition in the field of aviation. We hear references to the part played in transportation by the Canadian Pacific Railways, and more recently by the Canadian Pacific Air Lines; but like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I am still waiting for some clear enunciation of aviation policy as we might expect it if we had a Progressive Conservative government in office.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Maybe you would have a good government.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Maybe you would not.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I might mention that the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act was passed in 1937. The leader of the opposition at that time, who did not pose as a Progressive Conservative, had more progressive ideas with regard to aviation than the present occupant of that high office. Speaking on the Trans-Canada Air Lines bill, as reported at page 2211 and 2212 of Hansard of 1937, Mr. Bennett said:
Trans-Canada Air Lines

But I do now implore* the minister not to part with this property. To-night the field is clear. To-night no franchise encumbers the ground. To-night we stand in a position to create by act of this parliament an enterprise that will have complete control of aerial navigation between the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Then farther on he said:
I make this suggestion to the minister not because I can be said to be one of those who believe in public ownership and control, for I have not that reputation, but because I have found by grim experience that the condition that now exists in Canada with respect to railroads has arisen in consequence of the blunder we made. We cannot make a blunder if we keep what we have got; and what we have got to-night is control of the whole matter. It seems to me, therefore, wise to take initial steps to ensure that that control shall be retained by the action of this parliament, and if we desire later to terminate it or to part with it, we may do so through an act of this house and as a result of the intelligent expression of opinion by members of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bennett was clear-cut.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister who is
piloting this bill through the house correctly pointed out last year that in 1937 the Canadian Pacific Railways and the company referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), the Canadian Airways, did have a chance to come in on the ground floor and help to develop this important industry, but they did not have the imagination at that time to see the possibilities of transportation by air in such a few short years.
While the Canadian Pacific Railways apparently have some loyal friends in this parliament, they have not been clear-cut in outlining just what should be done at this stage in the history of the country.
I wish to support what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said in urging the government not to be disturbed by the calling of names. The Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) has been called worse names than a dictator of aviation. No one worries about the Postmaster General being called a dictator of the post office by our friends who are opposed to public ownership. The important thing to consider is, can the job be done better under public control than under private competition?
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) read a carefully prepared document this afternoon. As I listened to him I could scarcely believe that this was the voice of the former premier of Manitoba; and when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre interpreted one part of the statement it seemed pretty clear to me that the leader of the opposition was not very sure himself just what was contained in the statement of policy. I do hope

that at this stage in the world's history members of the house are not going to be confused by the picture of what has happened in the last one hundred years in the competitive-world. In modern transport by air it is-important for some authority to provide the runways, the meteorological services and all the other services that are necessary in modern flying; therefore I think that neither the leader of the opposition nor anyone else has any right, to cast doubt upon the efficiency of public ownership in the field of transportation.
Occasionally I run across Americans who use the Trans-Canada Air Lines services in travelling from New York to the west coast-of the United States, and I have never met one who had any criticism to offer of Trans-Canada Air Lines services. In fact as I gauge the consensus it is that T.C.A. is giving a service that is superior to anything found in that field on this continent. The Minister of Reconstruction has reason to be proud of the remarkable performance of the Trans-Canada Air Lines since the first act was passed.


Mr. MARTIN:: And deserves great credit
for it, too.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Certainly. I might
mention in passing that I travelled by plane to Halifax a couple of weeks ago. While we were changing planes in Montreal I went in for a cup of coffee and happened to sit beside a pilot] I inquired whether he was taking us out on the flight to Halifax. He replied that he was going across the Atlantic in a few minutes on one of the T.C.A. planes. I said: "What time do you expect to be over there?-' He said, "Oh in time for breakfast." It was then about six o'clock on Friday night. I said "When do you get back?" He replied, "If nothing happen, I shall be back home on Monday night." He was taking off at six o'clock on Friday, would cross the Atlantic twice and be back home for supper on Monday night. This merely demonstrates the sort of thing that T.C.A. has been able to do in providing transportation within our country and across the Atlantic in such a short time. I hope that the private members on the government side are not going to be frightened by statements that this is a measure of socialism in the field of air transport.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Before the motion carries I wish to ask a question. I do not know whether the minister would like to answer it now or not. If he does not, it will be quite all right. When I was home on Saturday last helicopters were flying over the

Trans-Canada Air Lines
city of Toronto. I believe they were advertising the victory loan. It recalled1 to my mind that a year or two ago-perhaps it is longer than that-the Toronto Transportation Commission applied, I believe, for a licence, or it was announced that they were to apply to the minister for a licence, for the privilege of flying these helicopter machines in suburban .areas. For instance, they indicated that they would operate a helicopter from Toronto to Peterborough, from Toronto to Hamilton, and from Toronto to other nearby centres. I see that a proposal is to come before the United States congress asking for a licence to fly a similar machine, perhaps in many parts of the United States. Will this bill prevent any private company, such as the Toronto Transportation Commission, which has done such a wonderful job so far as transportation is concerned, from flying these helicopter machines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There seems to be some misunderstanding about the nature of this bill. There is nothing in this bill to prevent anyone from doing anything, with the exception of Trans-Canada Air Lines itself. This is purely a bill relating to Trans-Canada Air Lines. It neither prevents competition with Trans-Canada nor prevents any private enterprise from flying anywhere, nor does it in any way affect the interests of any company in Canada except Trans-Canada Air Lines.
In reply to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) the flying of helicopters is governed by the Air Transport Act. There are several applications on file having to do with helicopters. As soon as the applicants can tell the air transport board exactly where they can obtain their equipment and when they will be able to undertake the service for which they are applying, their applications will receive consideration. At the moment there is no helicopter service anywhere of a commercial nature; therefore the helicopter problem is one for the future.
Perhaps I should say just a word about the debate. Trans-Canada Air Lines is not such an old company that a review of its history need be lengthy. It has been stated that the original act, which did not reach parliament but was under discussion there, did not provide for a public company but rather for a company composed of Canadian National Railways, Canadian Pacific railways and Canadian Air Lines; in other words it was to be two-thirds private interests and one-third public interest. The purpose was to combine the three strongest transportation interests in Canada for the purpose of carrying out what the government considered to be a big job.
My own purpose in sponsoring the bill was to have one strong aviation company in Canada, to do the important job of operating a service from coast to coast. That was the purpose, and it had nothing to do with entering into an experiment in socialization. The day before the bill was to be introduced I was advised that the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian Air Lines did not wish to be partners in the transaction, though the resolution that was to precede the bill already was under discussion in the house. Therefore on very short notice the: bill was changed, and Canadian National Railways was given sole ownership of the air line. In the discussion in this house it was stated that the purpose had been to include the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian Air Lines as partners in owning the line. The opposition then took a stand exactly contrary to that taken by the official opposition to-day. Mr. Bennet, then leader of the opposition, objected strenuously to the government parting with any share in this valuable franchise, to private interests.


Howard Charles Green: That was in connection with the trans-Canada route.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Trans-Canada Air Lines
Limited.


Howard Charles Green: That did not apply to feeder operations.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He asked that the coast-to-coast air transport franchise be operated as a public monopoly, which as I say is exactly contrary to the position taken in this debate by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken).


Howard Charles Green: I know the minister does not wish to be unfair-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then what is your position?


Howard Charles Green: I think he will agree When I say that Mr. Bennett was discussing the trans-Canada route, not these branch lines.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are discussing the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act.


Howard Charles Green: We have been talking about branch lines to-day.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is notfiing in this bill about branch lines. That was the history; the bill was set up to describe a company composed of the major transportation interests of this country, whether public or private. We asked both to participate. At the last minute, by default, the line was placed in the ' hands of the publicly owned company, where
Trans-Canada Air Lines

it has been ever since. The purpose was to form a strong company to operate Canada's main transcontinental service. That purpose has been pursued, and to-day I think Trans-Canada Air Lines is a strong company. It was organized with a capital of $5,000,000, of which the portion actually taken up stands at $4,700,000. It has not only preserved its capital but has enlarged it. The actual capital assets of Trans-Canada Air Lines to-day I think stand at over $7,000,000 according to the balance sheet. Trans-Canada Air Lines would be able to return its original capital to the government plus a substantial increase if the line were to be liquidated.
Someone has said that I regard Trans-Canada Air Lines as my baby and insist on keeping it. Well, perhaps I do; I admit it. But if I do, it is for only one purpose, and that is, before I leave public life, to make Trans-Canada Air Lines so strong a company that in the very unlikely event of the people of this country putting any of the groups opposite into the seats of government, the line cannot be wrecked either by the friends of private interests or by the theorists who believe that all property should be publicly operated. I think that explains my position The purpose of this bill is to permit Trans-Canada Air Lines to enter a wider field. It is not the purpose to give the government any less control than it has to-day, but it recognizes the fact that in venturing into other countries we must recognize the laws of those countries, and thus we require a more flexible act in order to be free to do business there. That is the purpose of the bill. It is the intention to send it to the committee on government-owned railways and shipping, where the officers of Trans-Canada Air Lines will be present to answer any questions that may be put to them. The hon. member for Vancouver South has asked why certain paragraphs of the bill are expressed as they are. Those questions can be put to the officers of the company. If the replies are not satisfactory I have no doubt that committee will recommend to the committee of the whole that the bill be amended accordingly.
This has been an interesting discussion and I trust that the committee, which begins its sittings to-morrow, will be able to give further study to the bill and to satisfy hon. members as to the meaning of the amendments now before the house.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Mr. Howe
moves that the bill be referred to the com-

mittee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: With instructions to examine
the bill and report back to the committee of the whole house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, October 26, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures deemed necessary or advisable in consequence of the war- Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Golding in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: The
committee will recall that when we last discussed this measure we reached item 13, covering sundries; postage, pilotage, prize funds and rehabilitation grant, and the committee was still discussing that item.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: It was carried.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services):: I think we had complete consideration of the naval estimates, with the exception that I undertook to get answers to a considerable number of questions asked by hon. members, to which it was not possible to give answers at the time. I gave the undertaking that the information would be furnished later in the debate. I have the answers to one or two questions which I should like to put on record; but there are a number of others, particularly one or two asked by the hon. member for St.
John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) for which the information is still being prepared. I shall place it on Hansard this evening, or as soon as I get it.
The hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Marshall) asked for a break-down of last year's actual expenditures for transportation in the naval services, in separate amounts covering transportation and freight. I might explain that transportation, as used, means the cost of railway tickets entitling officers or men to travel in a conveyance. Travel means the cost of a berth, parlour car seat, and so on, and the cost of meals, lodgings and fares. Freight is under a separate heading. The break-down of this item, in the 1944-45 period is as follows:
. $

Demobilization-Army
Civilian travel and transportation. . $	226,508
Naval personnel:
Travel and transportation	 $6,514,466
Ocean travel	 772,041
Meals	 554,644
Special leave and furlough transportation 819,775

 8,660,926
Freight, cartage	 1,808,957

Then the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) asked a question concerning the number of officers on strength at Hamilton. I find that there are twenty-two commissioned officers and one warrant officer on the staff of H.M.CB. Star. In addition, there are five commissioned officers borne for part time duty, and six commissioned officers borne as additional for leave prior to demobilization, making in all thirty-three commissioned officers and one warrant officer for a grand total of thirty-four.
Those are all the items for which I have information now. The remainder I shall give the committee this evening, or at a later time.
I have asked to have distributed a sheet showing the break-down of the estimates, together with an additional sheet showing the amount expended for the first six months, that is to September 30, and the balance of unexpired time.


Mr. FRASER:: On Thursday night I asked the minister if his department, following the example of United States government authorities, was going to experiment in respect to the atomic bomb as it affects the navy. Since that time the announcement has been made in the press and over the radio that the United States government has been doing that work.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have a note which states that the hon. member asked if the navy expected to experiment in connection with the atomic bomb as it affects the navy. I am advised by the staff that Canada is concerned jointly with the United Kingdom and the United States navies with atomic bomb developments, and the Canadian navy is not neglecting the implications in* respect of naval warfare. Trials of the effect of atomic bombs on sea targets are reported to be confirmed by the United States navy, and' although no official statement has been received by the Canadian navy, our navy is keeping in close touch with progress in association with the national research council.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: On Thursday night I mentioned rules and regulations in the navy. Was
what the minister tabled to-day the list of regulations of the navy as put into force on October 15?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Those are the new naval regulations, in accordance with the new Naval Service Act.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Just put into force?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Effective from October 15.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE (ARMY)

[Stage Direction]
Civil salaries and wages, $10,889,948.
Mr. HARKNESS:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments on the rehabilitation and demobilization policy of the government, particularly as to the way in which it is working out to the disadvantage of men who served in actual theatres of war; that is, men who have had combat experience. The present point system, by which two points are given per month for service in Canada, and three points per month for service overseas, gives the man who has actually fought no advantage over a man who has spent his entire service at a desk in England, for example, and very little advantage over a man who has served most of his time, if not all of it, in Canada. However, with regard to those who are actually overseas, under this system the man who fought has not very much advantage over the man who served most of his time in Canada, and then went overseas for three months.
The original points system, which was put into effect under what we called the five-year plan, to give thirty days leave in Canada to men who had been overseas for five years, was a different system, and was designed to operate in favour of the men who had actually been fighting. Under the original system one point per month was given for service not in any theatre of war, and two points for service in a theatre of war. This meant that, in practice, a man could not get back to Canada for thirty days leave unless he had seen actual service in Sicily, Italy or northwestern Europe; in other words, unless he had been in an actual theatre of war. A man who had gone overseas in the fall of 1939, but who had spent all his service in England, did not get home under that thirty-day plan; at least he did not, up to the time I came home in April, under that plan.
This was a much fairer and better system than the one now in force. Why was it abandoned in favour of the present system under which a man who served in Canada for two or three years and then went overseas, too late to get into the fighting, has priority over a man who served a few months in
Demobilization-Army

Canada and then went overseas to go right into the fighting, and who continued in that fighting for probably four or five months, which is a long time in the life of an infantry soldier? The life of the infantryman is short.
A considerable number of men who served five or six months or more in actual fighting now find themselves in a position where men who never heard a shot fired have priority, so far as returning to Canada is concerned. There are a number of men in this category in the Canadian occupation forces in Germany, as is disclosed by the figures at page 603 of Hansard. These figures show that, as of September 1, 1945, there were 495 officers and 11,613 other ranks, volunteers for war in Europe, who were serving in the occupation forces against their will. Of these men, 4,622, all ranks, had served six months or more in a theatre of war, in- actual operations against the enemy. On the same date there were only 1,778 N.R.M.A. soldiers serving in the occupation forces.
When we compare these figures with those given in the editorial in the Ma-ple Leaf, which was read into Hansard by the minister a few days ago, we find that of the draft of the Saskatoon Light Infantry returning to Canada at that time, 30-1 per cent were N.RJM.A. personnel. Further on in the editorial there are cited four cases picked at random from among returning personnel of the N.RJM.A., not one of whom had ever been in action. Two of them had arrived in northwest Europe after hostilities -had ceased. In view of this, can one wonder that this editorial was written? It would have been surprising if it had not been written. Can this committee come to any other conclusion than that the men I have mentioned who actually fought and are now in the occupation forces have been discriminated against, dealt with unfairly, so far as their return to Canada is concerned, and naturally they are disgruntled-? Surely any reasonable system would send back to Canada the men who had been longest away from Canada. But this system has been doing just the opposite very often. It has been sending back to -Canada men who did not go to northwest Europe until the fighting there was all over, and it leaves in the occupation forces many men who had been over there and- fighting for six months or more. In other words, it is leaving a lot of men there who have -been away from Canada and away from their families much longer than many of the men who are being returned.
It is all very well for the minister and his officials at ND.H.Q. and C.M.H.Q. to institute this system and defend' it as fair and 
reasonable, but I should like, as one who has spent sixteen months over there fighting, to assure them that they can never justify it to the men who did -the fighting or -persuade them that it is a fair and reasonable system.
There is another group of men who are being unfairly discriminated- against. I refer to the- men who -have long service but who, because it is claimed they are still needed overseas or may be needed- because of their trades classification, or something along that line, are being retained over there instead- of being sent home. I am convinced that a very considerable number of these men are not actually holding key jobs at -all and could readily -be brought -home. I have a letter from one of these men which illustrates about as well as anything could exactly what is going on overseas at the present time. It illustrates the attitude of a lot of these men which is being engendered by the government's repatriation policy. This letter is from a sergeant and reads:
I have enclosed a copy of the Canadian forces overseas newspaper The Maple Leaf which contains an editorial that really and truly expresses the present opinion- of the high score volunteer personnel still overseas.
Personally I have 192 points. I came overseas in February, 1941. One year ago I wasn't wanted as a clerk so was sent on a number of N.C.O. & C.S.M. courses and qualified as Q-l with recommendation. I was promptly reverted to corporal and- conscripted for infantry training. Yalue of so-called conversion training received

nil. Arrived in Belgium early in February, 1945, and wtas informed that I could not be posted- [DOT]
He means posted- to an infantry battalion.
-because of my trade. Later was posted -to 1 Cdn. Spec. Vehicle Coy. in Mediterranean theatre as pay sergeant. Completion of the work there led me to ask for an -appointment where my previous experience would be of , value to the army.
I w^as posted to 3 Cd-n. NETD surplus to establishment as an attachment. During my stay at this unit from 18th May to date, I can- truthfully say there has been less than four weeks during which my service was really necessary.
I am firmly convinced that the boys who volunteered during the first two years are definitely being treated as expressed by the local adjutant to two of the boys, Who were paraded. They were told, "You volunteered too soon-you came overseas too soon, you gained too much promotion and you did too good a job-you have too many points and we still need you". They were employed playing crib an average of seven hours daily.
We all feel that if the present rate of return of low score men continues, a point "will soon be reached in the C.A.O.F., which will require that those of us high score personnel still overseas will be required to give additional service to fulfil Canada's commitment in Germany.
I sincerely hope that this will not cause you too much inconvenience and that you will be able to help us to get a square deal.

Demobiliza tion-A rmy
We are not suckers enough that the monthly increase being obtained in our idle service in the form of a gratuity is something for nothing. Eventually we will have to repay a large part of it in the form of various taxes.
There is a letter, one can tell from the tone of it, from an intelligent man and it shows quite well what is happening in a large number of cases. These men with long service are being kept there because they are supposed to be holding key jobs. Yet, the writer states that two of his pals are employed chiefly in playing crib. Before we pass these estimates the minister should make a statement telling us why and under what circumstances the present point system was adopted. From what I have said, it is clear that the present point system is different from the original system adopted, under which men were to be brought home for thirty days leave and which properly, I think, did give a preference to the men who had actually done the fighting.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have already given two explanations of the manner in which the present point system was adopted, and there is not much that I can add. I did it briefly in the debate on the address in reply to a speech made by the hon. member for Nanaimo, and I did it again, in more detail, in my extended remarks in presenting these estimates. Briefly, the system was worked out by General Crerar and his officers early in May and announced in a booklet that was distributed to the troops about May 10 or May 15. Subsequently another pamphlet was put out by General Simmonds early in September. Basically the principle has remained unchanged. It was worked out by the men on the spot who presumably knew the conditions. It was accepted by national defence headquarters in Ottawa as being the scheme prepared by the men in the best position to know what would be a sound scheme. The scheme is working and is working well, and I for one would not be prepared to make a change and bring about all the uncertainties and confusion and chaos that followed after the last war unless I were sure a change was necessary.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Why was the original plan abandoned in favour of the present? I have not seen any answer to that question in the minister's statement now or previously.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can only answer that the present system was worked out and decided 47696-101
upon by competent officers whose names I have mentioned, men in the field in whose judgment I have confidence and- in whose judgment I am sure my predecessor had confidence.


James Arthur Ross: I think the hon. member for Calgary East has raised some pertinent questions deserving a better answer than the minister gave.
There is another matter that has given me considerable concern. Returns have been brought down showing how many N.R.M.A. men have been returning with their units from overseas. The minister should give us a statement telling us in more detail who was responsible for that. When one thinks of all the ramifications we have had with our army, with our organizations, with our two-army system, throughout these years of war, and then comes to the period following V-E day and discovers that such great numbers of these N.R.M.A. men were attached to the first division, for example, although they were with it only after the combat was finished in the European theatre of war, it is evident that somebody must have been responsible for that system. Great numbers of men with a very low number of points were attached to the first division following the cessation of hostilities, although everybody responsible for it must have known that those people, with that very low-point system, would be among the first to return with these units to Canada. It is matter of fact that great numbers who never saw active combat are being returned with those units, and on the other hand there are many cases of long-service personnel who are retained overseas, apart from those cases which have been pointed out. I know of a married man with a family who has been five years overseas, has served in an actual theatre of war, and certainly would like to return to this country, but who is now retained with the army of occupation. Considering the working of this whole system throughout the years of war and up to the present, and seeing what is happening under it, I think we are entitled to some more detailed explanation from the minister. Very great dissatisfaction exists. It is not a matter of isolated grievances. It has been pointed out that, of the present occupational army in Europe as of September 1, 1945, 4,622 of all ranks have seen six months active service or more. They are certainly retained there, against their own

Demobilization-Army

will; they have not volunteered for the job. The whole system is most unsatisfactory, and the fact that the minister says that the chief of staff organized all this, and that the government is satisfied with it, is not good enough for the people of this country at the present time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I could fire the chief of staff, I suppose.


James Arthur Ross: Some better explanation is required, because the government are responsible for the acts of the chief of staff.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But the government must either accept the advice of its senior military officers or replace them. General Crerar was not the responsible officer during my time as minister. If he had been, I should have had the greatest confidence in him. I have the greatest confidence in the present chief of staff, in General Simmonds, and in General Vokes. All these men are, I think, doing a difficult task extremely well, and as long as I have confidence in them I must accept their advice as to what is the best method. I may query them as to particular points, but so far as my own limited knowledge of these matters is concerned I have not been able to see that the plan which they have worked out and which they recommend to me is an unsound plan, and until I am convinced that it is I intend to support it.


James Arthur Ross: Is the minister quite satisfied that these long service men who have seen actual combat should be retained over there, and all these other chaps, many of whom have not seen active service, should be called back?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have explained all that two or three times. When my hon, friend speaks of a great number, I must tell him that there are comparatively few. I hope to quote to the committee the exact number.


James Arthur Ross: I have said that there are 4,622.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just allow me to make my statement, if you will. I will get the exact number before the committee rises and give the figures.
The Saskatoon Light Infantry was mentioned as having a large proportion of N.R.M.A. men in the number who came back with the first division. That is undoubtedly true. The Saskatoon Light Infantry had sustained fairly

heavy casualties. As, I believe, hon. members of the committee know, the policy is followed in the army of endeavouring to reinforce on a territorial basis. You try to get men from about the same area into a unit which needs reinforcement. I can only assume that available reinforcements from the area in which the Saskatoon Light Infantry had been recruited, at the time reinforcements were needed, were N.R.M.A. personnel, which would account for the large proportion of N.R.M.A. men in that unit at the time. As I have explained several times, the policy is that, first, we skimmed off the men with high-point scores who could be spared and they were sent back in Canada drafts. Then repatriation started by units, with units of the first division coming first. That movement has now been completed. In units of the first division men with fifty points and upwards came back with their units; men with less than fifty points were retained for further duty.
That is the policy. That is the policy which was laid down by competent officers overseas in whose judgment I have confidence, and until I can be shown by some higher authority that that is not a proper policy, that is the one we are going to follow. I repeat to the committee that nothing is perfect. We concede that in some places, perhaps, things could be improved. But the system is working, and working pretty well; and I will say that I am not so much concerned about the relatively light-point man who happens to get home with a draft of his unit; what I am concerned about is the really high-point man who is held over there on the ground that he is essential but who contends that he is not. I do not want to add to my already heavy correspondence, but if any hon. member will communicate to me the case of a high-point man who is held overseas on the ground that he is essential, I will look into it. He is the one I am concerned with. Frankly I do not care very much if a thousand or twelve hundred relatively low-point men get home with men of longer service. I do not think, viewing the picture broadly, that that is terribly important. I do think it is. important that the movement should be as fair, as orderly and as expeditious as possible. That is what we are trying to do; it is what the army staff are trying to do; and I am going to give them just as much support as I can to see that that is done. Let nobody think that I do not know the feelings of the man who is waiting over in England to be repatriated. As I told the committee the

Demobilization-Army
other day, I have only to recall my own experience. I waited in England from November, 1918, to June, 1919, and saw others going home. I did not know the basis on which they were being sent home, and thought I was the forgotten man. The basis which has been worked out in this war was made known to the troops as long ago as last May, and it has been explained to them since. General Sim-monds issued a further pamphlet, and as I am advised, it is now pretty well understood. I had a long memorandum from General Sim-monds the other day in which he reviewed the whole position.
I honestly believe that the system is working well, and I would be most reluctant to. admit that any radical change should be made in that system.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The thing that strikes
me is this. I asked what I thought was a fairly straight question, as to why this original point system was changed. The only answer I have had from the minister is that he has full confidence in the higher ranking officers overseas. That is not an answer to the question at all. Even if he has full confidence in the high ranking officers overseas I believe we are still entitled to know why the system is changed. If he does not know, he should ask his officers to give the information to him.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I asked why the system was changed. It was never changed as far as repatriation was concerned; it was changed as far as rotational leave is concerned. But my information is that the system was never changed. It was the system as originally announced after V-E day. There has been no change in the point score since then. Old soldiers will realize that, particularly in this war, it is very difficult to allocate points for active service. A man serving on the docks in Antwerp might be under a good deal heavier fire than the man who was serving up near the front line. Unfortunately I have not been over in this war, but I understand that in some parts of England they were not entirely free from risk on this occasion either.


Mr. MERRITT:: To carry this matter a short distance farther, the minister said that this policy was based upon the advice of very high ranking officers whom he named, and he said that until they changed their opinion he was not proposing to go contrary to their advice. I wish to say, and I am sure I speak for everyone in the official opposition, 47696-101i
that we on this side of the house have every bit as much confidence in these officers as has the minister. We are not criticizing these officers in any respect. Some, of us served under some or all of them; no one who did so would ever dream of questioning their great ability to lead and the great service they rendered the troops of whom we are speaking, both while fighting and since, and I know they will continue to render that service.
I do not think, however, that that ends the matter. When that pamphlet was issued in Europe in May or at the end of April it represented a system which had not been tried out. Its imperfections, if there were any, had not revealed themselves in practice, and I am sure that the officers of whom we have, been speaking were never men of rigid mind but were always ready to make any necessary change in their original plans as the exigencies of the military situation demanded. The fact that that plan was devised in April and promulgated then does not relieve the government from the responsibility of changing it if in fact it has worked out to the serious disadvantage of any major class of troops overseas.
I think the plan should have been revised before when these matters first came up, but in any event it should be revised now. After all, there are still over one hundred thousand troops overseas. I have not the figure in front of me and it might be very much greater than that. Their return is not going to be achieved until March or April next.
The minister also said that he was sure the plan at the present time was understood by the troops over there; it had been explained to them, many times. I quite agree, and I realize of course the serious consideration which has to be given to the question of changing a plan which has been so clearly announced as that plan has been. But I suggest to the minister that, although that plan has been understood, it has not been accepted by the troops overseas as a fair one, and now the hon. member for Calgary East is asking that there be made in it an alteration the nature of which he has indicated.
The troops, we say, who have been, discriminated against by this plan-unintentionally discriminated against of course-are those with active service in a theatre of operation.. The suggestion we are making is that their point score be revised upwards so that they will get credit for their actual fighting and will come back ahead of those who did not actually fight. That will not cause a tremendous upheaval overseas; all it will
Demobilization-Army

do is to revise the point scores of fighting men, and if I know the soldiers overseas you will get little complaint from those who did not see actual fighting if their brothers in arms who fought get this advantage.
There is a certain soreness over there now and it is understandable. I suggest that the change proposed would not create another soreness but would only relieve the present one, and it is still not too late to make that change if the circumstances indicate that it should be done. I wish to bring to the attention of the house once more what the minister said at page 1131 of Hansard:
The common principle underlying the whole scheme of demobilization has always been, and in future will continue to be that, subject to the exigencies of the service and to the national interests, the personnel with the longest and hardest service should be given first opportunity to return to civil life.
I call attention to that word "hardest". These are the minister's own words; that is the principle we are urging now, and it is exactly the principle that is not recognized in the present point system. Show me a place in the present point system where there is any measure of hardness of service. None whatever. That change can be made now without causing bitterness, and that) is all we are asking.
There is one other thing I might say in an attempt to destroy the argument that the plan made last April should not be changed now and still stand's good. My recollection of that plan was that an important part of it consisted of the process of cross-postings so that troops with high points and coming from, say British Columbia, could be transferred into a British Columbia unit in a division with a high priority on coming home. That was a well-intended idea and was undoubtedly carried out to the best of the ability of the army overseas.
But cross-postings of large numbers of men are very difficult indeed, and it is certainly open for consideration now to wonder whether that process of cross-posting actually was achieved sufficiently well to ensure that the policy did not create a hardship, which in theory it was never intended to create and in theory perhaps would not have created.
I suggest to the minister that it is not too late to make that change, not too late to come back to the system of points for rotational leave. The whole question of points rather beclouds issues. You must have some kind of rule of thumb system so that you can make your *calculations, but it would perhaps have been much better if there had been no points at all, if it could have been done on the basis of bow long a man had been there and how hard

he had fought. By translating it into a question of points we have hidden the human side altogether, and I suggest that, in the proposals made from this side of the house, we have unearthed one of the important human issues about this matter. The point system should be rearranged to remove the hardship caused by its working out.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I would support the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard in this respect. I have written to the minister on a number of these cases, and while he has given every consideration to any case brought to his attention, as I can well testify, nevertheless I believe that the policy is working out in the manner indicated by the hon. rfiemiber. I Have looked through some of the letters which I have received from parents and from men in the services. So far as I can judge, one type of complaint boils down to this, that the low-point men who happened to be on the continent at the time the war ended were the men who very often had done the hardest fighting and were retained in the army of occupation. It seems to me that there is a defect in the present .point system.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You mean "high point". You said low point.


Major James William Coldwell: I mean precisely what I said, that the low-point men who happened to be on the continent and who had been engaged in the hard fighting leading up te the fall of Germany were retained in the army of occupation, while other men who had high points and who had not been in the actual theatre of war for any length of time, or any hard fighting, were returned home. That seems to be a difficulty in which the minister finds himself in regard to the present point system.
I looked over some of the considerable correspondence I have on this particular matter and I found some interesting criticisms that have been made from time, to time. Here is one. A boy enlisted voluntarily on January 1, 1943, on his eighteenth birthday, in the infantry service. In December, 1943, he was in action in the Mediterranean theatre. He was in the hospital subsequently with yellow fever, dysentery and malaria. On September 4, 1944, he was severely wounded and hospitalized. Later he again returned to battle in northwest Europe and was repeatedly in action. This lad who had undergone so much mental and physical strain was placed in the army of occupation. I believe this is a type of case that is causing some of the criticism which we are getting from outside the house, and which I sympathize with greatly.

Demobilization-Army
Here is another lad who joined the army immediately on completing grade 12. He served as an infantryman throughout a major part of the northwestern European campaign until he was wounded in April, 1945. At the present time he is attending the khaki university in England, and has just written his parents that he will be posted to the army of occupation. It seems to me that the point system does not cover cases of this description. I have before me too a letter from a young lad which is written in a strain that I very much regret to see in any letter from a Canadian boy overseas. I am not going to quote it all, but he says this:
The army has seen fit to post me to the army of occupation and I am to report as soon as possible. There is one other fellow from my company here, also slated to go with me. He is my pal. He is married and at home, and has five and one-half years' service overseas, which surely entitles him to be repatriated.
These are types of cases that are not met by the present point system; these are types of cases to which the minister needs to give some consideration. What the solution is I would hesitate to say, but I suggest that if we are to have a point system some special points might be given to enable cases of this kind, men who have done the hardest fighting, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said, to get back home. I do not know whether that is possible, but I am bringing the matter before the minister, because, as I said at the outset of these brief remarks, I have taken a number of cases to him in the last few weeks, and I have had the most sympathetic consideration. But it is not good enough that a member of parliament shall be approached by the parents or by friends or by the lad himself and then go to the minister and get the sympathetic consideration which we have received. That is not good enough. We need some policy


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They should not have to go to a member.


Major James William Coldwell: No. A policy should be laid down which would obviate that necessity, and it is up to the minister and his staff to devise such a policy.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have a few things I would like to say.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I make an explanation, because all these points are being considered.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I believe the minister said that no change is-


Douglas Charles Abbott: In principle.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Well, I have a letter here, a part of which I should like to read. It is dated September 29, and reads as follows:
About ten days ago the Maple Leaf appeared w.th headlines "All personnel down to 110 points will be repatriated by September 28", and now this letter comes through. Everywhere you go you hear the boys remark, "If they really wanted to get us home they could damn well find the shipping".
Here is the letter to which he refers. It is a circular letter No. 501, C.M.H.Q., dated September 27, 1945:	*
Canada Drafts
Personnel in United Kingdom with high point scores.
1.	Records circular letter No. 144 required a return to reach records office not later than September 18, 1945, of all officers and other ranks with point scores of more than 110 who would be available by September 18, 1945, for posting to Canadian repat depots between 26 and 28 September, 1945.
2.	Posting this personnel to repat depots between these dates would mean that, individuals would remain in the repat depots for approximately eight to ten weeks. In view of this long period in, the repat depot, it has been decided that such personnel will remain with their present units and postings to the repat depot will be made at a later date which will be advised, thus reducing the length of time the individuals are in the repat depots.
There is the trouble. In the Maple Leaf they said that those with points down to 110 would be repatriated before September 28.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It should not have said that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That was what was in the Maple Leaf, but then this order comes out? to all those in the high-point scores that they must remain where they are, and I think that is where part of the trouble lies. This letter was issued by Major General Weeks. The' boys overseas were told by the Maple Leaf that they would get out. Then this letter tells them to stay where they are and they are pretty mad.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can give the minister a few more points to answer, both in connection with, and apart from, the point system itself. The first point that I should like to deal with briefly is the question of responsibility for this policy. This point system was devised by senior officers overseas. I say in all seriousness that I am very glad indeed to hear the minister state that he has the utmost confidence in those senior officers, because I was afraid when this question was first discussed in the house that the minister did not have much confidence in them and therefore was going to leave them to take the whole responsibility for this policy. He did say then that this was devised by senior officers overseas and that they are responsible for it. I
Demobilization-Army

am glad to hear him say now that he accepted their decision and is going to support them. But at the same time I believe it does put us in a position, when criticizing this policy, of criticizing indirectly those very high ranking officers. Well, that is a thing which one must take into due consideration when criticiz-the policy. But we are still free to criticize the policy, and to point out, as was cogently observed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, that although General Crerar devised the policy, that was last May, and does not mean the policy is correct to-day or that it is working out to the advantage of the men who did the longest and hardest fighting.
There is no guarantee that the policy is fool-proof or incapable of being mistaken just because a high ranking and responsible officer has thought it out and devised it. We are suggesting in effect that the policy, no matter who initiated it or worked out the details, is not working out as it should and is actually inflicting hardship on the men overseas. I urge the minister to go one step farther and accept his ultimate responsibility by going back to these officers and saying, "All right; it may have been good, but I will accept my responsibility and require you to initiate the necessaiy changes."
In discussing this point system, whoever originated it, I think the fact should be borne in mind that, as has been so clearly proven by events, this policy is arousing the opposition, not to say the hostility, of men of all ranks overseas. This is borne out when we go back ' and consider what happened when the editor of the Maple Leaf was removed from his position. If it could be said that this dissatisfaction with the point system represented merely a certain amount of letting off steam we would be inclined to say that if the minister had investigated and was satisfied that it was all right, we would let it drop. But when the situation arises where the responsible editor of the army newspaper, who had occupied that position for fully two years, finds it necessary to take the serious step of defying his superior officer and resigning or being removed, thus coming into open- conflict with his general officer commanding, then I think we can take it as fairly well established that there is something behind the feeling he is trying to express. It could not have been merely his own personal opinion, or he would not have resigned his position; he would not have refused to publish the other article. I point out that he took violent and open issue; he found himself in the position of having to obey orders or say, "No. The matter is so serious I have to refuse to obey orders, though I know full well what will be the consequen-

ces." That was the decision taken by Major Macfarlane, and I think that should be indicative to'us of the seriousness of the situation. Not only did he take that step, but we find the same thing being done by the assistant editor, Lieutenant Ingraham. I am reading now from the Ottawa Journal of September 24:
Lieutenant Ed. Ingraham .	.	. assistant
editor of the northwest Europe edition of the Maple Leaf . . . said to-day he has "resigned on principle" following the removal of the editor. . . .
And a little further down:
Lieutenant-Colonel Gilchrist . . . called other members of the editorial and composing room staff to a meeting, and reminded them they were soldiers and- must d-o as ordered. But later half the compositors and make-up crews submitted requests for transfers.
I merely mention these two facts to show how seriously the men overseas regard the unfair working of this point system, which is bringing hardship to the men who have done the longest and hardest fighting. I do not think it necessary to emphasize or elaborate on the unfairness which actually is being done. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has shown in the few remarks he made that a man who joined toward the end of 1943 but who got into action almost immediately and fought continuously for a year or more, still might have fewer points than a man who might have come over from Canada only recently, or who might have been in England all the time, but because the first man had fewer points he was put into the army of occupation and wil-l be repatriated later than those men who never saw action. That view is not confined only to members on this side of the house. It is held) by men overseas and by men who have come back to this country. The minister must take account of that widespread and firmly held view, because it is causing such bitterness. It is not a matter in connection with which he can say, "there is a misconception on somebody's part, but the policy really is fair." I suggest that the soldiers are about the fairest judges of the minister's action-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not want to interrupt
my hon. friend-, because I have a perfectly open mind on this question, but some alternative policy must be suggested.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was under the impression that -this had been done. If not, I will run over it again.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is what I want to
discuss. We -are dealing in generalities at the moment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will run over it again.

Demobilization-Army


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should like specific suggestions as to how the point score should be changed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear the
minister does not require much more proof that it is a serious matter, but I should like just to bring to his attention this last item perhaps to clinch the matter. I quote from the 'Vancouver Sun, a good Liberal newspaper, of October 9, 1945:
The "point" system of service credits, basis for release from the Canadian army, was the object of severe criticism among returning Seaforth Highlanders.
That regiment returned home at the beginning of this month.
The combat veterans of this crack battalion are "mad" about the system which they allege let men come back to Canada who "never fired a rifle in anger".	.
At the same time they charge many of their combat comrades from Sicily and Italy have been kept in northwest Europe on the Canadian occupational force.
Here is another paragraph I shall read to the minister without comment to show how serious they consider this matter to be:
One Seaforth who served through every Italian and northwest Europe campaign said that out of 260 Seaforths of the second section "not more than 100 should have marched with us, with our colours."
That is how the men returning feel about it; not the men still over there, anxious to get back, but men who have returned to this country, thinking of their comrades who should be back here but who are not.
The minister mentioned the case of the Saskatoon Light Infantry to which he said a number of men with low-point scores had been posted after V-E day. In justification for the fact that many of these men had been brought back to Canada, he said that this unit had suffered pretty heavy casualties and that it was necessary to send a great many replacements. I would be the last to minimize the job done by the Saskatoon Light Infantry, but that was the support battalion of the first division and its casualties were light by comparison, and by comparison only. If, notwithstanding that, a number of men who had not reached that battalion until after V-E day were returned with them-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know my hon. friend does not wish to be unfair, but that was not what I said. I said that they were not posted in order to be returned to Canada; they were posted in the ordinary course before or about Y-E day, on the regular basis of territorial posting and that months later, when the unit was ready to return to Canada, they came back with it. I am sure my hon. friend would
like to keep that straight, in fairness to the Saskatoon Light Infantry. The posting was not made in view of the return to Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the distinction, and I did not intend to put that slant on the ministers words. In any event these men were posted, and by virtue of the fact that they were with the unit and had a sufficient number of points, when the unit came to be repatriated they came back- with it. If these men were posted to the Saskatoon Light Infantry, which had comparatively light casualties, then a great many more must have been posted toother infantry regiments with heavier casualties, so that we are going to have a great many more men with little or no combat experience coming back, while we still keep over there men with a great deal of combat experience. The ministers own statement as to how that occurred in connection with the Saskatoon Light Infantry surely should show him on reflection the necessity for changing the basis on which men are repatriated from overseas, so that we may get back first those men who have done the longest and hardest fighting.
In connection with this matter of the retention of long service personnel may I point out that, as is indicated in the article dealing with the Seaforths, many of the men who, they feel, should be coming back, are posted to the army of occupation, while many others are kept in Europe on the basis of their being key personnel. The minister has said1-and I appreciate his point-that he does not wish to open up new files, but that if we will bring to his attention any case in which a hardship has been shown, he will see that it is given consideration.
I can say only this, that I agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) when he says that there is a volume of cases being brought to the minister's attention sufficient to prove conclusively that a new approach is necessary, and that some new system should be evolved to prevent the necessity of referring all these cases.
One point which occurs to me, and which I shall suggest he should bring to the attention of officers overseas, is that they should revise their thinking when it comes to a matter of deciding as to the indispensability of personnel, because I know the tendency is, when one has a good and valuable man, to say that he is "key personnel" in order to avoid losing him, when, in fact, one may have no real basis for making that statement.
However, a number of cases in this category are coming to light. I know of two brothers who had been in the army for four and 4i
Demobilization-Army

years respectively, most of which time was served1 overseas, both of whom are cooks and are being kept on the ground that they are key personnel.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Have they had combat experience?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, insofar as cooks are able to get it. They were with combat units. In any event, I am wondering if the training of cooks was stopped two years ago, because surely there must be a number of cooks and other tradesmen in the NTtjM.A. personnel, and in other personnel, who were dispatched with the last drafts to leave Canada, and who could be available to replace those who are held out to be key personnel. If there are not, then the only assumption is that the training of tradesmen was stopped two years ago. Until I get that assurance from the minister, I cannot accept that. Therefore I suggest that he put up to his officers overseas the question of whether or not they are too apt to say that certain men are key personnel.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am doing that continually, if I may say so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: While I am on my feet, there are two other points to which I would refer briefly. The whole question of the revision of the-points system is bound up with the army of occupation because, as I said, the ppinion appears to be- widespread among the men that a large proportion who have combat service which should entitle them to return home are being grabbed for the army of occupation.
In that connection I should like to read this extract from a letter from, a soldier overseas which bears out what I say, and which appeared in the Vancouver Sun of October 15:
The organization of the Canadian occupation force leaves much to be desired. We were both amused and disgusted to read in a Canadian newspaper that the COF was "a master-piece of administration." In reality, thousands of men were grabbed from every unit, regardless of the length of time they spent in action. No distinction was made between men who risked their all in battle and others who belatedly arrived after V-E day.
That is a situation which could be cleared up by a revision in the point system, so as to give extra credit to the men who have served in action. I was under the impression that that point had been covered. From what I have said, if anything further were necessary, I think the minister should now be convinced that there is a situation in this connection which requires clearing lip; and if he is unable, with the assistance of his staff officers, to devise some system which would cure the

situation, then I will repeat the suggestion already made, namely, that one extra point be given for every month spent in actual combat.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And how would the hon. member define actual combat?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not concerned here to define that; that should be worked out by the officers on the staff.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That has been their difficulty.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the minister wishes I will call at his office and go into the matter with him. But I suggest that surely now that we have advanced the principle, there are sufficient highly paid and capable staff officers in Canada and overseas to work it out.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They have tried.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That would merely be for repatriation from overseas, and would not apply to the discharge of those who have come back to Canada. I believe an improvement in this regard would relieve that great body of ill feeling and resentment which does exist. We are speaking of those men to whom we promised everything while they, were fighting and when we were sending them out to fight. I wonder how some of the private members on the government side feel when they know that the men overseas resent bitterly the treatment they are now getting.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But they are not all resenting it bitterly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How does the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) feel about it? We used to get his letters-and I am not criticizing him personally-saying how much the government was going to do for the men who were carrying the country's burdens in the field of battle. All I am saying is that we, as members of the opposition, have gone probably farther than it is necessary for us to go, but that we have suggested to the government steps which should be taken for those men who carried the country's burdens in battle, and that it is now up to the government to get on with it.


Mr. PEARKES:: On a point of privilege, on October 16, as reported at page 1185 of Hansard, I used these words:
Even at this eleventh hour it should be revised, and some additional bonus, some preference, should be granted or some scheme devised -I care not how you work it out-for the benefit of the men who have been in actual combat and to whom the minister referred as having the hardest and longest service.
I suggest that the minister is incorrect when he says that no alternative recommendation was made.

Demobilization-Army


Douglas Charles Abbott: I accept my hon. friend's statement. What I meant was that no one had suggested-and I shall deal with this in greater detail after eight o'clock when I explain the difficulties the staff were up against in attempting to assess what is loosely called actual combat. That has been suggested, of course. It was considered over a year ago by those who were responsible for trying to frame a policy. But the difficulties were very great in deciding what value should be given for so-called actual combat, or how one would define actual combat, or find a record of it. However, I shall discuss this in detail at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Langton Church: There are a few matters
to which I should like to call the attention of the minister, coming as I do from a soldier city, and perhaps he would make a note of them and give me a reply later.
Does a soldier lose his civilian status by enlisting? I raised this question before in the house and the minister's predecessor gave some reply to it, but I have generally found that a soldier on enlisting does lose his civilian status. He has no longer any status at all as a civilian. We have seen that in the past two years, particularly in the case of a soldier called "Tiger" Welsh, who came in for a good deal of criticism because he gave an interview to a newspaper, and the rule then was made that soldiers must not give interviews to newspapers. But the war is over now and I hope the minister will look into that question again. I believe that at the present time it is doing a great injury to the national interest.
The first-in, first-out rule is a very good rule in principle, but it has not been working out very well. I urged away back last July in an interview with the Globe that the government should follow the practice which was adopted when the war broke out of establishing a shipping pool agency in Washington. Through that agency we got a large quantity of supplies and equipment and troops and many ships on lease. The war has been over now for some months and we need shipping to bring our troops home. The government should follow the same practice and establish an agency in Washington through which we might be able to get the use of some United States ships for bringing our men home. Not long ago the Cunard line of steamships and 47696-102
other ships of British registry were filled with United States soldiers to sixty per cent of their capacity. Notwithstanding the shipping pool I believe that the government could do more to get shipping to bring our soldiers home. More trips by the Queen Elizabeth and the lie de France could be arranged for, as well as the use of Dutch boats. Repatriation has been going on a little better in the last two or three months but still there is an insistent clamour from our people to get the boys back home for Christmas, and I urge that everything be done to bring that about. We all remember what a miracle in transport was worked after Dunkirk. Another miracle should be worked to-day in demobilizing our troops faster by land, sea and air to get them home.
Another matter I wish to bring up is the cadet services. What is to be done about them? I notice that a member from the province of Quebec claimed the other day that Quebec had more cadet services than the city of Toronto, but he forgot about the 60,000 cadets in our public and secondary schools.
I should like to see the government do something about turning back to the municipalities, cities, towns and rural municipalities of this country the property which they turned over to the government for use during the war. Take the Canadian National exhibition property in Toronto, for instance; there is no reason why that property should not be given back to the city. Some of the buildings are not occupied, and in addition there are a large number of sheds along the waterfront east of Yonge street. Action is needed at once to aid housing this winter.
The trouble that I see when a new minister comes into a department is that the minute he takes hold, along comes the deputy minister and persuades him to do things like the last minister did, and the result is that the policy of the new minister is exactly the policy of the old. That is all very well in the days of peace. But in these days greater activity is needed. The new post office building on Bay street should also be given back to the post office at once by the army. All the minister needs to do is to order them to move and it will be done. The property that was turned over to the government by the municipalities for use in war time should be turned back now.
There are a lot of soldiers appearing in the courts to-day, civilian and other courts. I read the newspapers and I find that many of these soldiers have no lawyer to represent them in court. I raised this question with the minister's predecessor last year. I appreciate
Demobilization-Army

what the Canadian Bar Association has done, but I saw a letter in the Globe and Mail the other day written by Colonel Myall of Hamilton, referring to a member of the forces, a decorated man who was sent down for a trivial offence and had no lawyer to represent him in court. Something should be done about this. If private organizations do not do it, the minister should have an official of his own to appear in court on behalf of the soldier.
Industry is badly in need of reconversion. Cannot we d,o something to cut through the mass of red tape and unlock the handcuffs which prevent men from getting out of the forces, especially those who have already come back to Canada? How is industry to march forward with a scarcity of men? There must be more activity shown in demoblization to aid reconversion, and more modern methods adopted, so as to create a steady flow of civilian goods and aid industry.
I have often urged reduced railway fares for soldiers, and I had hopes that something along this line would be done, but the members of the forces are still being charged the same fares, even on week-ends. I hope something along that line will be done.
I should not like to see the government adopt the wide policy of President Truman and make all youths under twenty years of age take one year of military training. Consider what our schools in the cadet services have done already for the armed forces in two great wars. The public and separate schools did splendidly in the South African war and many wars since then, and they were the backbone of our militia in the great war, through the cadet training in the schools. The separate schools also have a splendid cadet corps, De La Salle. Also the public secondary schools of all provinces have done wonderful work for the militia in the cadet services. They have cadet instructors, camps,' rifle drill and all that sort of thing. I should not like to see a young Canadian lose a whole year from university or industry by having to take compulsory military training when he can take it at school with military drill.
'Last July an order was issued permitting high school students in the armed forces to be discharged in order that they might resume their studies at high school or the university. I see no reason why that order should not be extended to include those who are serving overseas and who left high school or their first year at university. Some of them are now in the army of occupation in Germany. All they can do under the present regulations 
is to go overseas to the Khaki college. They should be permitted to come home, the same as those in Canada, to resume their education.
Last week in reply to a question I raised, a return was tabled about deserters overseas and in Canada. Some of these deserters during the heavy fighting in Italy were away for a couple of weeks. I do not think some of them, after being over there three or four years, were in their right minds; some of them were nervous wrecks; yet some of them were sentenced to as much as five and ten years. Now, upon being returned to Canada, some of them have been removed from Fort Henry to a federal penal institution. I notice, according to a report in the Toronto Globe, that one of the Quebec members, speaking at East Brome, said that terms for deserters in his constituency were only twenty-eight days' detention, and that he got them out. Surely these matters ought to be looked into, and an inquiry held at once into these irregularities. When the navy estimates were up I was glad to observe a remark of the minister about the case of those men who got into trouble at Halifax; he seems to have taken a reasonably sensible view of the matter, and I hope that something will be done to release them without all this delay and red tape of clemency departments.
In conclusion, let me say that no city in the dominion has given more of. its property to the government for use in the war than has Toronto. I hope the minister, unlike others I have referred to, in the administration of his department will not be content to do merely as the deputy says, but will make a thorough house-cleaning, and will enable the city to get back some of its property so that it can go ahead to provide some housing for the people in the coming winter, and a start at reopening the Canadian National exhibition.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall take note of what my hon. friend has raised and try to give him an answer later. *
I should like to say a few words about matters raised this afternoon concerning the method which has been followed of repatriating our troops. If in the heat of debate I appeared to be impatient, I do not wish to convey to hon. members that I do not want to hear any suggestions which they may have. I know I am voicing the views of all members of the committee when I say that the objects of us all are the same, namely, to ensure that the system we have is the most perfect one to get our troops home as quickly as possible and in the fairest way possible. I do not want to give the impression that either I or the members of the staff have a

Demobilization-Army
rigid mind in these matters and are not open to any suggestions for improving the system. But I wish to explain to the committee, perhaps a little more fully than it has been possible to do in the past, how that system has been worked out.
The criticisms which have been made this afternoon boil down, it seems to me, to two main points. The first is that the system as arranged has permitted low-point men, including N.R.M.A. men, to return with their units ahead of men with very much higher points.


Howard Charles Green: Even though they have done no fighting.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am going to deal with the second point later. That is the first point. They may or may not have done any fighting. There are some N.R.M.A. men who did fighting, and about two hundred were killed; some low-point men did considerable fighting. The point raised by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar was slightly different. He thought that low-point men who had done fighting should come home ahead of high-point men who had done no fighting. There is a difference of view there.
The second point is that the point system of repatriation should provide some weighting for men who had engaged in actual combat or who had done fighting; those were the phrases used. The hon. member for Nanaimo quoted my statement that men who had done the longest and hardest service should be brought home first, but interpreted "hardest" as meaning "most dangerous." I point out to him and the committee that the phrase is "longest and hardest," which is not necessarily "longest and most dangerous"; and the basic principle which was followed in working out this system which was adopted was that it was length of separation from those in Canada, rather than the degree of danger which may have been involved in the service performed, which governed the point system.


George Randolph Pearkes: On a point of privilege, I never mentioned the word "dangerous."


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; I pointed out that my hon. friend appeared to interpret my phrase "longest and hardest" in the sense that "hardest" would imply "more dangerous."


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not know where the minister got that interpretation. It is merely his idea of how, as he thinks, I should have interpreted those words.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If I have taken the wrong
meaning from my hon. friend's language, perhaps the point is not of great importance. I will elaborate. This whole plan came under consideration by the army demobilization 47696- I02i	.
planning committee which was set up in August, 1944. They canvassed all the various elements which they felt should be taken into consideration in trying to work out a system for determining the basis on which troops should be returned from overseas. It was pretty well agreed, I think, that that system should fulfil certain requirements. First, it should be simple and easily understood; second, it should be susceptible of easy, efficient administration; third, it should be of general application and equally fair to all who were on the same basis. Finally, it should be readily calculable from existing documents and records. They considered whether some such test as combat service or fighting should be taken into consideration, and it was finally decided not to adopt any such test, for a variety of reasons, I understand, but mainly because in this war it is very difficult to define what is a battlefield, an area of combat, or combat service. May I say in parenthesis that other countries have experienced the same difficulty, and I am advised that there is no state in the commonwealth which has worked out a system whereby points are awarded for so-called combat duty. It has no,t been done in Great Britain or Australia or South Africa or New Zealand. The only country I know of which has done it is the United States. The way they have been able to do it is that apparently they awarded decorations and stars for combat duty. They have a decoration known as the Purple Heart, and they award so many points for a Purple Heart, so many points for decorations for gallantry, so many points for combat stars, and so on. Rightly or wrongly, we have not that system of decorations; but it is important to note that the records of the individual soldier do not indicate whether he has had combat service or not. I repeat that the method of keeping records does not indicate whether a man has combat service, actual combatant service, or whatever phrase one chooses to take. Obviously it would be quite possible to assess each individual soldier on an individual basis, and determine whether or not he had combatant service or one of those other types of service which, it is suggested, should give him somewhat higher points for repatriation; but our records do not indicate that, and the records of other commonwealth nations do not indicate it; the records of the United States forces apparently do, but only to the extent that a man has been awarded a ribbon or a star or a decoration for combat.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the minister
allow a question at this point?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, gladly.
Demobilization-Army


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is he not aware that our records do show definitely when a man goes into a theatre of operations; it appears on his records and can be got without any difficulty in the world, and it was on the basis of those records that the original point system of which I spoke this afternoon was worked out, and points were assigned.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is now using another phrase. He says "a theatre of operations." I know of no particular reason why a man who served, let us say, at a base in France should have a higher priority for repatriation than a man who served, say, in a depot in the dock area in London which was being bombed night after night. He is talking now about a theatre of operations.
I am glad he raised the point about the point score which was used for rotation leave. That dealt with a comparatively small number of men who could be handled on the individual basis to which I refererd a moment ago. [DOT]
I am not an expert in these matters and I do not know whether it would have been administratively possible to do it. I have to take the word of officers whom I believe to be extremely capable in matters of this kind, and if the committee stopped to think it over, I think they would realize that these officers, in common with all the rest of us, have just as much interest in seeing that a fair and equitable system of returning our lads from overseas is worked out. They are just as fair as any of the rest of us. After all, the question is one which involves the exercise of judgment, and the judgment which has been exercised in this particular matter is that of senior and not so senior officers here, overseas and in London who, I can assure the committee, after the most exhaustive and careful study, have concluded, rightly or wrongly, that this is on balance the fairest and most workable system that can be devised. And I can say to the committee that it is working fairly.
Perhaps I should give some figures with regard to the repats in the month of September. I got these figures during the recess because I thought it might be interesting to the committee to see how the system works out. In September the reduction in strength from overseas was 35,301, and this is the way in which it worked out. Those with a point score of over 150 were 21,305; those with a point score of 130 to 149-and, mark you, these are all high point men-were 3,673; those with a point score of 100 to 129 were 3,550; and from 50 to 100 there were only 7,000 out of that total. In other words,

well over three-quarters were high-point score men. That is the way in which the present system is actually working.


Howard Charles Green: How many were N.R.M.A.?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not that figure, but I can assure my hon. friend that they were a relatively small number. Perhaps I can answer that point with regard to the N.R.M.A. A certain number of N.R.M.A. men, low-point men, were sent to units in northwest Europe and Germany up to V-E day and shortly after. But remember, cessation of hostilities on V-E day did not mean that our troops in northwest Europe and Germany were not still charged with the carrying out of extremely important responsibilities. They had to see that civil order was maintained, that towns were occupied, and that sort of thing, and you could not send completely untrained troops to replace the shortages in those battalions. As I mentioned this afternoon, reinforcements sent forward to the theatre just prior to V-E day and for a short time afterwards were sent forward in the ordinary way, taking their ordinary turn in the reinforcement queue, and there was no arrangement whereby low-point men went sent forward' in order that they might be repatriated quickly. They continued to serve in those units.
I am not going to stand here and say that the system which has been adopted is the perfect system or one which is not susceptible of improvement, but I do say that it is the system which has been worked out by men who, in my judgment at any rate, are extremely competent officers. It represents their considered view as to what is the most workable system. I have no doubt they will take into account the points brought forward in this debate, for instance.
The system is working. It is working well, and on balance-and you can only take these things on balance and on averages-I do not know that a much better system could have been evolved. From the information I have been given I can certainly say to the committee that the system of any other of our associated or allied nations i9 working no better than if as well as our own.


Howard Charles Green: Nobody else has an N.R.M.A. set-up.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If I may interject, the N.R.M.A. portion of this problem is a very small one. I will even, concede for the sake of argument that it is unfortunate that these low-point N.R.M.A. men were included. But one of the main points this afternoon was-I think my hon. friend the member for Nanaimo will agree with me

that we should change

Demobilization-Army
our system and give a special allocation of points to men who had had combat duty. I have endeavoured to explain that that question was considered by the officers who were studying the matter and* was discarded for the reasons which I have tried to put before the committee. I have- bolstered my point, if you like, by stating that no other country, with the exception of the United States, has been able to devise a system whereby special points can be awarded for this type of combat duty or whatever it may be, serving in an operational theatre, to use the phrase of the hon. member for Calgary East. The United States have a system of decoration different from ours which facilitates easy determination of the question as to who had this type of service.
I cannot say more to the committee. I shall bring the points which have been* raised in the course of this discussion to the attention of the staff, but I feel sure the committee will appreciate that this is not a matter which is now or which should be made the subject of political controversy. We are all anxious to see that a system is operated which will be as fair and efficient as possible.
As minister I am dependent upon the advice of officers whom I believe to be extremely competent in matters of this kind and I certainly would not attempt to substitute my judgment for theirs on such questions. They certainly have as great an interest as I have in seeing that the system works smoothly and I hope they are open to suggestions. But I assure the committee that they have given this particular problem the most serious consideration and after that consideration have decided* that the, system which we have adopted is probably the most workable one, taking into account all the circumstances. I do not think there is anything more I can add to that statement.


Mr. ADAMSON:: One question about the United States system. I understand that any soldier who has seen two campaigns is automatically discharged. Is that not so? Could we not determine how many soldiers had seen two campaigns? How many have we left in Europe who have seen two campaigns? According to the United States system, I understand that if a man served in Africa and Italy he is discharged automatically, and the same is true if he served in Italy and western Europe. Could we not find out the facts, in regard to such service so far as we are concerned? We have records.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Our people have studied closely the plans of all other allied and associated countries, and I have here a booklet
which I have been given as outlining the United States system, but it does not indicate that special consideraiton is given to a case such as my hon. friend has mentioned, though that may well be possible. May I say, without casting reflections on the United States system, that reports reaching me indicate that there is, if I may put it in the form of understatement, no greater satisfaction with the United States system of repatriation than there is with ours. I have heard of cases of the system resulting in a thousand men being left under a subaltern, which any old soldier realizes is not an entirely satisfactory way of running either an army of occupation or a number of men left for repatriation.
I do not want to be dogmatic. Both I and the officers are quite open to suggestions and I am glad that we have had this discussion to-day. But it is very easy to say that we should award special points for combat duty. It appeals to all of us; we all feel that it should be done. When one gets down to the practical realities, however, and, in the handling of 150.000, 175,000, or 200,000 men, tries to make ..use of available shipping, so that a ship will not sail with empty space that might accommodate a thousand men who could be brought back to Canada, it is not so simple as it seems.
This system has been pretty carefully thought out. I am assured it has been and I believe that to be the case. It is perhaps subject to some further improvement; but in my judgment, for what it is worth, we cannot now substitute a system of trying to give some credits for combat duty or serving in an operational theatre when our thousands of records do not contain a definite indication as to what man is entitled to it. By the time we started to make that arrangement it would be the middle or the end of December, and we hope we shall have a lot more men back before that time. I have pointed out to the committee the way in which the point system is working, and incidentally I might, point out that the basis of computing points terminated on March 31, 1945, so that there is no question of accumulating further points* for service overseas after March 31, 1945.
The system shows that over three-quarters* of those who came back in September were men with 150 points or better. Naturally, with points frozen on March 31, 1945, the point score of the average man overseas is* going steadily down. I shall bring every suggestion that has been made to the attention of the officers who are responsible for working -out this plan; but I can sincerely say to the-committee, I do think the plan is working: well and frankly I deprecate too much dis

Demobilization-Army

cussion which may tend to create further doubts in the minds of the men overseas as to the fairness of the system. I, myself, do not believe that it is unfair and I hope that the men overseas are not getting that impression.
Incidentally, a certain number of statements have been made here this afternoon to the effect that men coming back from overseas are resentful of the system, and feel that it is unfair. Well, some may feel that, but I have been in 'touch with as many as I could, friends of mine have been coming back and quite frankly that is not the impression I have got from them. Some of them have said, just as has been said here this afternoon, that some consideration should be given to men who have had fighting service; but when I have explained the difficulties of that to them, they have said, "Well, I guess perhaps that is right, and' it is working pretty well too." I am satisfied that we are doing the best we can. Really, there is nothing more I can add to that statement?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister made several points. He deprecated the introduction of politics into this question.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; I said there were no politics in it.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I wanted to assure myself on that point, because there certainly is not.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I made it clear that I was sure nobody was speaking on this from a political point of view.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Most certainly not. The minister has made a very interesting statement, but he has not answered the questions we raised this afternoon, namely, that there should be additional points awarded for each month of what we call fighting service, or combat service. It was not until the minister himself suggested that there was any difficulty in deciding what was combat service that it ever crossed my mind that there could be any difficulty on that score at all, and after hearing him I still think there is no difficulty.
The position we are taking is the position taken by a great number of soldiers. I have a clipping here which simply says: "Main objection to the point system was that it gives no extra credit for combat service," and that the troops returning were resentful. In sny opinion, and I think in the opinion of *jvery Canadian soldier, the test of comlbat ervice is this: Do you wear the Africa star? Jo you wear the Italy star, or do you wear the northwest Europe star? That is the test of fighting service which entitles a man to a campaign ribbon of .which he may well be proud. Whether he is a cook, or wherever he [Mr. Abbott.!
is in the theatre of operations he is what I call a fighting soldier, and that system would suit me perfectly well. Therefore the plan proposed by the members on this side of the house is this: one extra point for every month of service which entitles you to a campaign ribbon. Therefore it is very simple. Perhaps the minister will say that it is too simple, but it would suit the fighting soldiers.
The other point that I think we made was that the system should be revised now. I should like the minister to say whether or not since the articles came out in the Maple Leaf, and since it was apparent that there was dissatisfaction with the present system, he has on his own initiative asked General Simmonds, or any other of the high ranking officers on whom he relies, if some change along the lines that we have suggested, which would still the dissatisfaction that the men have expressed, could be made.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, I can answer that question very quickly. I did take it up, and I have a long and very full memorandum from General Simmonds in which he strongly recommends that no change ibe made in the present system. I received that memorandum about a week or ten days ago.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I
should like to shift the emphasis a little into the future. We assume that the estimates which have been presented to us are in line with our commitments or possible commitments to the united nations. Obviously we cannot defend ourselves alone. Our best hope of defence is in cooperation with other countries collectively; and yet I think it is equally obvious that we may not be able to defend ourselves at all with armies and with navies. We may hope that we can control technology, but that is merely a protestation of faith. Faith without good works is not of very much use to us.
On August. 6 our entire conception of military strategy was revolutionized. We then found out that armies could be wiped out and navies obliterated, because the scientist and the technician are now supreme.
The basic principles of strategy by which we fought for two thousand years went up in the smoke of Hiroshima, and I think not only our armies but our navies also are perhaps outmoded. The same may also be true of our air force. We are told that the atomic bomb is an experiment. Well, it was quite an experiment, if what we are told is true, that two hundred of those bombs have the power of devastation of two million tons of bombs such as we have known before. I say that our air force may be outmoded because the bomb

Demobilization-Army
may conceivably be used as a rocket projectile ; and as the months and perhaps the years go by, greater skill will be foundi to direct that projectile with much greater accuracy. Obviously then to-day as far as defence goes we are in the hands of the scientist, and I should like to know what the minister is doing in this field. What is being done by the Department of National Defence to encourage the scientist? From the point of view of defence I think it would be a better investment to have two thousand scientists employed than ten times that number of men in the armed forces. What is being done to keep these men in Canada and to use them for the defence of Canada?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have already dealt with
the matter. In my opening statement I dealt to some extent with the steps which were being taken to encourage research and development. I dealt, I think, also at some length in replies to a number of questions asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo the other day. I indicated that the three different services have now under active consideration-when I say "active consideration" I really mean it-just how the research and development activities of the three'services can be most actively and efficiently carried on, and carried on in the closest cooperation with the national research council. I indicated that I hoped in the not too far distant future to be able to make a more definite statement as to just what plans had been worked out, but I assure the committee that this very important phase of defence activities is not being overlooked.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am not prepared to depart from the discussion of the point system at the moment, because I believe sufficient evidence has been produced to show there is widespread dissatisfaction with the way in which men are being repatriated from overseas. I have every confidence, as I believe every hon. member has confidence, in our commanders overseas; but when this point system was first prepared those commanders were busily engaged in battle or had just finished the operations which brought victory. They were concerned with the immediate problems which faced them on the continent of Europe. I feel sure there must have been some connection maintained between the department here and those commanders overseas. Staff officers were crossing to Europe quite frequently, and no doubt they discussed the repatriation system. I do not think it is quite fair to unload the burden upon General Crerar and General [DOT]Simmonds and suggest that they were entirely responsible for preparing the present point .system.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was not prepared here in Canada.


George Randolph Pearkes: I did not say, here in
Canada. I said that Canadian staff officers made frequent visits to England. Nt>
doubt those officers did discuss this problem with General Crerar and General Simmonds, but those two officers were concerned with immediate operations. However, no general officer is infallible, and now we have had six months of experience with the working out of this point system. The very figures which were given us to-day, indicating that some seven thousand low-point men had been brought back in one month; the press reports which have been read to us from various newspapers in Canada, emphasize the fact that the present system is not working satisfactorily. Those press reports did not come from Saskatchewan only. The minister referred to the Saskatoon Light Infantry, but other units came back at that time and all but two included a proportion of more than ten per cent of low-point men, according to a return tabled here a couple of weeks ago. It has been admitted already that the minister has received a number of letters in this connnection, some of them passed on by members of parliament. I know I have had many letters, a few of which I have passed on to the minister. They all report a feeling of dissatis-tion abroad that the men who have seen the longest and hardest service are not coming back first. I should like to read an extract from one letter I received:
Some of your remarks came very close home to us.
That is in reference to some remarks I made here in the house.
We have a boy who is planted, I consider, quite unfairly in the army of occupation. I have tried every w'ay I know of, except political pressure, to get him repatriated to Canada to pursue a medical course at McGill university before he becomes too old. All I ha've got out of the adjutant general is the statement of policy in regard to occupational service, and the bemoaning of the fact that his case typifies one of their greatest problems.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Does my hon. friend know
the point score of that soldier?


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not know the point
score, but I am coming to his service in a moment:
Their greatest problem started with the injustice of the point system which, you have properly pointed out.	.
Our boy landed on the beaches of Normandy on D-day with the 19th Field Regiment, R.C.A., and his unit was through the thick of it until V-E day almost without a break, yet he does not rate consideration. . . .
Here is a young man who landed on the beaches on D-day, so I am told-
Demobilization-Army


Douglas Charles Abbott: He might have a point
score of only sixty.


George Randolph Pearkes: He is anxious to come back and take a university course, but he cannot come back. That is only one example. I do not know his point score.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is of some importance.


George Randolph Pearkes: That information was not given me, but it can be ascertained. If it is a high-point score he should be permitted to come back, but this is a typical example of what may be found all over Canada. It is not only in one province; it is.in every province throughout the country. I say sufficient evidence has been produced to show that this point system, as it is in operation at the present time, is working to the disadvantage of the man who has seen the longest and hardest service. Therefore I ask, is it not possible now for the minister to consider revising that point system on some such simple plan as was just suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, under which a man who is entitled to wear a service ribbon would get a bonus.


Mr. PROBE:: I should like to make a few observations with respect to the estimates generally.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I wonder if I might just put one question on this same subject.


John Oliver Probe: I will not be too long. To-day I checked over the defence estimates for the last year of the Conservative regime in this country, 1935-36, and I.was interested to note that the figure approximated $17,000,000. During the first year war was declared the Liberal government budgeted for an expenditure of $65,000,000. Last year the estimates reached the comparatively astronomical figure of $1,500 million for the army alone. In other words, the army estimates for the year just past are approximately nine hundred times what they were when we were standing by with our head in the sand, so to speak, thinking all was well with the world.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Thanks to Miss Macphail.


John Oliver Probe: She may have had something to do with it; however, a number of Conservatives had the same ideas at the same time. We have made terrific war expenditures, and-now in the first year of peace we are going to spend for the army alone roughly a billion dollars, if these estimates pass as I believe they will.

It is with respect to some personal criticisms, that I am on my feet now. When our spending was very niggardly in regard to defence we had what might be called an emaciated staff, but when we got into the war and as the war proceeded that was changed. District depots; district headquarters; the Department of National Defence; Canadian military headquarters; the first and second echelons of twenty-one army group; the headquarters of the first Canadian army; the headquarters of two corps; the headquarters of five divisions, with all their entourage

all these were created one after another and gradually expanded until now we have reached what I think could well be called a state of administrative obesity. We are going to have about as much trouble in reducing that staff to sensible proportions in the next year or two as a fat man would have in taking off the generous amounts of lard he may have accumulated during better days.
A few days ago I drew attention to the amount of brass hanging around Ottawa, and this evening I should like to make a correction in the statement I made at that time. On that occasion I said that on V-E day there were 1,582 army officers at Ottawa; I have found that actually there were somewhere between 1,677 and 1,933 officers at national defence headquarters. Then, in London, at C.M.H.Q. we have actually increased since January 1 the number of officers from 478 to 526. There is, of course, a small sprinkling of other rank personnel as well. For example, in Ottawa on the last day of September there were about 5,500 other ranks, while in London at C.M.H.Q. there were about 2,300. In other words, in those two headquarters groups alone we have an officer complement

and with plenty of extras, particularly at the higher levels-for seven fighting divisions, and we have half a division of other ranks. Those are the proportions.
I have no doubt that in spite of the unwieldy strength of these establishment they did assist materially in the successful conclusion of the war, so far as Canada is concerned. It is a moot question, of course, as to whether we could have had as successful results with fewer staff officers.	,
There has been a phenomenal improvement in our fighting equipment. I can recall the early days of the war when in our artillery batteries we did gun drill with broomsticks, because of a lack of actual guns. Ultimately, of course, we got those excellent 25-pounders which did such effective work against the enemy. That is, after a very considerable period1 of time we managed to secure the type of equipment which was actually necessary for

Demobilization-Army
the successful prosecution, of the war. But I believe that these expenditures in terms of actual equipment used, which will now be scrapped, are far in excess of our expenditures for the personal welfare of the troops who manipulated that expensive equipment.
We had overseas two groups of services which catered especially to the well-being of the man. I refer to the Canadian auxiliary services and to the Canadian Legion educational services. I think this would be a proper time to pay tribute to what was done by them. The first group I have mentioned in connection with their canteen and entertainment work. This was done at a time when it was badly needed. I would refer, too, to the work of the Canadian Legion educational services, and their successors the Canadian army educational services, which filled a need felt by the men when they were not particularly interested in entertainment. Special tribute is due to the staff of the Canadian army educational services for the excellent work they did in the lines, behind the lines and at bases, and for what they are now doing at khaki college in England.
In this connection, however, I should like to read briefly from an excerpt from Canada's Weekly of October 5, 1945, which would seem to indicate that, in spite of our expenditures amounting to billions of dollars, it is still equipment upon which we spend our money, and not men. This article deals with the various branches of khaki college set up in London. Some hon. members may know the place in Watford where No. 10 hospital was located. We have, through the khaki college, set up facilities which cater to about 193 persons who are taking advanced university training, and 576 who are taking other university and vocational type courses. This is a branch- of the Canadian army educational services, set up in cooperation with Dr. Chatwin, Director of Canadian Legion educational services, which is now under the command of Brigadier Beament, of Ottawa.
However, one would think that, now that the war is over, these boys have earned this education at the hands of a grateful people, and that they should get it free of charge, too. I quote the following:
In the first instance a large number of applications for attendance at the various universities have been withdrawn after the prospective student has received an estimate or the cost of living and the fee payable on entrance.
I am referring to service students.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Where are these men, here or overseas?


John Oliver Probe: Overseas, in khaki college.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are not charged
anything.


John Oliver Probe: The article continues:
Many have found it utterly impossible to meet these expenses on their present army pay and allowances-particularly N.C.O.'s and other ranks.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no charge made at khaki college to service men.


John Oliver Probe: I have quoted from a semiofficial publication, Canada's Weekly of October 5. Where a veteran wishes to take training up to and including second degree arts or science, this is provided by the junior college, and is administered by service personnel, as well as by some who have recently left Canada to assist in instruction. They are, however, required to pay a fee for attendance at the senior courses at approved English universities.
If our veterans are anxious to make use of their waiting time until they are brought home, then it seems to me that the minister should make it his duty to investigate the facts set out in this article, because I believe it states the truth. I have not quoted it to embarrass the minister, but rather to draw to his attention what I believe to be a grievous injustice.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just to have it straight, I am assured by the deputy minister that there is no charge made at khaki college for instruction.


John Oliver Probe: At the junior college.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There may be a charge for a course outside the college, but not at the college itself.


John Oliver Probe: Courses in third and fourth year arts or science, or post-graduate work, are not provided in the junior college; by arrangement they must be sent to London, Edinburgh, Aberystwith and so on. Our army staff or the Department of National Defence ' has not made what I think is a sane provision for their studies by way of paying for its cost at the higher levels of study.
During the period before the khaki college was set up, a large number of the boys and girls in the services were taking studies through the Canadian Legion courses or through instruction provided at regimental or unit headquarters. The administrative person for that work at regimental level was an N.C.O., a corporal, if you please. I recall that at the time I was overseas a considerable effort was made to give to that important person who was arranging these courses and even giving instruction himself in a variety of subjects, some remuneration in addition to
Demobilization-Army

the twenty cents a day which he would receive as a corporal. Yet that feature of our work overseas was so badly ignored that this instructor was put in a lower pay category than a class C clerk. In spite of that inadequate recognition of the persons who were to administer this intellectual uplifting movement, the persons charged with it worked, as I said here a few days ago, from the usual teacher's love of his work rather than because of any adequate compensation.
We used to receive glowing accounts overseas from our families of the self-sacrifice to which they subjected themselves in the way of reduced rations and the shortage of certain luxury foods so that we might have the most luscious bacon, the finest eggs, and so forth, while we were on service. During all my period overseas, I can remember nothing' in the way of bacon except the fattest of the fat. Brussel sprouts and mutton were our constant diet. In the first week or two overseas there was.no objection to that particular diet. I enjoyed the food for a few meals. But there was never an attempt made by those in charge of our rations to vary the diet or make it interesting, and when I think of that lean bacon which disappeared somewhere from Canada in order to feed us, that fat bacon which we used to have over there makes me weep. Eggs for breakfast! We had a sort of concoction that was supposed to be powdered eggs. It was made by some firm in Canada. The whites were removed. Once a month we got an egg, and on the eggs that we did receive was stamped "Product of Argentina".


Humphrey Mitchell: You look pretty well and fat on it.


John Oliver Probe: I am doing not too badly. But have you seen a prisoner of war six weeks after he was liberated?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Most of us got eggs only once a year.


John Oliver Probe: Perhaps we were fortunate. The point was there was no equality of treatment as between the services, or as between various nationals. The air force, for example, received fruit juices in their diet, and of course the reason given, which was quite adequate so far as we were concerned, was that this supplement of fruit juices was necessary for operational flying. But when the ground crew received it too, and when the United States troops received their fruit juices, sometimes we just queried the wisdom of those senior officials who dictated that we should live on brussells sprouts and old mutton.

A lengthy discussion has taken place over the point system of repatriation. . I feel that the point system, even as it was first laid down, was quite a fair system for repatriating our boys to Canada. On paper it was a wonderful scheme. In actual practice, however, somewhere the staff work fell down. I have a very simple suggestion and, I think, a workable one. I would be willing to grant additional points for wounds or for those who had seen service in a theatre of operation. In spite of the fact that the system of two points per month for service overseas and one point per month for service in Canada never worked perfectly, it would have been a simple matter -it was being done daily in connection with every other phase of our training-when a regiment or division or brigade was slated for return to Canada to repost the low-point men from the brigade or the division to some other unit that was not slated to return and to fill up the ranks with high-point personnel from the next group due to come back. That should present no administrative problem. It could have been handled very easily. But what happened was, it was found the simplest matter to move the whole regiment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend will realize that if we had followed his suggestion through to its logical conclusion we would have ended up entirely with men with fifty points or less staying overseas. All your administrative officers and your N.C.O.s would have come back.


John Oliver Probe: I agree with that in all its details, except for this, that you still would have had quite a number of administrative officers and N.C.O.s who would have been quite anxious to remain on the other side of the water for some time, so that it would have been possible to allocate from among them the officers and N.C.O.'s required for administrative work overseas.
We also have an army or part of an army of occupation overseas. We have quite a number of officers on this side of the water.
I have just referred to 1,933 officers on the strength of the N.D.H.Q. on January 1, 1945.
I am sure that some of these officers would have been glad to go over to the continent for a couple of months, and they could have gone over in the empty boats returning to pick up other personnel.
I wish to suggest something further to the minister. I have always congratulated the government on the general framework of the discharge and rehabilitation legislation. It is good in principle but there are weaknesses, and if there are weaknesses they are in the staff

Demobilization-Army
work or administration. I believe that a system of gratuity payments, for example, should be something that is inflexible. The other evening the minister told us in this house that .an officer who had returned from overseas *duty to resume a civilian job received on April 19 of this year thirty days pay in lieu of his leave, because he was going to take an important appointment in the United States and by taking his leave he might have missed out in that appointment. I think that is the logical way to handle that thirty days repatriation leave. But that law should be inflexible, and, if necessary, retroactive to include all persons who have not received their thirty days repatriation leave, and no cut-off date of April 19, 1945, should be made because stronger representation, was made on behalf of that person instead of someone who was less insistent two months earlier.
I have received a number of communications, as have most other members of this house, with respect to applications to War Assets Corporation for materials such as trucks, farm equipment, or other things which could be turned to use in reestablishing the veteran in business of some sort. First of all, it is grossly unfair that a veteran should wait an extensive length of time to receive this surplus equipment, which is going for a song or, as has been admitted here, in many cases is being destroyed; and second, it is unfair that he should have to pay a twenty per cent dealer's commission for getting war assets material which has already been paid for. The minister should use his good office as a member of the cabinet-because it does concern our discharged personnel, even though they have already passed out of his hands-to make it possible for these veterans to get quick and cheap service from War Assets Corporation.
I have indicated a number of ways in which the expenditure of the moneys being asked for by the present administration could be either reduced or more wisely applied. I .should1 like to have special consideration of the two matters I have mentioned: first, rebate of educational fees in the case of the service men who are studying in Great Britain at the .present time; and, second, some quick access to War Assets Corporation on discharge for the implements which they may be able to use for their reestablishment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have taken note of my hon. friend's points and I will see that they are given consideration.


Percy Chapman Black: It is unfortunate that a general speech should intervene 'when we are dealing with a specific subject
of great importance to service people all over the country. I have one matter I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. I recognize that most of the complaints with respect to repatriation and discharge arise from those who are still overseas or have been overseas, but I wish to point out that all these complaints do not come from those overseas; some are from those who are already in Canada.
I have them from persons in the air force, in the navy and in the army, men who through long service have earned their right to discharge, I have several letters on my desk, but I have one telegram which! am going to read that reached me yesterday. I will not mention the name, but it expresses the position *of a great many already in Canada:
Opportunity laundry business Pictou. Immediate discharge army necessary. Ordnance clerk class "C" clerks frozen. 178 points, four years overseas. Your assistance requested with department to obtain my discharge.
That is typical of a great many cases I have.
I am not making any complaint against the minister; he has been very courteous and considerate toward me and so have all his officials. But the fact remains that many pressing claims such as this do not get the consideration to which they are entitled, which they have earned through long years of service. For the life of me I cannot see why a man with 178 points-we have been discussing to-day the cases of men with 100 and 75 and 50 points-and also with four years overseas should still be frozen in the armed services and not permitted to take up a business which is open to him and by which he can reestablish himself in civilian life.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That sounds just like the
sort of case which I said earlier to-day I should like personally to look into, and get the reasons. It is true that certain types of personnel-I am not now speaking of officers- are "frozen," if I may use that term. The figures I have before me at the moment cover two categories, clerks and cooks, and the case to which my hon. friend has just referred would be that of a clerk. The figures which I am given are these, that a total of 662 in that category aTe frozen, 260 with point scores below 130, and 402 with point scores over 130. Of cooks, there are 127 below 130 and 339 above 130 points. I would have to be shown fairly strong reasons, I think, why a man having 178 point who is a clerk should not be put on a Canada draft and sent home at an early day.


Percy Chapman Black: He is in
Canada now, in Halifax.
Demobilization-Army


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be very glad to look into that case. It is hard to understand, because he has a very high-point score, one which, if he were overseas, would entitle him to immediate repatriation unless he were performing extremely essential service. It may be one of those exceptional cases which tend to throw a bit of discredit on the system, but I find it hard to understand, and it is the kind of case that I should like to look into. The committee will, however, see from the figures I have mentioned that that is far from the general rule. There are certain types of occupation in whidh, in order to assure the smooth and speedy and efficient demobilization of the others, we have to keep a certain number of men; but I am told that they are all reviewed frequently; there is no question of pressure or special interest, and I shall be very glad to have such cases brought to my attention or the attention of any official of my department in order that they may be looked into.


Mr. BRYCE:: I should like to say something to the minister before he goes any farther, because I seem to have the happy knack of getting out of order. I wish to ask him about the women's army. Nobody seems to mention them. They filled a very useful part in the beginning of the war and did good service. On what system are they to be discharged?	They come along and work for
four-fifths of a man's wages and do a man's job. I understand that the married women have now been allowed to leave the service, but I should like the minister in a few words to tell us what scheme is at present in operation whereby these young women who come back to civilian life can be provided for. Are they to be kept on as drivers, cooks, or stenographers? Can we have a clear-cut statement? These girls were all volunteers, every-Dne of them, and they are entitled to know vhat their future will be.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Up to the present any
member of the C.W.A.C. who asks for discharge will be granted it. We are reducing the C.W.A.C. as rapidly as possible, but the committee will realize that there is much work to be done in connection with demobilization. The corps has done splendid work during the war. The members of that body have been extremely useful in that type of work, and we are anxious to keep a considerable number until the demobilization process is completed. There is no difficulty in any member of the Canadian Army Women's Corps obtaining a discharge promptly if she so desires.


Mr. FERGUSON:: In view of the complaints that have been stated here, coming from all parts of the country, would it not

be possible to set up a section of the department to handle such complaints, to look into all cases, and if they need immediate attention to see that action is taken? I know of two cases, two sergeants who saw three and a half years' service overseas. I wrote to the department with reference to these men and received in reply two different forms of instructions as to how they were to be returned to Canada. Not believing that the information given me was correct, I -wrote again to the department, and it was agreed that the instructions I had received in the first place were wrong. As "a matter of fact, my surmise was correct. I suggest that there should be a simplification of all such matters. It would be simpler if we knew of some definite official to -whom we could write on matters pertaining to men, for their return to civilian life, who have had long service both in Canada and [DOT] overseas and whose officers may be making some mistake in connection with their discharge. Something should be done to see that justice is done by these men. I know of one man at Camp Borden who was three years overseas and was serving in the quartermaster's stores. His commanding officer stated that he was indispensable and could not get out to try to help his father who is trying to run an implement business in Barrie, Ontario, with insufficient help. The'commanding officer told this man he could not get his discharge; -he was indispensable in quartermaster's stores and could not get out until the latter part of November. Fortunately, his case was considered and he got his discharge. Such cases are coming up every day. We are receiving complaints constantly. There must be general inefficiency all along the line or we would not have these com- _ plaints, and I suggest that something be done about it. These soldiers as well as their parents and their wives are relying on members' of parliament 'to make representations on their behalf, and when we bring these cases before the government they should take some action. I suggest that something more should be done in this matter than has so far been the case.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be glad to give that request consideration. My office is receiving complaints and requests for information at the rate of a thousand a day. The department has tried to set up as efficient an organization as possible for handling complaints, and any complaint addressed to my office, if I do not see it, will be routed through the proper channels. The same will be done if complaints are addressed to the deputy minister or the secretary of the department. I

Demobilization-Army
*will consider the question raised by my hon. friend as to whether we might improve the organization for dealing more promptly with such complaints. Some hon. member this afternoon pointed out that there is a marked tendency on the part of the individual commanding officer to say, "I have an efficient man and he is indispensable", and that attitude calls for review and examination either by himself or by his superior officer. We are trying to have that done.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: This commanding officer
made the statement that this particular man at Camp Borden was indispensable. I am acquainted with Camp Borden and I say that the commanding officer did not know what he was talking about.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In connection with the naval estimates I raised a question regarding . the ratio of medical officers to navy personnel, and I should like to raise the same question in connection with these estimates. In the report of the national health survey brought down some time ago the statement appears at page 185 that medical officers in all services found their work less interesting and more onerous than they had been accustomed to in civil practice. In the short time at the disposal of the committee it was not possible to study the subject exhaustively and they did not feel competent to make an arbitrary recommendation, but the ratio suggested is 3-5 to 3-7 per thousand as sufficient for medical needs. The minister mentioned six per thousand in the navy. Can he indicate when we may expect any considerable number of medical personnel to be released? If in my constituency we had a similar ratio, we would have 344 doctors serving our population, whereas we have only ten. Then men from all the services are now returning to civilian life, and they find a striking contrast between the services they had in the armed forces and those available in the different communities.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I must apologize to my hon. friend. He indicated on the naval estimates that he would ask this question in respect of the army and I asked for the information but omitted to have it to-night. I will give it under one of the items when we are considering personnel.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I understand the minister to say that the repatriation point system in operation at present was decided on in August, 1944.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. It was not decided in August, 1944, but first came up for active consideration, according to the memorandum
furnished me. This committee to consider it was set up in August, 1944, and the matter was under consideration from that time on.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When was it finally decided?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was finally decided
shortly after V-E day. The policy was announced after victory, which I showed to the house about May 10, 1945.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister said it was decided at that time that combat service should not be taken into consideration and one of the great reasons for that was that there would be a tremendous amount of administrative difficulty. The only repatriation scheme which had been in operation up to that time was the thirty-day leave scheme, and I suggest that very little administrative difficulty was experienced in the working of that scheme.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Because the numbers were so small. We were dealing with a relatively small number of men on an individual basis.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There was no more difficulty in determining what a man's point score was under the scheme used for the thirty-day plan than there would be in determining his point score under the present system. His record had to be looked into just the same to see what time he went overseas so that his points could be worked out. I still fail to see how administrative difficulty can be successfully pleaded as an excuse or a reason for the present system. One of the other points the minister made was that when the scheme was being considered the separation of a man from his family in Canada should be one of the main considerations or criteria as to when he would return. That is one of the very things I object to in the present scheme. Men who went overseas and had up to a year's actual fighting service and are still there are not being returned, whereas men who did not get into the fighting at all and spent three or four months overseas have been returned. In other words, one of the principal criteria as laid down by the minister himself is not being followed.
There is one other point I would comment upon. The minister says this system is fair. I made it a point, particularly when I was at home, of going down to meet the trains coming in and bringing back men from overseas. Since I have been here, the battery which I commanded, the 51st from Ottawa, has arrived back home, and I have seen a large number of men who served in that battery. I can tell
Demobilization-Army

the minister that I have not yet found a single man among all those men who thinks that the system in use at the present time is fair.


Howard Charles Green: I do not know just how seriously the minister is taking the suggestions that we are making on this side of the house, but we are in deadly earnest on the question as to whether or not the system of repatriation is fair to the men who did the fighting.


Douglas Charles Abbott: So am I.


Howard Charles Green: We do not believe that it is fair and we believe that it can be improved. We demand that improvements be made. It is not good enough for the minister to come into the house and hide behind his officers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not hiding behind anybody. I have stated my case and I have told the reasons.


Howard Charles Green: I repeat that it is not good enough for the minister to hide behind his officers overseas and the officers in Canada. It is not good enough for him to say that he deprecates any discussion on this.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not say I deprecated any discussion. Please quote me accurately.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, you did. The minister said it might make trouble overseas and he deprecated having this question discussed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said no such thing.


Howard Charles Green: A stand which he had no right to take.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He has denied it.


Howard Charles Green: You keep out of this for a minute.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Observe the rules of decency and order.


Howard Charles Green: You will have enough to do to look after your own business.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have no trouble.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. Hon. members will kindly address the Chair.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: I repeat that we are very much concerned about the repatriation policy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You have no monopoly on that.


Howard Charles Green: Just wait a minute. We are concerned particularly about the way in which it will work a few months hence when you come to deal with the boys who are now in the army of occupation. We believe that the
[Mr. Harkness.}
men in the army of occupation who have done-the fighting should have a chance to get home-at the first possible opportunity. Take, for example, the case of a boy who was wounded and had not been overseas very long. Last year men were sent over from this country half trained. They were rushed into action before they should have been. Perhaps they were in action only three or four months, were wounded and put back into action again. These are the young lads who are being treated unfairly by the policy of the present government, and I think the whole thing goes back to the man-power policy of the government, to a refusal right up to this very minute to recognize the fact that there were some men who volunteered to fight and die for Canada, and there were some men who did not. We have overseas N.R.M.A. troops who were forced to go over. It has been admitted by the government that some of these men who did not get to France, did not get to the continent until after the fighting had stopped, have come home in the first division. There is no fairness in that. You cannot make that fair if you argued here for ten years. The picture is so clearly put by a young lad who-wrote to me on behalf of his company from the army of occupation that I feel I should read the letter. He said that he had not been in action for very many months, but he had been in action and he is now stuck in the army of occupation. This is what he said:
Most of us in this occupational army are low-point men, but we have spent more time in northwest Europe (Holland and Germany), than we did taking training in Canada. We are all entitled to wear our C.V.S.M, and clasp, or does that ribbon mean anything any more? Along with that ribbon many of us wear "action" ribbons. We have seen four, five, six or more months of action, which is a lot for an infantryman.
And those of us who were in the infantry in the last war know how true that is.
Yet we lack the points to go home. Our main idea during the war was to get it all over with as soon as possible, so that we could return to our loved ones in Canada. That was our uppermost thought in action, yet now we are stuck up here doing occupation (we certainly didn't volunteer for it), and hear reports of N.R.M.A. personnel, who came overseas as late as June, who are now going home with the first and second divisions. They all earned their points by sitting in Canada in safety. Was it them that we fought for and are now doing occupation for, so they could march home with the regiments we fought in? They are the ones that will no doubt be claimed as the heroes by the people of Canada.
None of us want to be claimed as heroes. All we want to see is fair play. We went active to fight a war for them. Why can't they do our occupation for us? What are all the remaining N.R.M.A. (there must be thousands of them) personnel doing in Canada now?

Demobilization-Army
No doubt living off the fat of the land and wondering how soon it will be before they get their discharge. If they did not want to fight for their country, they can at least come over now and represent Canada in the occupational force, since all the danger of war has been eliminated now. Let a few of our young veterans (for anyone who sees action is a veteran) return back to Canada and help make a name for themselves in peace time Canada. We fought, and a great many of our friends who came overseas with us last year, died for Canada. Now are we to sweat it out over here while waiting for the N.R.M.A. to get out of the army?
The editor of the Maple Leaf, our overseas newspaper, Major MacFarlane, was dismissed from his post for upholding the rights of the fighting man in his editorials. If there were more men like him defending the active soldiers wc might get a break.
What is the position? A man who is wounded gets no points despite the fact that he is wounded. The minister said they could not tell who had been in action, that it was impossible to find that out. He knows or should know that every infantry man-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not say it was impossible.


Howard Charles Green: -has been in action and is entitled to consideration for being in action.
With regard to the N.R.M.A. personnel, let us get down to a few figures about the situa-tipn. According to a return tabled, as appears at page 603 of Hansard the army of occupation consisted of 1,177 officers and 19,088 other ranks on September 1, 1945, a total of slightly over 20,000. Of that number 594 officers and 5,489 other ranks have volunteered for the army of occupation. That is over 6,000 of the 19,000, which leaves about 13,000 who must be taken into consideration. The minister should tell us how many N.R.M.A. troops there are in Great Britain. He should tell us whether or not the second division is going to come home with its units partly filled with N.R.M.A. troops who have never been in action, and the third division, and the fifth division and the fourth division. He should tell us whether the government is going to continue to fail to recognize the difference between a man who was willing to fight for his country and one who was not.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have already dealt with that. So far as I am concerned, there are not two armies overseas. When they get over there, there is no distinction.


Howard Charles Green: You have two here in
Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have referred to them as well.


Howard Charles Green: You should have the same
policy in both places. In Canada what have
you? The answer is found on page 586 of Hansard. As of August 15, 1945, there were 35,950 N.R.M.A. troops in Canada, of whom 8,235 were out on extended leave, in otheT words, were out taking jobs to which somebody from overseas was entitled; 26,321 were still actively engaged in the N.R.M.A. army in Canada, and 1,394 in adjacent territories.
Last April the minister told me there were about 20,000 trained N.R.M.A. men who could be sent overseas as infantry at that time. Surely there is no fairness in not using these men to fill up the army of occupation and let the men who have been in action come back. We want the government to give us the figures about these N.R.M.A. troops; they enter into the picture very decidedly. We cannot reach a proper policy unless they are taken into consideration; and we believe, I repeat, there can be no fairness about this thing at all unless these men are used in the army of occupation to replace those young Canadians who have faced the enemy in action.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall item 1 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I offer no apologies, Mr. Chairman, for rising to take part in this discussion a second time this evening. I wish to associate myself most wholeheartedly with what has just been said by the hon. member for Vancouver South, and to say how much more I feel 'as I felt sometimes when we were overseas, that it is nice to know there are one or two individuals in this House of Commons who had the interests of the men overseas at heart-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and who would not be howled down, as an attempt was made to do to-night when they rose to speak about them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: One or two men in this
house with the interests of the overseas men at heart!


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, and I repeat that. If the minister truly had the interests of those men at heart he would not have made the statement he did make almost immediately after the committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can assure my young
friend that I have the interests of the men overseas at heart just as much as he has.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I realize that one speaking
as I am to-night is in a somewhat difficult position, but I make no apology for that statement because in effect the minister has admitted that the point system as at present carried out does prejudice the man who has
Demobilization-Army

seen action overseas. Yet in effect he says he is not going to change that system because that would be too difficult. That is what I had in mind when I spoke as I did. I know everyone wants to serve the men overseas and look after their interests; but difficulties are put in the way which we say should not be allowed to enter the picture for a moment or to prejudice the chances of arriving at a fair solution. That was what I meant when I made the statement I did make. I am not going to have it taken, as apparently is being attempted, that I am standing up here saying that we are the only ones who have the interests of the men overseas at heart, that no one else is at all interested. But I do say we are concerned about forcing a definite decision on this issue, as to whether or not the point system for repatriation from overseas will be changed. That is why I say I offer no apologies for taking part in this discussion a second time at this stage.
I am also anxious to. say a word, because I want to point out that the minister, in indicating the basis adopted in arriving at the present point system, stated that the main consideration was the greatest length of separation from those in Canada and not the most dangerous service. I want to point out to the minister that, as the system is* working at present, it is actually making it impossible to fulfil that primary consideration. As was pointed out just a moment ago by the hon. member for Calgary East, in actual practice men with a higher number of points but with less overseas service, and certainly with less combat service, are coming back, while men who have been away from Canada longer, who have seen more action in a theatre of operations, are being left over there. So that the point system is actually defeating the very purpose the minister said it was incorporated to achieve.
In view of these facts I suggest that the minister can have no alternative but to agree to change that system. He gave us figures to show that of those personnel returned in the month of September a very large proportion were high-point men. Nevertheless, those figures do not present an accurate picture of the number of men with long overseas service who have been returned to Canada, because I repeat, the point system as it is now in operation gives more points to men with less service overseas and less service in a theatre of operations than to men who have had more overseas or actual combat service. Therefore included with the personnel having high-point scores under the present system there were large numbers of troops, as we have been told, who have been returned 
after having seen no action and with only a very short time overseas. In view of the fact that this system is defeating the very purpose for which it was designed; in view of the fact that it is achieving the result of bringing back a large number of men with short overseas service, I suggest that on his own statements the minister can have no alternative but to find some change in the point system.
As to administrative difficulties, reference already has been made to the rotational leave system, and I can assure the minister that he underestimates the ability of the officers of the first and second echelons overseas if he thinks they cannot cope with the administrative difficulties involved in redesigning the point system along the lines which have- been suggested in this house to-night, although I do not say those suggestions have been worked out in detail. That rotational leave S3rstem had assumed very large proportions just before the end of the war in Europe; yet echelon was still able to produce, in some fifteen days, complete lists of priority for the whole army on the information it had available. If they could do that, then most certainly if given the principles on which to work they could redesign the point system. So that I repeat, in- view of the objectives which the minister stated were in mind when the point system was designed; in view of the fact that it is defeating those objectives; in view of the fact that it is working injustices, and in view of the fact -that there is no serious administrative difficulty in the way of redesigning it, I say he should live up to the motives which I know exist in his heart, and for which I give him credit. Let him give those motives free play, then, and allow this system to be redesigned.


George Randolph Pearkes: Evidence has been produced here to-night coming from every province. Perhaps I have had more letters than most hon. members, because the units which have returned to Canada so far are those which I had the great honour of commanding when I went overseas with the first Canadian division. I do not -think I am exaggerating when I say I have had letters from men of every single, unit of that first division, which is now back, and from every part of the country: The Royal Canadian Regiment from London; the 48th from Toronto; the Hastings and Prince Edward from Belleville. The Second Brigade came from western Canada; the Edmonton Regiment from Edmonton, Alberta; the Seaforths from Vancouver and the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry from Winnipeg. The Third Brigade came frorfr the maritimes and Quebec-the Royal 22nd, from Quebec; the West Nova Scotia

Demobilization-Army
Regiment from Nova Scotia and the Carleton and York from New Brunswick. In addition to that, were the Princess Louise Dragoon Guards from Ottawa, and the Saskatoon Light Infantry from Saskatchewan.
I have heard from all those regiments, and * they tell me the same story. I am here to-night pleading for my soldiers, pleading for the men who went over with me in 1939, and who were followed very quickly by other units from all over Canada. They feel-and I do, too-that the present point system is not working out satisfactorily, and that it is giving too much preference to those men who served-perhaps by mere chance-for a longer time in Canada. Therefore, in the face of all this evidence which has been produced I ask the minister this question: Will he or will he not now revise the point system?


Mr. HAZEN:: I do not propose to continue the discussion on the point system, which has been severely criticized by hon. members on this side of the house who have seen service in this war and who are thoroughly familiar with that subject. From the letters I have received and from what has been said here to-day it is clear to me that the system is not satisfactory and has resulted in injustices.
I wish, however, to direct the minister's thoughts to other matters. He has informed us that it is the intention of the government to have, after the war, a permanent army of from 20,000 to 25,000 men. I rise to express the hope that he will see his way clear to have part of that force stationed in New Brunswick.
I believe that, on strategic grounds, and for other very good reasons, they should be stationed there. At one time Saint John and Fredericton were garrison towns; British units were stationed in both places, and the dominion government to-day owns land in both Saint John and Fredericton, and buildings which were formerly occupied by those troops, and could be used again. Those properties could be made available for part of the new Canadian army.
I am asking the minister to have part of that new army stationed in New Brunswick. Perhaps the matter has already been brought to his attention, because I have received resolutions passed by the Saint John board of trade and by the city council dealing with the subject. The one from the board of trade is as follows:
Whereas it is proposed to establish in Canada a peace-time regular army of approximately 25,00'0 men and
Whereas there are at Saint John and Fredericton in this province on land owned
by federal authorities adequate barracks facilities which, at a small expense, could be made into permanent quarters-
Therefore be it resolved that the department of national defence be urged to station at both Saint John and Fredericton at least one unit of the proposed army.
Another reason for making this request is that it will provide some business for that part of Canada. Canadian industry is to a great extent centralized in Ontario and Quebec. New Brunswick and the other maritime provinces are badly in need of more industries, and if they cannot get more industries they are badly in need of more business in order to provide employment for their people.
The Rowell-Sirois commission stated in its report that New Brunswick shared with Nova Scotia the unhappy distinction of having the most unfavourable economic history of any Canadian province. I regret to say that statement is true, and it has resulted in a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Early in the war when the government was spending many millions of dollars to establish industries in different parts of Canada I asked that some of those industries be established1 in New Brunswick. However, the government did not see its way clear to follow my suggestion, I do not think I am making an unreasonable request when I ask the minister and the government to see to it that some of the troops of the new Canadian army are stationed in Saint John and Fredericton.


Mr. McLURE:: I should like to say a few words, not on the point system and not as a returned man or a veteran. I wish to speak a few words on behalf of Prince Edward Island, and the war veterans of that province. Someone has already said that every province had spoken; apparently it was forgotten that the voice of Prince Edward Island had not been heard.
I do not believe the minister will take offence to any of the remarks I shall make. If he does, then I will say he misinterprets what I shall say. I desire to place before the committee the unfair, unjust and shameful treatment meted out to the service men of my province by the Department of National Defence of this government. I refer to what has been done in connection with the service men returning home for demobilization, Like one of the other speakers. I make no apology for making these complaints, nor do I apologize for charging this department for the treatment it has handed out to our service men.
About October 15 I asked certain questions, and received the answers regarding our service men. Those questions had to do with
Demobilization-Army


James Arthur Ross: I hope I shall be pardoned for speaking a second time on this item, but I am astonished that the minister has not as yet answered the question which the hon. member for Nanaimo asked him point-blank just before he concluded his remarks.
The hon. member for Regina City, speaking this evening, brought forth some facts which have been a problem with me since the beginning of this war, indicating as they do that we have an overorganized, overexpanded army in Canada in respect of high ranking officers. I can recall, session after session, questioning one of the ministers of defence, who was let out a year ago this fall, on that very topic, but I always thought somebody else was responsible for this overorganization of the
Canadian army and the creation of so many high ranking positions. The man who, rightly or wrongly, I blame for that is the predecessor of the present minister of this department. It was pointed out by the hon. member for Regina City that we now have enough officers to man fully some seven divisions, and enough other ranks for probably half a division. I wonder whether the taxpayers of this country realize what it will cost them for many years in the future to have so many high ranking officers to man an army which this nation could not possibly reinforce in time of battle. Naturally many of these officers will receive handsome retiring allowances when the time comes, for which the taxpayers of this country will be called upon to pay. To me that is a very improper thing, no matter who is responsible. I repeat that, frankly, it was always my opinion that the minister's predecessor was responsible for this overorganization, and certainly it was always the responsibility of the government. The final responsibility, in war and in peace, rests on parliament and, in this case, on the minister of this department.
I have been amazed to hear during the discussion this afternoon and this evening the repeated statement of the minister that he is satisfied with the recommendation of the officers overseas in this matter, because ultimately it is his responsibility and that of his colleagues in the government. There can be no argument about that at all. I do not deny that General Simmonds is a fine officer and a good soldier, but it is to be remembered that he is the officer responsible for the dismissal of Major Macfarlane from the position of editor of the Maple Leaj because he criticized the repatriation policy which is now in effect, a policy which is most unfair, and the minister himself admits that it unfair and that he does not like it in any respect.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, no, I have not admitted it was unfair.


James Arthur Ross: I took it from his attitude that he would like to see something different but that at this stage he thinks that on balance it is working out satisfactorily.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I wish the hon. member would not put words into my mouth. I have not admitted that it is unfair. It is the fairest system I have ever heard of, and it is working better than any other.


James Arthur Ross: I asked him point-blank this evening if he was satisfied with this system, or not, and he answered indirectly that he thought on balance it was the fairest system as it worked out.
Demobilization-Army


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not asserting that it is perfect-no system is perfect

but I do not know of a better one.


James Arthur Ross: But as yet he has refused to take his responsibility as minister of the department and answer the question asked several times by my colleague, that he would reconsider the matter.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have already answered it three times. I do not know how many times it is necessary that I should reiterate my reasons. Perhaps repetition may be useful.


James Arthur Ross: With all respect, it was not to be expected that, after General Simmonds had removed the editor of the Maple Leaf from his position because he had criticized the present unfair policy, the general would suggest a change of policy at this time. I do not think the minister * would expect that he would. The minister says he has a length}' report from General Simmonds. Let me repeat that by and large it is the minister's responsibility, no matter what recommendations he receives from these officers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have never denied that. I am taking the responsibility.


James Arthur Ross: I would think, then, he would be influenced by what has been said. One of the most important points made in the debate this afternoon and this evening was that emphasized by the hon. member for Vancouver South, when he spoke of these two armies; and the minister admits that we still have them. The second army is in Canada, with over 35,000 men.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Over what? Not 35,000.
Mr. ROSS .(Souris): Many of these chaps are to-day getting positions in this country which rightfully belong to many of the men who are yet overseas, who have put in four, five and six years of service, and should have priority. We have in large centres through this country to-day, I am sorry to say, c^uite an unemployment problem; as the months go by, that situation will become more aggravated; and these people of the second army, under this unfair system of repatriation, are getting a priority which rightfully belongs to those chaps overseas, many of whom are entitled to be back here and to have at least an even chance to obtain remunerative employment. I would make a last plea to the minister that he act irrespective of advice from these officers. I say again that too many of these high ranking officers have been created. The system has never been on a sound basis, and I feel that it has fallen down, as the minister is doing on this occasion,

because too much responsibility was left to-some high ranking officer, who, I repeat again, I have believed year after year to be the man who has been termed the designer of this great Canadian army. I think he was given too much latitude, at all times-


Humphrey Mitchell: He did a good job. The hon. member has admitted that himself.


James Arthur Ross: He overdid the thing. I do not know whether the minister was here a few moments ago when I cited the figures given this evening by the hon. member for Regina City. I pointed out then that it was my opinion that he overdid the job, as the minister says.


Humphrey Mitchell: I said he did a good job.


James Arthur Ross: That is all right, but it is going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money, which they should not be called upon to pay, because of the manner in which he did that job. He created headquarters staffs, with high ranking officers-


Humphrey Mitchell: What I object to is this: a very young member from Kamloops this evening-


Howard Charles Green: Oh, now, don't get nasty with him.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend who, like Sergeant Buzfuz this evening-


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor. If the minister wants to ask a question he is at liberty to do so, but he is not at liberty to make a speech until I am through.


Humphrey Mitchell: I just want to make this very short observation. To hear my young friend the hon. member for Kamloops, anyone would think he had won the war singlehanded.


Howard Charles Green: That is unfair.


James Arthur Ross: Now the minister
undertakes to belittle one of my colleagues who did a very fine job in this war, and is also doing a very fine job for his comrades in this present session of this House of Qommons-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No one has questioned that for a moment.


James Arthur Ross: -one of which he
may very well be proud. Yet the minister rises and belittles him. I do not think he should get away with it.


Mr. McDONALD (Pontiac):: That did not justify the hon. member for Kamloops making reflections on the members on this side of the house, men who had sons overseas as well as you did.

Demobilization-Army


James Arthur Ross: I have 'been amazed,
knowing his views on this matter, that the hon. member for Fraser Valley has not been in this debate before during this afternoon and evening.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: The reason is tnat I have not had the chance. Others were talking all the time.


James Arthur Ross: I know the hon. member has not very much difficulty in getting a hearing whenever he wants to be heard.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You will hear
from me yet.


James Arthur Ross: I just want to repeat
what I was saying when the Minister of Labour said that he had done a good job, and that is that the predecessor of the present minister had overexpanded the Canadian army. I had asked questions of the former Minister of National Defence year after year on that very point because I felt that Canada, with the population we have, could not properly reinforce the army in battle with all the high ranking officers that have been created, headquarters set up, and,so on, and I did not believe that the minister thought it could be done -either. I had finished making the point that as a result of that the taxpayers of the country were having to pay a great deal of money, and would have to pay for many years to come, because we had too many high ranking officers who were unessential for our Canadian army with the population we had. I indicated the man I thought responsible for it and endeavoured to make the point that, whether his judgment was good, bad or indifferent, the responsibility was ultimately this government's. It is exactly the same in regard to this question of unfair repatriation, and apart from what may happen in the next month, or two or three months, it will have quite an influence on the future lives of many of these chaps who are held over there to-day, who as I have stated are entitled to at least an equal chance with those on the second army who were wrongfully getting priority. I sincerely trust that, irrespective of the advice the minister receives from his generals overseas, he will reconsider the matter at this time in fairness to these thousands of deserving men who are still there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I say a word,
Mr. Chairman. I have been waiting all afternoon, when I could spare the time to come in here-	,


James Arthur Ross: Where?


George Alexander Cruickshank: -to say a word. Well, may I say, in reply to the hon. gentleman, that I spend most of my day trying, not to talk about things but to do something for my fellow soldiers, and those of Us who are conscientious sit in the committee from ten-thirty o'clock in the morning until one o'clock studying veterans' affairs.


James Arthur Ross: Yo.u are not alone.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No; I know I am
not alone. But I understand that when I was not in the house this evening my very good friend, young and brilliant, from my own province in the district of Kamloops, made the remark, I am informed, that only two members of the house were interested in the soldiers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I certainly
made no such remark. I said I was glad to find that there were some-


An hon. MEMBER:: One or two.


Edmund Davie Fulton: One or two members in the house; I was glad to find one or two members. I made no distinction, and if anyone wishes to draw a distinction he can do so.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You see how generous I am, Mr. Chairman; I give the other fellow the floor for a few minutes. My hon. friend the member for Kamloops was wrong and I am glad that he admits it; I am glad he was pointing to this side of the house when he said that there are at least one or two members who are interested. I understand that the hon. member for Kamloops made a remark about the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair). That hon. gentleman and I room together. I understand that the hon. member said he was surprised that he had not heard from the hon. member from Vancouver North in connection with the matter. Well, the hon. member from Vancouver North and the hon. member for Fraser Valley had certain convictions during the short session of the house and they both voted against the government. Speaking for the hon. member for Fraser Valley, may I say that if there were a vote on this matter and I thought the government were wrong I would vote against them again. But I do not believe in flogging a dead horse-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Cruickshank: -and I do not mean the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that another name for the government?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have found out,
Mr. Chairman, that if you want to get applause from the opposition all you have to do is to lay yourself open and you will get it. We do not claim all the virtues on this side
Demobilization-Army

of the house. We even went to our good friends the C.C.F., according to to-day's Journal, to get an envoy, and I wish to quote - this because it is part of the great policy of national defence. I understand they are fighting in China now. This is from the Journal of to-day:
Goes to Chungking. Edmonton, October 29.-[DOT] (CP)-Squadron Leader Chester Ronning of Gamrose, former provincial leader of the C.C.F. left Edmonton Saturday for New York where he will fly to China to take up an appointment at the Canadian embassy in Chungking.
No patronage about that. We are now wondering whether hon. members opposite will get together with the leader of the C.C.F., the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and select one of these envoys for Tokyo. An hon. member says that one of the parties might be prejudiced in favour of the Japanese. Speaking seriously, I wish to say that with most of what the member for Nanaimo said the other day I agree. I do not approve the present system. I believe the system we shoidd have set up was "first in, first out" from start to finish. But I wish to point out this. Who were the people who objected about two weeks ago to the system of "first in, first, out?" Who were the people who objected to men being brought home on exceptional compassionate grounds?
I do not approve the policy of this government in not discharging men to go back to their own employmenV-not to take some new job but to go back to their own employment or their own business. It is foolish to keep them in when the men are needed on farms and in essential industries. I do not approve the policy of the government in allowing N.R.M.A. or any other men with short-time service overseas to be brought home ahead of others with long service. But I would point out to. you, Mr. Chairman, that there is no one in this house, there is no party, that has emphasized more the advantage of the Minister of National Defence taking advice from responsible officers than the Conservative party in this house have done.
No one can accuse me of sticking up for these high ranking officers. There are so many of them here that you cannot walk down Elgin street unless you go down the middle of the street, because you will bump into generals, colonels and everything else. But they are not walking; as I said the other day; they are driven by C.W.A.C.'s.
The minister is a fair man and he will try to devise some scheme whereby at least exceptional compassionate cases can be dealt with. I do not believe in citing individual cases, but I might mention one in my own 
riding. An old gentleman, seventy-eight years of age, is trying to keep the farm going for his grandson, but he will have to. dispose of. that farm. He has been trying to save the farm and the stock for that boyr who has a long point record and who is still overseas. Two miles away on another farm an N.R.M.A. man has arrived back with a very low point record. How can I explain to people in my district this discrepancy between one man who has a few points and who did not go over there voluntarily but is now home on his farm, and the other boy who cannot get home and whose grandfather is trying his best to run the farm.
I agree with the opposition on the matter of the point system. I do not often agree with them, and when I do they must be right or I would not agree with them. The reason I do not agree with them oftener is that they are generally wrong. However, I agree that the minister should reconsider the question. I am going to leave the point system, and the bringing of men home, to the minister, because I am perfectly sure that, having heard the voice of Fraser Valley, he will consider the matter and make it a better system.
I wish to speak on some of .the things that I think the Department of National Defence should be doing and are not doing. For instance, if we are to be successful in our victory loan we have to show to the people of Canada that we are legitimately and honestly trying to economize. Here again I do not agree with the opposition when they ask us to increase our standing army, navy and air force. The hon. member for York South who made way for a man who did not make headway in a by-election wants us to curtail expenditures all the time and yet increase our army, navy and other war expenditures. You cannot do both. You have either to curtail your army and your other expenditures or you cannot cut down on the expenditure of money. Personally I am not in a position to say what the size of our standing army, navy and air force should be. I have not the ability and knowledge possessed by one or two members of the official opposition who have such complete knowledge of military affairs that they set themselves up at least as the leaders of the military in this or any other country.
I do not know what the size of the standing army should be, but I do think our own Department of National Defence should pay heed to General Crerar. We had enough confidence in General Crerar to entrust him with the Canadian army; therefore, we should have confidence in his judgment as to what standing army we should have in Canada.

Demobilization-Army


An hon. MEMBER:: You had confidence
in McNaughton.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, I can well remember when the Conservative party made a determined effort to get General McNaughton as their official leader.


An hon. MEMBER:: You tried to get him in the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: When did we
try to get him as leader?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am informed of
that.


An hon. MEMBER:: By whom?


James Arthur Ross: You have an odd source of information.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I imagine it was before the fifth leader you had in two years.


Douglas Charles Abbott: During the experimental stage.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I wish to point out that General Marshall apparently is an advocate of a larger army. I believe he is a man who should know.


An hon. MEMBER:: General who-?


George Alexander Cruickshank: General Marshall,
one of the leading military authorities in the world. I believe that he believes in a larger army. I am willing to take his judgment. I am not an authority on the size of our army, navy or air force. But I wish to point out that if we are to have a larger army it is going to cost the people money.
I object to the opposition on the one hand wanting us to curtail expenditures and on the other hand wanting us to increase our armed forces. The two do not make sense to me and it is apparently the official opposition's platform. I remember a story that I heard of a man in rural Ontario who killed a pig. He said, "It did not weigh as much as I thought it would; I didn't think it would." That is just the policy that the opposition has on military affairs. '
I say this to the Minister of National Defence: I do not like the policy of bringing the men home. I hope he will improve it. I do not like the way you have of discharging men in Canada. I think in your department you are altogether too slow. I do not blame you, but I think you are not aware of the fact that you have far, far too many brass hats putting every obstacle in the way of men being discharged, far more than you know of. I think many of your senior officers are endeavouring to carry out the spirit of the regulations as they are laid down by your
department, but you have too many officials placing obstacles in their way, and placing obstacles in the way of the men getting back to useful occupations. Therefore I think I can say without offending anyone that you could discharge eighty per cent of the brass hats that are working around there doing nothing and it will help the soldier who won the war.


Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: I
hope that the minister listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley, because in his concluding sentences I think he made a statement which the minister could well bear in mind, namely, that the brass hats were putting many obstacles in the way of men obtaining their discharges. I do not want to be critical of the minister's department, but I think there is a great deal of truth in that simple statement, and I wish to concur in the statements made in that respect by the hon. member for Fraser Valley.
May I just say a word on this much debated and heated argument over the point system? I understood the minister to say that plans were started in the fall of 1944. It was developed and the plan was announced in April or May or around V-E day. I also have read at various times statements made by the government-if I am wrong in this the minister will please correct me-to the effect that the government policy to be effected was the policy of what became known as the "first-in, first-out" policy. When the minister replies I should like him to say whether the government ever had the policy of "first-in, first-out". If they had that policy when was it discarded?
I have in my hand1 an article from the Canadian Veteran of August 1945, and no doubt the majority of the soldier members of the house have read this article. It is headed:
Repatriation muddle causing embitterment among serving men overseas and in Canada.
The article states that three months from that day-it was dated in August-a pamphlet was put out, which was delivered to all men serving overseas, from which they quote the following:
We will do everything in our power to see that these boys, who saved the freedom of the world, shall return to their loved ones as speedily as possible. It is agreed by everyone that the policy of "first in, first out", is the only 'one to be followed.
That is the end of the quotation from the pamphlet. Then it goes on to say:
A carefully edited pamphlet was presented to each man serving overseas, outlining in great detail the working of the point system, and explaining -every conceivable angle of
Demobilization-Army

repatriation. The men took it in good faith. Why shouldn't they? So did everyone else. So did the wives and mothers of those men. We quote one paragraph: "Like most other things in this war, the scaling down of the army will be a question of priority. Speaking generally, the principle on which priorities will be based is that those with the longest service in the army will be the first to be released. Priority for individual release will be established by a point score system explained below. ..."
And so on. Has the minister a -copy of that pamphlet? If he has, and if the explanation of the point system, and the manner in which it was presented to the troops is mot too long, perhaps it would be of interest to the members of the committee to have it placed on Hansard, so that we might see exactly how it was to benefit the troops overseas.	[DOT]
The article in the Veteran goes on to state:
Now, three months later, that nicely written pamphlet is as dead as last year's petunias. It has been torn up and thrown into Ottawa's departmental ashcans.
According to the press, when the Minister of Veterans Affairs was in Europe he announced that there would be some change in the manner in which the troops would be brought home. I was interested as to why the minister announced that there would be a change, and I would be much interested if the Minister of National Defence could explain why this change was made. If the government adopted the policy of "first in, first out", as. set out in this pamphlet which was presented to every man overseas, why was it changed?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was not changed.


George Stanley White: Then will the minister tell me if he ever had the policy of "first in, first out".


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have dealt with this point three or four times already. In introducing these estimates I made a carefully considered statement, and I will quote to my hon. friend what I said at that time. I made quite an extended statement then on the repatriation policy, and I made a rather shorter, simpler statement in answer to the hon. member for Nanaimo a week or so before that. As the hon. member himself admitted, no policy can stick rigidly to the principle of "first in, first out". It just does not work. The hon. member was one of the first to admit that. Here is what I said, as reported at page 1131 of Hansard:
The common principle underlying the whole scheme of demobilization has always been, and in future will continue to be that subject to the exigencies of the service and to the national interests, the personnel with the longest and

hardest service should be given first opportunity to return to civil life. However, the loose description of this as a policy of "first in-first out" is somewhat misleading, as it ignores the two essential qualifications to which the main principle has always been subject. It is inevitable that there should occasionally occur some combination of circumstances or unusual conditions wherein a general policy becomes inapplicable, or wherein an exception must be made. In such an event the interests of Canada or of the majority of personnel directly concerned must, in the final instance, receive preference over the single person or minor group affected. The circumstances must always be viewed as a whole-and judgment cannot be correctly passed in the light of a single factor or isolated incident.
Both before and after that I discussed in somewhat more detail the application of the principle. In reply to the hon. member for Nanaimo I pointed out exceptions to the general rule regarding the longest and hardest service: compassionate grounds, which have always existed; releases under recommendations of the industrial release and assignment board, and the like. That has all been, gone over time and again. There is no uncertainty as to what the policy is; I do not think there ever has been any uncertainty. It may be right or wrong, but the policy is clear enough.


George Stanley White: , I followed the remarks of the minister and I read them in Hansard. In making those remarks the minister, being a member of the legal profession, always used a legal manner. I do not object to that at all, but I would point out that in this little pamphlet which was presented to the boys overseas, which I have never seen and which I doubt if any other hon. member has ever seen, it was probably set out in a very simple manner and was not clothed in any of the legal terms or expressions the minister has just read from Hansard. That is one of the things I am objecting to, because, as this article well points out, the men accepted it in good faith. Everyone accepted it in good faith, because it went on to set out the manner in which the men would be repatriated. It was to be simply a question of priority; those who had been in the service longest would be the first released.
The minister has suggested that if any h'on. member knows of a man who has a high-point score and who feels himself discriminated against, all he has to do is to bring the matter to the minister's attention. That is very generous, but as another hon. member pointed out there are thousands and thousands of men in the army. They cannot all write to their members of parliament, and after all, as I have said on other occasions in this house when talking about pension matters, it should never be necessary for any

Demobilization-Army
soldier to write to his member of parliament in order to get something which is his by right. If the policy is that the first in shall 'be the first out, or if the policy is that the man with the highest point score is to be the first man out, then the men should get the benefit of that without having to write to their members of parliament, without requiring any political pull or anything else.
In speaking of the various units which had been under his command, the -hon. member for Nanaimo mentioned the famous Hastings and Prince Edward regiment which recently returned to Canada. This was one of the regiments which left Canada in December, 1939. It had a very high percentage of casualties, and no doubt the same procedure was followed in this as in all other cases, that when reinforcements were required they were obtained in the usual way. Naturally, when that regiment came home very few of the originals were left, but there were a great many men who had been with the regiment for only a very short time, some who had joined it as late as just before V-E day and others who had joined even after V-E day. Yet these men with very low point scores, although no doubt more than the fifty points which the minister said was the minimum, were returned to Canada, while many men who had belonged to the Hastings and Prince Edward regiment are retained in the army of occupation in what are called key or essential positions.
I can only reiterate what other hon. members have said and ask the minister if he will not reconsider the whole matter; and, as was suggested by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, forget all about the advice of his brass hats. Let the minister use his own common sense and judgment. He was an ordinary rear ranker in the last war, and if he will only use his own judgment I am satisfied he will change the present system.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will, of course, consider every suggestion that is made by anyone. While I am on my feet, the explanatory pamphlet is one I showed the house some time ago when I was discussing this matter. It is called "After Victory in Europe" and was issued overseas early in May. It is not terribly long; it covers ten or eleven pages, with a foreword by General Crerar. It could be placed on Hansard if the committee wished, or there are ample copies available for those who may wish to study it.


George Stanley White: Perhaps the minister could distribute it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will have a supply made
available so that any hon. member who is 47696-103
interested may -have one, but I should like to read into the record two short paragraphs bearing on the point which has been referred to to-night.


George Stanley White: Is
that the pamphlet referred to in this article in The Veteran?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I could not say. I have
not seen that article, but only two pamphlets have been issued, this one and one issued two or three weeks ago by General Simmonds, or at any rate by overseas authorities. I have a few copies of the second pamphlet here. I do not know that I have enough as yet to make a general distribution, but certainly I will table one or -two so tha-t any hon. member may look at it. It does not change the principle; it merely elaborates on the first pamphlet.


George Stanley White: I
think it is the one printed in May we are interested in.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think so. I should like
to read paragraph 19:
Like most other things in this war, the scaling-down of the army will be a question of priority. Speaking generally, the principle upon which priorities will be based is that those with the longest service in- the army will be the first to be released. Priority for individual release will be established by a point score system explained below.
Then it goes on to explain the way in which the system works. I should like also to read paragraph 26, which after mentioning the ordinary way in which the point score is figured out, goes on to say:
26.	There are other things, however, to consider besides the feelings or even the entitlement of the individual. In general those with the highest priority will be released for return to Canada, but normal services must be maintained throughout the army during the reallocation period and there may be adjustments between corps as to the individual priority required to qualify for inclusion in the first groups to be released. For instance, it by chance a great number of R.C.A.S.C. personnel all had the highest possible priority, they could not all be released immediately as the army would then not be able to function efficiently.
27.	Then again it is bound to be the case that a much larger proportion of officers- commissioned, warrant and non-commissioned- will have higher priorities than will private soldiers, as. in general, such officers having come up through the ranks, their longer service is inevitable. On the other hand, the overruling necessity of maintaining efficient organization and administration throughout the Canadian army will prevent the release of officers other than in approximate proportion to the numbers of private soldiers.



Demobilization-Army

Then the expansion of the system of return of units, interspersed with Canada drafts, and so on, is gone into. That is the pamphlet which was issued overseas early in May, and I think it must be the one to which the hon. member has referred. In any event a supply will be available to-morrow for hon. members who may be interested.


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister said he had replied to my question two or three times. I am afraid he must have been under some misapprehension, because he did not speak after I had asked my question, except in reply to the hon. member for Peterborough West.
There was one essential difference. I asked this: Would the minister revise the point system now, in view of the evidence which had been presented to him showing that there was general dissatisfaction, and also the evidence offered by the hon. member for Yancouver-Burrard to the effect that the difficulties he saw in the way of revising the point system could be overcome by the very simple method of allotting a bonus to those men wearing campaign medals? That seems to be the simplest way in which it could be done.
We are all perfectly familiar with the impossibility of following exactly the principle of "first-in, first-out". Everyone has admitted that there must be exceptions to that rule. We all know about compassionate leave, and that sort of thing, and we accept that situation. But the fundamental injustice, that the point system does not give adequate points to the man who has had the longest and the most hazardous service, remains. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has offered a simple solution, namely, that of allotting an additional point to those wearing a campaign medal. Will the minister answer that simple question? Will he or will he not revise the points system, with that in view?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not going to answer any such simple question. I will submit the suggestion made by the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard to the staff, and I shall consider it. But, as I said before, this question is not so simple as all that. What my hon. friend has chosen to call evidence consists of assertions by himself and by some other hon. members. They may or may not be true.


George Randolph Pearkes: No, no.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But let me say that that is not evidence. I can assert, with equal assurance, and with all sincerity, that I have had statements from friends of mine who have returned and who consider that the system is
perfectly satisfactory. It is a matter of opinion and, as I said earlier, it involves the exercise of judgment on the part of someone. The person who finally has to exercise that judgment is my unfortunate self. I have to take the advice of the military advisers whom I have to advise me. As I said earlier in the debate, if I am not prepared to accept their advice, I should replace them. Until they tell me that they are prepared to recommend another system, and so long as they have my confidence as minister I, as minister, am not going to override their decision. I cannot say anything further than that, and I have said that already two or three times to-day.


George Randolph Pearkes: But the minister 'will have the matter reviewed again?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, of course. I have also given that assurance two or three times. It is being under constant review.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the item carry?


Howard Charles Green: No; this item cannot carry. Will the minister bring down to-morrow complete figures showing the present disposition of N.R.M.A. troops both overseas and in Canada?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; I do not know whether I shall be able to give all the information to-morrow. However, I think I have complete figures for Canada, and I think I should be able to give them for overseas, too. If I do not have them to-morrow, then I will have them next day.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, October 30, 1945.