Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What do military duties known as home defence consist of in this war, for which men are to be trained on land, sea and in the air, after registration in Canada?
2.	Will it be in coordination or cooperation with Britain?
3.	Does it include defence of Canada's neutrality from those who wish to use Canadian ports and territory for unneutral acts against another friendly power, as set out and defined by the government in the debate of 1938 on defence estimates ?
4.	Will voluntary enlistment for overseas be affected by this registration act?
5.	Does home defence include defence of Canada outside three miles of Canada's territorial waters, or defence of Prance's islands in the St. Lawrence, or defence of Iceland, Greenland or the West Indies?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	As stated by Mr. Gardiner in the house on July 12, 1940 (see Hansard, page 1591), men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act will be available for defence of Canada in Canada and everything pertaining to the military portion of that defence is included in the military duties.
2.	Yes, as part of the whole war effort of the Dominion.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
5.	Not as regards enlistment for Military Service for home defence.



COST OF ESTIMATING WHEAT YIELD

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	What was the financial cost of estimating the average bushel yield of wheat per acre in the prairie provinces and the Peace River block in British Columbia?
2.	How much was paid in wheat bonus to farmers, covering the same areas?
3.	How much was collected from farmers under the one per cent levy?
4.	How much was borrowed from the Finance department to help pay the wheat bonus?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Cost to date of Prairie Farm Assistance Act in respect to the 1939 crop season: $273,595.62.
It is not possible to segregate the costs involved in estimating the average yields of wheat.
2.	Amount paid to date: $9,713,511.99.
3.	Collected to June 27: $2,219,781.55.
4.	Advances authorized from consolidated revenue fund: December 14, 1939, $5,000,000. February 29, 1940, additional amount required, not to exceed a maximum of $4,000,000.



RECRUITING OF MINE WORKERS

Mr. ADAMSON:: 1.	Are the recruiting officers accepting mine workers before the national registration scheme is completed and we have taken stock of our man-power resources?
2.	What action has the government taken to the formation of a special pioneer corps of miners who would be trained together so that their specialized knowledge of rock, explosives and demolition work could be used to the best advantage ?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	If the question refers to men highly skilled in mining operations, and with an extensive knowledge of their trade, then they may be enlisted by recruiting officers before the National Registration scheme is completed, provided they are recruited to fill vacancies in the establishment of a unit requiring such qualifications.
2.	A special unit, No. 1 Tunnelling Company, has been formed in England from Canadian personnel selected from units overseas, and by the recent enlistment in Canada of 116 miners and diamond drillers.
The number of actual miners required in all engineer and pioneer units, which have been authorized to date, other than the No. 1 Tunnelling Company, amount to approximately 70, with reinforcements estimated at 25 to 30 per year. Specialized knowledge of rock, explosive and demolition work would be an asset to such units.



TUBERCULOSIS TESTS FOR CATTLE

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	In what counties of the province of Nova Scotia have tuberculosis tests for cattle been made since 1925?
2.	How many such tests have been made, stating (1) the counties in which each such test was made, (2) the date when each such test was made, (3) the number of cattle tested in each such test, and (4) the number and percentage of reactors found in each such test?

Questions
3.	In what counties or areas have such tests counties of Cape Breton island? If so, what
been authorized but not yet carried out?	action has been taken?
4.	Has any request been made by the government of Nova Scotia for such tests in the Mr. GARDINER:
1 and 2.
No. of
Counties tested	times
since 1925	tested
Annapolis	 1
Antigonish	 2
Colchester	 2
Cumberland	 2
Digby	 1
Guysborough	 1
Halifax	 1
Hants	 1
Kings	 1
Lunenburg	 1
Pictou	 2
Queens	 1
Shelburne	 1
Yarmouth	 2
	No. of	Percen-
Dates of	cattle	tage oftesting	tested	reactorsApril and May, 1928	.. 14.584	2-6Nov./27 to Feb./28	.. 14,103	10Jan. to Apr./40	.. 13,282	0-2Oct./27 to Mar./28	.. 22,459	4-5May/39 to Sept./39	.. 25,035	0-44Oct./27 to Jan./28	.. 23.770	1-7Nov./38 to June/39	.. 25,030	0-49Jan. to May/28	.. 10,485	0-39Nov. and Dec./27	.. 6,924	0-17Feb. to Apr./28	. 10,725	3-0Feb. to May/28	.. 16,587	4-1(Retest in progress.)	May to July/28	.. 17,532	2-5June to Aug./28	,. 17,024	2-0Sept./27 to Jan./28	. 21.513	1-2Aug./39 to May/40	.. 21 $30	0-15Apr. and May/28	. 3,650	1-6Feb. and Mar./28	,. 3,415	0-6Sept./27 to Feb./28	. 8,325	2-2Oct./38 to Jan./39	. 9,708	0-13.	By order in council P.C. 2355, Dec. 15, 1927, initial testing of all cattle in Nova Scotia, except the island of Cape Breton, was authorized. Retesting by counties is in progress and the counties of Yarmouth, Cumberland, Colchester, Antigonish and Pictou have been completed.4.	Yes, but no formal application in accordance with the restricted area regulations has been received.



MUNITIONS PLANTS

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	How many munitions plants financed by the governments of Canada and/or Great Britain have been or are being established?
2.	How many of such plants are being or are to be operated by the department?
3.	How many are being or are to be operated under arrangement with private interests?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Eight.
2.	Three. (Arsenals, operated by Department of National Defence.)
3.	Five.



SOLDIER MAIL

Mr. CHURCH:: Will the government give consideration to carrying free, through the post office, letters 95826-129i
of soldiers serving in Canada's army, navy and air force, for the period of the war, and also other classes of soldier mail?


Mr. MULOCK:: The government has given consideration to this question.
All letters from soldiers in a theatre of war have been carried free from the time of the arrival of Canada's troops overseas.
The following concessions as variations from civil rates, have also been made,-
A special reduced rate of 12 cents per pound up to 11 pounds has been secured for parcels sent to the Canadian troops in the United Kingdom.
This special rate of 12 cents per pound has been extended to parcels for H.M. ships and H.M.C. ships abroad, as well as parcels for members of the official auxiliary services such as the women's auxiliary territorial service and the women's auxiliary air force, if addressed to units serving in the United Kingdom.
A reduced rate of 10 cents per pound has also been arranged for parcels posted to members of the Canadian troops in Newfoundland.
Ordinary letters, not exceeding two ounces in weight, posted to Canada by Canadian troops at Canadian army field post offices in
Questions

the United Kingdom are accepted free of postage. If posted at a civil post office, the regular postage rates to Canada would apply.
As a result of negotiations entered into with the authorities in the United Kingdom and Newfoundland, concessions have been obtained under which gift parcels for Canadian soldiers will be admitted into these countries duty free.



WEIGHING OF RAILROAD CARS

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: 1.	How many railroad ears were weighed empty to check the marked weight for the fiscal years 1938-39 in (a) western Canada, (b) eastern Canada?
2.	How many cars so weighed were found (a) to be marked over, and (b) to be marked under, and what action ivas taken by the Department of Trade and Commerce to have such errors corrected?
3.	Has the Department of Trade and Commerce cheeked coal or coke in carload lots in the fiscal years 1938-1939 and, if so, what results were obtained?
4.	Has the department received any complaints regarding the weights of carloads of coal or coke during the same period? If so, from whom, and what action, if any, was taken regarding these complaints?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	The number of cars weighed empty by weights and measures service, Department of Trade and Commerce, to check the marked weights is as follows:
For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1938: (a) Western Canada, 129; (b) Eastern Canada, none.
For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939: (a) Western Canada, 131; (b) Eastern Canada, none.
2.	The number of cars so checked found to be marked:
(a)	over the actual weight: For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1938, 9; for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939, 21.
(b)	under the actual weight: For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1938, 81; for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939, 62.
Cars showing over 300 pounds error were restencilled by railway company.
3.	No.
4.	None.



MEDICINE HAT AIR TRAINING FIELD

Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	Has the government purchased the old fair grounds at Medicine Hat for use as an air training field?
2.	If so, from whom were they purchased?
3.	What was the acreage purchased?
4.	What was the purchase price?
5.	Did the government sell the buildings on the fair grounds?
6.	If so, to whom were they sold?
7.	Did the government purchase any other property in connection with the air training field?
tMr. Mulock-1
8.	If so, from whom were such purchases made, and what was the acreage purchased from each person?
9.	What was the price for such purchase?


Mr. HOWE:: 1. No; but negotiations with the owners of the land, and of the buildings, are in progress with a view to the purchase of 40 acres for air-field purposes. Two other properties, in addition to the old fair grounds, are under consideration; also the possible purchase of certain buildings and trees forming an obstruction to proposed flightways. When negotiations are completed, and authority to purchase secured, full information will be available to parliament.
2 to 9. See answer to No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Is the St. Lawrence Sugar Refineries a dominion incorporated company?
2.	Who are its directors?
3.	What were its profits available for dividends in its latest fiscal year?
4.	What is the amount of its capital and earned surplus ?
5.	What dividends did it pay during its last fiscal year?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Return tabled.


ATLANTIC SUGAR REFINERIES
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Is the Atlantic Sugar Refineries a dominion incorporated company?
2.	Who are its directors?
3.	What were its profits available for dividends in its latest fiscal year?
4.	What is the amount of its capital and earned surplus?
5.	What dividends did it pay during its last fiscal year?
6.	What was the price of raw cane sugar to the refineries in Canada in each month from and including August, 1939, till the present time, and in the corresponding month of the previous year?


Pierre-François Casgrain: Return tabled.


OLD AGE PENSIONS-NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How many persons were receiving old age pensions in the province of New Brunswick as at July 1, 1940?
2.	(a) How many were receiving the maximum amount of $20 per month; (b) how many were receiving $17.50 or more, per month, but less than $20;	(c) how many were receiving
$15 or more, per month, but less than $17.50; (d) how many were receiving $12 or more, per month, but less than $15; (e) how many were receiving $10 or more, per month, but less than $12; (f) how many were receiving $5 or more, per month, but less than $10; (g) how many were receiving $2.50 or more per month, but less than $5; (h) how many were receiving less than $2.50 per month?

Tourists-Firearms' Regulations
3.	In which of the provinces of the dominion are the administrators of the Old Age Pension Act, acting under that statute, requiring or accepting a transfer of title to real estate, or other property of the pensioner, to the province at the time of granting, or subsequent to the time of granting a pension?
4.	What is the average monthly pension paid in each province of the dominion?


CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINING BOARD
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Who are the members of the civil service commission examining board that interviewed applicants for such technical positions as armament examiners, motor vehicle examiners, gun carriage examiners, munition examiners and instrument examiners?
2.	Were these all, or any of them, qualified to adequately question the skill and knowledge of applicants, and did they do so?
3.	What percentage of applicants were 1914-18 veterans? (a) how many of them passed the examinations; (b) have any since been notified to that effect, (c) how many have been appointed to positions?
4.	Were any veterans with references as to ability and integrity rejected, and for what reasons ?
5.	Were all references investigated where veterans were in apparent good health and not proven unskilled in the work applied for?
6.	Were any applicants rejected who could prove satisfactory experience in the army on identical work of some services advertised for?
7.	Was the age of some veteran applicants considered an obstacle in qualifying as an inspector?
8.	Who were the successful applicants, and has each of them a record of technical education, skill and ample experience?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Wednesday, the 31st instant, and all subsequent Wednesdays until the end of the present session, the sittings of the house shall in every respect be under the same rules as on other days, meeting at 11.00 o'clock a.m. and rising for intermission from 1.00 to 3.00 o'clock p.m., and from 6.00 to 8.00 o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Acting Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the determination of compensation and the payment thereof for the requisition of vessels or aircraft or for the requirement of space or accommodation in vessels, requisitioned, acquired or required by or on behalf of His Majesty under the War Measures Act, or any other act of the parliament of Canada.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Will the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs, inform the house what the position is with respect to tourists, who are hunters, coming into Canada? New Brunswick, which is a mecca for tourists who are hunters, is visited annually by a large number of citizens of the United States who go there for the purpose of hunting big and small game. I understand that under recent regulations firearms in the possession of our own citizens must be turned in by September 15. It is an anomalous situation that citizens of Canada should be obliged to turn in their firearms while foreigners can come in and hunt. Nevertheless I should like to see some arrangement worked out under which this very desirable class of tourists would not be precluded from coming into Canada. If any arrangement has been made I should be glad to have the Prime Minister tell us what it is and when it comes into effect. The duck shooting season in New Brunswick opens on the first of September.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has a copy of an order in council passed in amendment of one of the defence regulations. It covers the point raised by the hon. member, and I would ask him to reply to the question.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: By regulation 37A aliens were denied the privilege of having firearms in their possession in Canada, but on July 16 an order in council modifying that provision was passed. The effective parts of it are these:
(7)	The commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shall have the power to make orders for the exemption of residents from the provisions of this regulation, and to make such provisions for licences or permits as may appear to be expedient.
(8)	The commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shall have power to make orders for the exemption from the provisions of this regulation of bona fide tourists and visitors from allied or neutral countries, and to make such provisions for temporary licences or permits for such person as may appear to be expedient.
That should answer the question.
National Registration


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is just an enabling provision. What has been done under the order in council with respect to the regulations?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The commissioner shall have power to make orders for exemption, and individual cases will have to be treated on their merits from time to time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But have the orders been reduced to writing? Perhaps the minister will look into it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is nothing more to look into. This question has been up for several weeks. The normal case is that of the tourist who comes from the United States with a shotgun or rifle in his possession. Under the order in council of June 10 he could not be permitted to retain such firearms in his possession, but there was no power to make exceptions. It was thought best to give the Royal Canadian Mounted Police power to make exceptions in individual cases, and therefore these amendments were passed by order in council giving the police that power. They have that power now and there is no necessity for any further regulation. It is a matter for exemption from time to time in individual cases.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The whole thing then is left to the police. Are they to operate at the border and are people to understand that they can bring in firearms if they are vouched for? I saw something more than that in the press, and that is what prompted me to ask the question.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know what the hon. gentleman saw in the press. He may have seen some reference to provision being currently made for the registration of firearms in the possession of anyone in Canada. Those arrangements have not yet been completed but they have no direct bearing on the question he has in mind. His question is whether tourists will be permitted to bring in and have in their possession firearms for hunting purposes, and that is provided for. That subject matter is covered by the regulations I have read.



NATIONAL REGISTRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: May I ask the Minister of National War Services a question? Some time ago it was indicated that farm help would not be called out for compulsory training during the busy season
[Mr. Ilsley.l
on the farm. I understand that certain farm organizations are doubtful whether sufficient information is asked for on the proposed national registration form to give effect to that assurance regarding farm help, and I understand further that certain questions have been submitted to the minister by some farm organizations. Will the minister say whether any additions will be made to the questionnaire? If not, what method will be followed to ensure the carrying out of this policy?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of National War Services):: Most of the criticism we have had up to date with regard to the questionnaire is that there are too many questions on it now. We have no intention of adding to it. The material including the questionnaire is now on its way for distribution to registrars in British Columbia and is to-day being shipped to Alberta. It will be impossible to add to it. I have had suggestions from a number of organizations, including one farm organization, that we place on the tables of the registrars a list of further questions to be answered at the same time. I have refused to consider that. Hon. members will understand that if we were to start adding other lists of questions to be answered in the registration booths the task of registering some 8,000,000 people in three days would be impossible.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: In connection with the registration, will employers of labour be compelled to give their employees time off?


James Garfield Gardiner: Arrangements have been made to have city registrars appointed by industries where there will be difficulty about labour getting off. We are arranging with them to have these appointments made.


George Alexander Cruickshank: In some places in my riding there are loggers up the lakes, and it is very expensive for them to get down; they will have to hire a boat and miss a whole day's pay. It is not possible to put a registrar in each one of the small camps. Will arrangements be made to let these men off, and have the firm supply a boat to bring them down?


James Garfield Gardiner: Arrangements are being made as far as possible for everyone in Canada to be able to register within the three days.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, July 26, consideration in committee of Bill No. 98, to establish an unemployment insurance commission to provide for insurance against un-

Unemployment Insurance
employment, to establish an employment service, and for other purposes related thereto- Mr. McLarty-Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
On section 13-Insured persons.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand we are on section 13 and on the schedules.


Mr. McLARTY:: On part II of the first schedule. The other schedules have been passed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then the only thing left is section 13 and the question of the excepted employment?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The second schedule and part I of the first schedule have been passed?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes. When the committee rose on Friday night we were being urged to amend part II of the first schedule to include in its operation the logging industry. We had been similarly urged in the special committee which the house appointed to consider this measure.
Part II has been prepared with meticulous care. It would be extremely difficult to amend any part of it without affecting the whole act. Fortunately however the act has within itself provision made for including industries that are at present excepted under part II. That is under section 96(a). The logging industry is one which raises some peculiar difficulties, not only in the industry itself but in the manner in which it is carried on in various sections of Canada. The difficulty is not so much the seasonal nature of the occupation as it is the administrative difficulty that would arise if we endeavoured at the present time to bring it under this act.
However, representations have been made, and made forcibly, not only in the special committee but in this committee, and I suggest that the purpose might be served under section 86(a) if the governor in council, exercising the power under that section, proceed forthwith after the appointment of the commission and of the committee to recommend that the committee investigate this particular industry and ascertain whether those administrative defects can be overcome. H they can be overcome, no doubt the committee will recommend the inclusion of this industry in the act.


Mr. STIRLING:: By "this industry" the
minister means the logging industry?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I am referring specifically to the logging industry.


Grote Stirling: That does it.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think that would meet the situation. I believe that if we make amendments to the "excepted employments" part of the first schedule the implications may go much wider than we anticipate. It is not the seasonal nature of this industry, as I say, so much as the administrative difficulties which will have to be overcome.
This suggestion would enable the committee to go into it, and, having regard to the representations which have been made in the special committee and in this committee, which will be passed on to the advisory committee, ascertain whether they can overcome these difficulties. If they can, there is no reason as far as I know why that particular industry should not be taken out of the exceptions in part II.


Mr. GREEN:: Is the minister undertaking
on behalf of the government that there will be such an investigation into the logging industry in British Columbia?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes.


Mr. NEILL:: But he cannot because he
has to consult the commission.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Perhaps I had better
qualify it, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni suggests. We will call it to the attention of the commission as soon as it is set up, with the request that they ask for a report from the advisory committee on the question of the admission of the logging industry.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Referring to the paragraphs (e) and (f) of the schedule, part II, the former dealing with employment in transportation by water or by air, and the latter with employment in a club, I have it in mind that stewards on ships crossing the ocean come under the benefits of British unemployment insurance. I remember very well asking my steward on one occasion what he would do when he got to Liverpool. He said they were going to be laid off for two months while the ship was being repaired, but that he would not be too badly off because he would get $4.14 a week for himself, $2.19 for his wife and 49 cents each for his children-he said he had four-plus 25 per cent, or $10.36 a week; and he could live on that sum. A steward in a club enjoys the benefits of the act but a steward on a ship sailing from Canada does not; yet both do the same work.


Norman Alexander McLarty: One difficulty is that most of the ships are under British registry. It is felt that there might be certain administrative difficulties that will have to be overcome. The hon. gentleman is correct in stating that a steward in a club comes under this act.
Unemployment Insurance


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Is it not correct
that the minister of labour of British Columbia has recommended strongly that lumbering and logging be included in this bill?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is correct.


George Black: The minister of
labour of British Columbia has the confidence of both employers and employees, and doubtless he has looked into the matter closely. I consider him perhaps one of the best qualified men in Canada to say whether or not lumbering and logging should be included.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member is quite correct. The minister of labour of British Columbia did represent that the lumbering and logging industry should be brought under this act. I dealt with this question in a general way by suggesting that the difficulties we face in connection with logging are largely administrative, and if these difficulties can be overcome provision is made in section 86 of the act to apply the act to that industry.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the minister suggest to this commission the difference between logging on the western coast and logging in the east? There is absolutely no similarity at all.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think the answer would be that the committee would be bound to take notice of that fact, because it is a fact.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But will the minister point it out to them? It makes all the difference in the world.


Norman Alexander McLarty: We will endeavour to bring to the attention of the commission and the committee all the points that have been urged with respect to the logging industry, both in the special committee, where it was argued at some length, and in this committee.


Alan Webster Neill: Over the week-end I have had an opportunity of looking into the evidence given before the special committee, and also of considering the arguments presented in the house last Friday. I notice that quite a number of alterations were recommended by the special committee, but they were of the most trivial character. They would seem to bear out the conception that I formed this session-perhaps improperly-that when a bill is brought into the house it has to go through, willy-nilly; that no amendments of any importance are allowed. This is suggestive of Prussian methods, which I deprecate.
I have taken note of the objections to including the logging industry under this bill, both in the committee and in this house. They are five in number, and I should like to state them briefly and say a word about each.

First it was said that logging is seasonal employment and that therefore it was impossible to bring it under the act. Then it was discovered by another official or another minister that it was left out because of administrative difficulties, and that point also was dwelt upon fully. The next suggestion was to "leave it to George", under section 86 of the act; it was suggested that some committee might look further into the matter, if it felt so inclined. The next objection was that it would upset the actuarial basis of the scheme. The final objection, which I think was urged by almost everyone, was that all-inclusive argument, "Well, this is the way it was done in the Bennett act." I never knew before that Bennett had such an appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite, but now the thing must be right because it was done that way in the Bennett act.
Let me deal briefly with these objections. First there is the seasonal question. Mr. Farris, who is one of the cleverest lawyers in British Columbia and who, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) said, was briefed by the loggers' association to come down here and put t'heir views before the committee, dwelt at great length upon the seasonal nature of the work. But we find that Hon. Mr. Pearson. Minister of Labour in British Columbia, and who has occupied that position for a long time, wired the hon. member for New Westminster and also the government themselves, objecting very strongly to the exclusion of lumbering, pointing out that there is nothing to justify it and that with similar conditions prevailing in the state of Washington, across the line, logging is included under their act, and that it has worked reasonably well. He then mentioned that 13,000 people are employed in the logging industry, and in his wire to the chairman of the committee he said:
Our government believes that an effort should be made to cover a large number of workers and cannot see any good reason why the lumber industry should be excluded as returns made to our department by all branches of the lumbering industry including logging show that there is not an unreasonable variation in employment-
Then he goes on to speak of the situation in the state of Washington. These are the words of the head of the British Columbia department of labour, who must be in contact with these operations all the time. He should know the facts better than some actuary, or some man in the labour department here; and the minister quoted Mr. Pearson to a certain extent.
Then there is the question of the administrative difficulties. I cannot see any point

Unemployment Insurance
at all in that objection. If it was a case of two or three men here and there it would be different, but these logging outfits employ from 200 to 500 men. The government of British Columbia now collects one cent per day per man in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act, and I never heard of any difficulty in collecting that money. The provincial government also collects a tax of one per cent on the payrolls. If there has been any trouble in collecting that, I never heard of it. Now the dominion government is going to collect 2 or 3 per cent of their wages; they will take that from these men whom they find it impossible to bring under this act. Administrative difficulties disappear like the manna of the bible when it comes to collecting money; but when it is a case of giving these men a measure of justice and not discriminating against them, then administrative difficulties pile up to an unknown extent. But they can be overcome, and they have been overcome in connection with the collection of the taxes I have mentioned.
Then we come to the minister's suggestion in connection with section 86, and I will admit that he has improved it by the promise he gave to-day. On Friday he said it might come under section 86, which states:
Whenever the governor in council, after consultation with the commission, considers it expedient to do so, it may direct the committee to investigate and report upon-
It is the committee, not the commission, that is directed to report upon a situation like this. In that connection I would point out that if the governor in council, which is the government, does not feel like doing it now it will not feel like doing it after we have gone home. And they need not do it unless they consider it expedient to do so. If they do not consider it expedient now, what is the use of saying they may do it when they feel like it? They may direct a committee to investigate and report. How long will it take that committee to get around to reporting; a couple of years?
The minister says he gave his word-and there is no man in this house whose word I would accept more readily-that when the committee or commission is appointed he will see that the committee is directed to investigate and report upon the situation. In the first place I would point out that this must be done after consultation with the commission, which has not yet been appointed. Therefore his word, however good it may be in itself, does not carry the weight it otherwise would carry. Nothing happens nowadays that I have not seen happen before in this house. A number of years ago I sat just about where the minister sits to-day. I asked a minister whether the 95826-130
meaning of a section was so and so and whether the minister would so interpret it. His reply was yes, that he would, and I could take his word for it. On that assumption I went home happy. A few months later I had occasion to point out to the government that they were not carrying out that section in that sense, but I was told coldly and politely that what the minister said in the house did not bind them, that they were going to administer the section as they saw fit, according to the strict letter of the law. Therefore I do not have the same confidence and hope in the assurance of the minister, not because I have any doubt as to his integrity but because of the possibility of his being unable to do what I know he would like to do.
I do not think we can expect much under section 86. If we cannot induce the government to include this industry now, what hope have we of having it done later on? I think those members who hope it can be done later are very innocent indeed if they look for much success in the future. This is one of the largest industries in British Columbia. Why should it be discriminated against?
Then we come to the argument that the actuarial basis might be upset. Is that not just a quibble? They are going to take in under this act a million and a half or two million men-


John Ritchie MacNicol: The figure they give is
2,100,000.


Alan Webster Neill: -2,100,000; and they say it will upset the whole machinery if we include 13,000 more.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think to be fair the hon. member for Comox-Alberni will admit that I did not use any argument to that effect. I said the difficulties were largely administrative.


Alan Webster Neill: I was talking about those who opposed inclusion when the matter was discussed before the special committee. Of course I was not referring to the minister in that connection. However, the argument was used before that committee that it would upset the actuarial arrangements, and the same argument was made the other night by an hon. member who sits behind me. One has only to read the evidence taken before the committee to find where it was said repeatedly that, so to speak, the whole thing would go to blazes. That could not be the case. In the matter of such magnitude, such a trivially small deviation in the number covered would not affect it one way or the other. And there is no reason in the world to suppose that the inclusion of this class of men would increase the risk to the government.

Unemployment Insurance


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the rates are sound, it would help.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, if the rates are sound, the more the merrier. The greater the basis from which the money would be obtained, the more likely is the proposal to be sound-on the principle that it is far safer to insure one hundred men's lives than it is to insure five.
Then we come to the position taken in the Bennett legislation. He has had many sins laid on his shoulders, but he has certainly been a godsend to the government in the last year or two. It has been thought, apparently, by those who oppose the inclusion which has been suggested, that if they put forward a number of poor reasons, those reasons will unite themselves into one good one. I contend however that that is not a good argument. If a lawyer is defending a man on a criminal offence he is better to have one good, solid alibi, than to have a number of general but vague defences.


Richard Burpee Hanson: One good defence is much better.


Alan Webster Neill: On one occasion I watched a lawyer defend an accused person. He appeared to pass over some points he might have made, in connection with inconsistencies in the evidence; but when he came to his defence he presented a good, solid alibi, and that alibi brushed away the whole case against the accused. The jury was content to accept the alibi. Those who are of the opinion that a number of vague suggestions are valuable when urged against an argument must have been reading Aesop's fables, where it is stated that a bundle of faggots gives more strength. That may be true of faggots, but certainly it is not true of arguments of this kind.
Of course the real reason is that there has been a big lobby put on against this measure. That is the fact, although hon. members have not had the courage to say so. If the government is going to do the fair thing, then it must not discriminate against one class of men-west forever on the scaffold, east forever on the throne.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member for Comox-Albemi has said something about the putting on of a lobby. I am absolutely sincere when I say to him that if there has been a lobby, certainly no one has ever approached me about it. I heard no statement of that kind in the special committee, and pesonally I know of no lobby. If there is one I wish the hon. member would make it quite clear that I have not been influenced in any way by any lobby, by any person, or at any time.


Alan Webster Neill: I accept the minister's
remarks, but I did not suggest anything about him personally. I have reiterated my conviction that he is absolutely sincere in the matter. Nevertheless there is a strong feeling against this suggestion, put forward by those who do not want it. We are supposed to legislate for the whole mass of the people. If we are going to give consideration to one class, in one part of the country, we ought to do it for the rest.


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not know it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Everybody else knows it, and knows exactly what the spearhead of the lobby is, and the reason for it, and everything of that sort. The government must take the responsibility.


Norman Alexander McLarty: My hon. friends say
there are no administrative difficulties in connection with the inclusion of the logging industry. They say further that it is done in Oregon. It is done in Oregon, and the administrative costs in that state are 38 per cent higher than the average costs throughout the United States. There is that difficulty to consider. If there has been a lobby, certainly I have never seen any evidence of it. This section was prepared two years ago. It is in the form it was in two years ago, because of the administrative difficulties which arose in connection with this particular industry. I call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that the industry in the province from which he comes is entirely different from the industry in British Columbia. As between two parts of the country, could this government make flesh of one and fish of another? That is an important point which any committee would have to consider.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I understand the
minister to say that this section was prepared two years ago.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I will go further and say
that it was prepared in 1935.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If it was prepared
in 1935 am I to understand that this commission will in the future be able to rectify the situation when, with all its wisdom, the government could not find a way of rectifying it

Unemployment Insurance
since 1935? That is not reasonable. The commission will not have the slightest intention of paying any attention to British Columbia loggers, if it could not be done since 1935.
I am not saying there has been a lobby. But I would very much like an assurance from the minister that the government will pay a member of the house of Farris to come back and to represent the working men of British Columbia who cannot appear. If I can get the assurance that we can have representation for the poor workingman, I shall be satisfied.


Mr. POTTIER:: I rise to a question of privilege. We have heard it said that there has been a lobby in connection with this matter. I have heard of no such lobby, and I resent the idea going out to the public that there has been lobbying on this measure. I sat on the special committee and heard the evidence, and I want to tell the leader of the opposition that I saw no lobbying and did not hear about it. No one has approached me or discussed the matter with me. There were three members from British Columbia on the committee, and while the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) have said a great deal in the house, we did not hear a thing from them before the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Chairman, we were busy in other committees.


Alan Webster Neill: That is going a little too far. I was not allowed in the committee.


Mr. CHAMBERS:: Nor was I.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Then I withdraw that reference. But I protest against the idea of telling the public there was a lobby and that members were lobbied in connection with the exclusion of persons connected with the logging industry. That is not according to the facts. I was never interviewed; no one ever saw me in the matter, and I resent the implication that I was influenced in any way.


Mr. REID:: I think it unfair to leave the impression that a member of parliament was denied the right to appear before the committee. I am somewhat surprised to hear hon. members saying they were denied a hearing. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Chambers) came to the committee when the evidence had been heard and we were sitting in camera. I suppose every hon. member knows that the committee sits in camera after the evidence has been heard. But had he or any other hon. member come earlier, we would have given him every courtesy.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: There were senators sitting in on the committee.


Thomas Reid: It is not fair to say that there was a secret select committee of the house, and that people were denied the right to express their opinions before it.


George Black: We are now in committee of the whole house, and as such we have more power than any select committee could have. To discuss whether a special paid advocate is a lobbyist is only quibbling. Are you going to take the opinion of Mr. Farris, who may or may not be as splendid a lawyer as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni describes him? At all events he is paid to come down here and oppose the inclusion of the logging industry in this act. The minister of labour of British Columbia, Mr. Pearson, has nothing to gain except that he wants to see employers and employees in British Columbia who are engaged in this industry covered by the act. The minister may say that there are difficulties in the way of administration, but that is true of any industry. All the industries that are included under this act will have to remodel their office work; it will be much worse than making up income tax forms, but that is no reason why any industry should be exempted from the operation of the act, including the logging industry. If it is going to be difficult to administer, let us face the difficulty. The government of Canada is facing all sorts of difficulties much more serious than that. Personally I am prepared to take the advice of Mr. Pearson, minister of labour of British Columbia. The logging industry is probably the chief industry in British Columbia. Mining and fishing perhaps come first, but there are thousands and thousands of men employed and millions and millions of dollars involved in the logging industry, and it comes a close second. If unemployment insurance is good for workmen in other industries it certainly is good for the lumbering industry, and administrative difficulties should not be allowed to stand in the way of its inclusion in the act.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Labour
stated a few minutes ago that section 13 had stood in its present form for two years.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I was referring to part II of the first schedule.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister has
overlooked the fact that paragraph (c) of part II of the first schedule was changed in the special committee.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Quite true.
Unemployment Insurance


Howard Charles Green: And that has stood for only a day or two. It was changed by adding the words "wood processing plants." It was also changed along the very lines of the minister's reference a few minutes ago, by adding the words "in the opinion of the commission." In other words paragraph (c) expressly says that the commission must decide whether or not these particular branches of the lumbering industry are reasonably continuous in their operations. That is a very marked change. I personally ask that the minister add after the words "wood processing plants" the words "and logging camps" so that the whole paragraph would read:
(c) Employment in lumbering and logging, exclusive of such saw mills, planing mills, shingle mills and wood processing plants and logging camps as are in the opinion of the commission reasonably continuous in their operations.
That would leave it entirely to the commission to decide whether or not logging camps in British Columbia are carrying on continuous operations. Then there would be no need for the governor in council to act, because instructions to the commission to investigate the logging industry would be contained in paragraph (c) and be part of the statute law of the country. Frankly I can see no reason why the minister khould object to making that addition. If it is done, the right to investigation is statutory; it is not dependent upon an order in council, and the government are amply protected because if the commission decides that logging should not be included, it will not be included. At the same time the loggers are protected because they will automatically have the right to appear before the commission. I would ask the minister, apart from all the flurry there has been this morning, to make that addition. I think everybody would be satisfied if that were done. In spirit it is not really going any further than the minister has done already but it makes the right statutory rather than leaving us to rely on a possible order in council.


Norman Alexander McLarty: When I stated that part II of schedule I had been prepared some time ago, I had particular reference to the section dealing with logging and logging alone. As the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) correctly points out, the special committee made an amendment enlarging the section to include "wood-processing plants."
In connection with the point which he urges to-day and urged with such ability on Friday night, the seasonal nature of the industry is not to my mind the important and vital point. The members for British
(Mr. McLarty.]
Columbia have made out a pretty good case so far as that province is concerned. The employment is apparently not what you would call seasonal. But throughout this whole debate I have been urging that the difficulty was not that it was a seasonal industry but that the administrative difficulties which we face Stand in the way of our including this industry at the present time. If it was solely a question of the seasonal nature of the industry, then the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver South could be readily adopted, but until the committee has had the opportunity to ascertain and devise the best method of the administrative handling of this industry, I suggest to hon. members that it would be wise at present not to amend part II to include logging.
The suggestion has been made that the operation of the act will be delayed. Of course it will take a certain time to put the act into operation. That is inevitable. But so far as we can give the assurance to this committee I am prepared to give it now that forthwith, after the commission has been set up and the advisory committee appointed, the representations made both here and in the special committee will be brought to their attention and they will be asked to make an inquiry at the earliest possible moment.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is stressing now the administrative difficulties. Apparently there are no administrative difficulties with regard to saw mills, planing mills, shingle mills or wood^processing plants. So far as British Columbia is concerned there is not very much difference in administrative difficulty as between a saw mill, a planing mill, a wood-processing plant, and a logging camp. There is probably just as much variation in the one as in the other. Furthermore I think the minister will find that there are far more orientals employed in the saw mills and planing mills of British Columbia than there are in the logging camps, and if the act remains as it is these orientals will be able to get unemployment insurance, whereas the white men in the logging camps will not be able to get it.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Mr. Chairman, if amendments made in the special committee are not inclusive enough to suit some hon. members, I should like to point out that those of us in the special committee who wanted to broaden the scope of paragraph (c) to bring more industries under this act accepted what we could get. If hon. members had been in the special committee they would appreciate some of the difficulties which the special committee faced. As everyone knows, questions

Unemployment Insurance
in a special committee have not the same political flavour that they have when they are discussed in this house, and that makes a great deal of difference. I have been amazed at the concern felt for the poor workingman of British Columbia by some hon. members who have spoken here to-day. The very fact that some of these members belong to the party they do is proof positive that they have no concern, except on very rare occasions, with the conditions of the working classes in British Columbia or anywhere else.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask the hon. member a question? I have been working on a farm all my life. How long has he been not working as a politician?
Mr. MacINNI'S' Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether there are administrative difficulties or not. I am told that there are, and in this respect, as in regard to many other matters connected with the bill, I must accept what I am told, because I am not an expert on the subject of unemployment insurance, and the government employed experts in the preparation of this bill. I should be very glad if the minister accepted the proposal made by the hon. member for Vancouver South, but I do not believe that it will help us very much. Paragraph (c) of the excepted employments reads:
Employment in lumbering and logging, exclusive of such saw mills, planing mills and shingle mills-
And woodworking, et cetera, was included in the committee.
-as are reasonably continuous in their operations.
If the commission finds that any or all of the employments are reasonably continuous in their operation they will come under the insurable occupations for the purposes of the bill, and if the commission finds that they are not reasonably continuous they will still remain excepted employments; so that we are not making very much progress whether we put that in or whether we leave it out. However, I see no reason why the minister could not accept the amendment provided that logging shall be one of the occupations which will be included after an investigation.
I think it appeared to the committee when Mr. Farris, representing the logging industry of British Columbia, was before it that he wanted the loggers excluded because of the intermittent or seasonal nature of the work. However, having read his evidence carefully, I do not believe now that Mr. Farris tried to make a case in that regard. On page 200 of volume III of the evidence and proceedings Mr. Farris states, in part:
I may also say that that logging group are a very transient number of employees. For instance, take our particular association which represents 70 per cent, as I said, of the log production in British Columbia. At the peak period last year there would be jobs for approximately 7,000 yet the placements for that 7,000 exceeded 12,000. In other words they are moving back and forth all the time. It is almost like being on a street car, they are getting on one place and off the next.
I ask hon. members to take particular notice of this:
And I might say that I happen to be director of the Union Steamship Company, the company which has practically all the ships doing to a large extent the transportation business on the west coast of British Columbia going from point to point; and we do a very large passenger business, and I have had an opportunity of watching, which I do every month, the list of passengers, and nearly that whole passenger list is made up of loggers going to and from these camps.
It may be that there is no connection at all between Mr. Farris representing British Columbia's saw mill and logging interests and also being a director of the Union Steamship company, and the large turnover in the logging industry. It would be interesting to investigate the subject a little further.
Let me come back again to the matter of administrative difficulties. My friends who say, and I assume sincerely believe, that there are no administrative difficulties in this connection will have to take the same attitude in regard to most of the other excepted employments. They will have to take the same attitude with regard to stevedoring.


Alan Webster Neill: Why not?


Angus MacInnis: They will have to take the same attitude with regard to transportation by water, for the inclusion of which employees a very good case can be made as far as British Columbia is concerned. They will have to take the same attitude with regard to domestic servants, and, indeed, a whole batch of excepted employments. We shall either have to accept the word of those who framed the bill and who have a fairly comprehensive understanding of the difficulties, or we must ignore altogether all that expert evidence and report the bill in committee in the form in which we think it should be passed.
I said that I am very much in favour of the minister accepting the proposal made by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I do not believe any great difficulties would result, as in any event all the employments in the lumbering industry will have to be examined by the commission before they come under the operation of the act.


Mr. MAYHEW:: I desire to say a word or
two on this matter, largely because of some
Unemployment Insurance

statements which were made on Friday, and also because of a suggestion which was made to-day about members being affected by lobbying.
In my district we have not very many loggers, although we have lumber operators. I am, as I said before, in favour of this bill, although I have objected to it as not sufficiently inclusive, and I mentioned the names of industries which I thought should be included if at all possible. One of them was that of the loggers, the other the stevedores or longshoremen.
By the way I should like just to mention that the longshoremen of my district, the city of Victoria, are contributing one dollar per month per man to the national finances in pursuance of the war effort-not a bad gesture on the part of our stevedores.
Referring to the logging industry, I believe that the committee have considered the whole industry from one end of Canada to the other, and having done so, have placed it on the borderline of inclusion or exclusion from this schedule, whereas if it were considered from the point of view of British Columbia standing on its own feet, as to whether our men should be included in it or not, most decidedly the committee would have placed it on the list of industries which should be included.
Probably I have not been as enthusiastic about this whole bill as have some other hon. members. That is not because I would not want any and all of the benefits which will accrue from what we are aiming at, to pass on to these people. But we must consider the measure somewhat from the point of view that this insurance is very much like any other insurance; you cannot get it if you have not anything to insure; and as a result of that, you are passing on a benefit to 2,100,000 people and you are excluding 600,000 people who need help a great deal more. In fact, instead of helping those 600,000 you are making their lot just that much worse. No matter how you look at it, no matter what tax you may put on the people, in the final analysis the consumer pays for it.
One speaker-I believe it was the hon. member for Trinity-said that this measure would not affect the living costs of the people. I maintain that, no matter how we look at it, it will increase the living costs of us all. There are some industries which will not want to pass on this extra cost to the people. There are others that will not be able to do so, because competition will not permit. There are others which will gladly pass it on if they possibly can. But, no matter whether they do or do not, it is going to affect the

income of the people. Surely by this time we realize that the three governing bodies, federal, provincial and municipal, take to-day fifty per cent of the earnings of all industry. In other words, we as consumers and as taxpayers have a fifty per cent interest in the profits of all business enterprise, and if it is above the average of income, we get seventy-five per cent. Therefore, if we do not take it in the increased cost of the product, it will be reflected in a reduction of the income which is received by the government, and then we must make up that income from some other source. Who supplies to-day the profits of industry? It is the consumer, you and I. Regardless of how you get it or where it comes from, it is ultimately borne by the consumer. I say that in this bill we are helping those who can help themselves and we are making heavier the load of those who are unable to help themselves, particularly those 600,000, as well as our farmers. To-day the agricultural industry is receiving a gradually decreasing percentage of the nation's income. It is carrying the load, but others are reaping the benefit.
I am also mildly in sympathy with this bill for another reason. Every time I have spoken in this chamber, and for years before I had any idea that I should be a member of a legislative body, I have advocated an allinclusive, compulsory, contributory superannuation fund; and I believe that this legislation will to a certain extent stand in the way of what I believe to be a better type of social legislation. I hope this government realize that they have recently set on foot what I believe to be one of the best schemes for superannuation. Admittedly that scheme requires some development, but it has been started, in the form of the war savings stamps which they are putting out to-day, and by modification and development it should become something worth while, enabling the people to provide by careful saving for their own superannuation and giving encouragement to industrialists and others.
Also I am but mildly in sympathy with this bill for another reason. I am of opinion that if you took the sixty or seventy million dollars a year which this measure is going to cost the country, and put it into self-supporting projects throughout Canada, it would form the basis of an endowment to take care of our unemployed, besides furnishing them with employment.
It is not in my opinion an insurance scheme that we want; it is an assurance scheme to assure the people of employment. It is all very well to say that Great Britain and some other of the older countries have unemploy-

Unemployment Insurance
ment insurance systems and that the United States has recently followed their example. Compare the state of development of these older countries with the present stage of development of Canada. Compare the British isles with this country; reflect that all its huge population could be put on Vancouver island. What we here need is vision and courage. We would not need to provide for unemployment if we handled our affairs properly; and we do not need social credit to provide for it either.
For these reasons, although I would not delay another minute the passing of this bill, because it is the best we can get at present,- and I apologize for having spoken at all at this time-I believe there are more effective forms of social legislation than the present bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
think that the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Mayhew) need offer this committee any apology for the remarks he has just concluded. On the contrary, I believe we have listened to a thoughtful, perhaps all too brief, consideration of the principles of measures such as this. I personally listened with pleasure to his remarks, and I congratulate him upon his brief contribution to this debate. He left with the committee an illustration of what I should have said, and perhaps tried most inadequately to say on more than one occasion during the passage of this bill, namely that the House of Commons, in its discussion of this important measure, has not given as much consideration as it should to the underlying principles, not only of insurance but of assurance, as he so aptly termed it.
I have supported the principle of this measure, but I have been loath to think that we should force it through without having considered every angle, and I do not think that it has had adequate consideration. Now I am informed that opportunity was given through their leadership to the labour organizations who were right on the job, but that opportunity was not given to the employers to study the bill. I did not have opportunity to study it; I was promised the bill days before it reached me-and I do not say that in any spirit of fault-finding. The minister will know that I communicated with him and that he undertook to give me the bill on a certain date, but because the bill had not been finally approved by council or there were some sections which had not been finally settled, we did not get the bill in time to give adequate consideration to it. I understand the complaint is general among employers of labour in Canada that they did not get the bill in time to study it in all its ramifications. I am certain, from the discussion that took place in this house on Friday last on the various sections, that many hon. members had not read the bill, or if at all, but cursorily.
I do not intend to revert to the question of the British Columbia loggers. The minister has given an undertaking which may partially satisfy those who have been advocating a better course from the point of view of the loggers. I am inclined to let the matter stand there. We are trying to close the house this week, and if the discussion continues with all the work we have to do, that will not be possible. I shall come immediately, therefore, to certain comments I wish to make with regard to other portions of the schedule.
I have had over the week-end a large number of representations with respect to paragraph (g). The effect of paragraph (g) of part II of the first schedule is to include hospitals within this measure, except as to the employment of professional nurses for the sick or probationers undergoing training. Now what is the position of our hospitals, at any rate as I know them in the maritime provinces? In general they may be termed municipal or charitable institutions. The biggest hospital in the province of New Brunswick is the Saint John public hospital, wholly municipally owned and controlled. It is in no sense a profit-making enterprise; on the contrary it is a public service institution established for the good of the community, and especially for the good of those least able to pay, because within certain limitations no one is refused admittance. The hospitals in the maritime provinces I think are typical of hospitals in all the provinces with the exception of certain institutions in Quebec and portions of New Brunswick to which I shall refer later, namely, those conducted by the various religious sisters. These are in the nature of municipally owned institutions.
These institutions are usually started by some public spirited citizen to supply a long-felt want. In my city the hospital was started in 1887 by the late Lady Tilley, to mark a jubilee. The cottage hospital in Fredericton was set up in the first instance by private gifts under a board of trustees with the sanction of an act of the legislature. The hospital grew under those auspices and to-day with the growth of hospitalization it has become really the health centre for two counties. It has never paid its way. As the use of the hospital has grown the burden of financing it has increased year by year. In days gone by it received annual gifts from charitably disposed persons in the community; in fact the nucleus of the present hospital,
Unemployment Insurance

the Fraser Memorial hospital, was built as a memorial to one of our greatest pioneers in New Brunswick. That source of supply of funds has dried up, chiefly because of the increase of dominion, provincial and municipal taxation. Where is there to-day anybody who is prepared to endow or contribute to the endowment of our local hospitals, one of the most necessary services that man can supply to his fellow man? Yet these hospitals are being put in the category of industry. They are not industries in any sense of the word; the only possible exception is the private hospital operated for gain, of which we have very few in Canada. There are private insane asylums operated for gain; of that class it might perhaps be held that since they are operated for private gain they should be included. But every other category of hospitals should be excluded from the operation of this act.
Under this subsection "employment as a professional nurse for the sick" is excluded. Well, she would be excluded anyway. If I understand the system aright, these nurses are on their own, as a doctor is. They collect their own fees. The relation of employer and employee does not exist; it is a case of a professional person treating a patient. Why should they be in any other category. The relationship is analogous to that of physician and patient, or solicitor and client.
I am glad the minister has excepted probationers because they get hardly enough money to clothe themselves. But every other category of employment in these municipal and semi-municipal hospitals is to be included. The cook, the dietitian, the orderlies, the interns-all these are included. They are never out of employment as far as I know. I never heard of any of them being dismissed except for cause. I do urge upon the minister that he go the whole way with respect to these institutions which are of the character of municipal institutions. He has done it in the case of municipal transportation. Will anyone tell me that the transportation system of the city of Toronto is not run for gain? But they are to be excluded.


Norman Alexander McLarty: No, they are not excluded.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, perhaps I do not understand it.


Mr. HOMUTH:: The hydro-electric commission is excluded.


Norman Alexander McLarty: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a debatable matter; we will leave it for the moment and stick to our last.

These charitable and municipal institutions, these semi-municipal institutions, shall I say, are operated not for gain but actually at a loss. A deficit must be provided for each year, and this state of affairs will continue indefinitely, especially as the sources of charitable donations dry up because of the increased taxation upon those who have been in the habit of giving from year to year. If they have to pay so much to the dominion government and to the municipal government as we have to do in my city they must of necessity decrease their contributions to these institutions. Take the little town of Woodstock, I am advised by the cottage hospital there that this will cost them S400 a year, money that they need for reconditioning, money that they need for equipment which is required but which they cannot possibly supply now. How much less can they supply it if they have to take even $400 a year from their exchequer because of this bill?
I do request the minister to go the whole length with respect to hospitals of this class. The employees have not asked for this protection. The contribution from any one institution would be very small, but it just adds that much to the burden they must carry. To-day I received a letter from the chairman of the Fredericton hospital, a gentleman who is known very well indeed by the minister. He says:
I cannot for the life of me see why this unemployment insurance should pertain to the general hospitals that are operating throughout Canada, such as our own. The idea is and always has been to operate hospitals at cost, that is without profit, as a matter of fact there is probably not one in a hundred that is making ends meet.
That is from Mr. J. A. Reid, chairman of the Victoria public hospital in Fredericton, a man who has devoted a great deal of his time during the last twenty years to work in connection with that hospital. He is also the head of one of our industrial institutions. I have had a communication also from the Moncton people, who say the revenue of the institutions will be still further reduced, and they add:
-Staffs further reduced-national defence tax and record of small turnover personnel takes these institutions out of ordinary category industrial problems.
In this letter I am begged to try to protect their interests.
Another class of hospital, found largely in the province of Quebec, I think, but also in certain other provinces and in the northern part of New Brunswick, is operated by religious organizations, who are doing a wonderful work in communities in which otherwise there would be no hospitalization at all. I have in mind

Unemployment Insurance
the hospital at St. Basil, in the county of Madawaska. So far as I can recall that is the only hospital in that county; the Minister of Fisheries will correct me if I am wrong. Most of the work done by these hospitals is charitable work, though of course those who can pay are asked to pay. The sisters work for nothing. They have a certain number of paid employees, but why should this bill apply to them?


George Black: Does it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It will apply to the janitor, to the orderlies, to the engineer and other paid employees. The hon. member for Northumberland, N.B., has just placed in my hand a telegram from the Hotel Dieu hospital at Chatham, N.B., signed by Mother Mary of the Sacred Heart, as follows:
Our hospital primarily eharitable non-profit organization. Offers steady employment to personnel. Request exemption from unemployment insurance taxation.
Then here is a telegram from the Miramichi hospital at Newcastle. This institution was set up through the beneficence of a former resident of the Miramichi district, Mr. Ernest Hutchinson. I understand that to-day it is supported entirely by the fees taken in, and the municipal grants, if any. This is what they say:
Non-profit hospitals opposing inclusion in unemployment insurance. Our staff steadily employed. We are regularly in debt assisting indigent patients.
That puts in a nutshell the position of these little hospitals. I do beg the minister to re-draft paragraph (g) and have these small hospitals excluded. It simply adds one more burden to institutions which already are at their wits' end to know how to finance-and I am not putting it a bit too strongly. Now that former sources of revenue, by way of gifts from the more well to do of our people, have practically dried up, the Fredericton hospital has to go regularly to the municipal council of Fredericton, hat in hand, asking for aid and assistance to square up the deficit at the end of the year. This will be just one more burden on them, and they will not get any direct benefit from the tax. There is no reason why they should look for any benefit under this measure. They are in a different category from the banks; they are not able to pay. The banks are included because of their ability to pay. "There is a fat goose; pluck it." That is why the banks are put in. and for no other reason in the world. The government want their money. That cannot apply to our hospitals, however, especially those in the maritime provinces.
I do not think I should labour the point further; I ask the minister to go the whole way and exclude these institutions.
I had a telegram from the seamen's union, about which the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) spoke the other day. They are asking for the benefits of this act, because as a class they need them. Certainly our shipping companies are trading institutions. They may not have been very profitable in the past, but they are likely to come into their own now, as shipping usually does in war time. They ask to be given the benefits of this act. There is also the question of stevedores and longshoremen. Why should they be left out?


George Alexander Cruickshank: And loggers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
quite right. Loggers are being left out for exactly the reason the hon. gentleman stated in this house-that the employers are strong enough to keep them out. The minister says there are administrative difficulties. Of course there are, but there are administrative difficulties in every field of industry under this act. It is only a matter of degree. There may be greater difficulties with respect to loggers than other industries, but the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) put his finger on the spot when he gave the reason the loggers have been excluded. I am not going to discuss that; it is a provincial matter, and you can fight it out between yourselves in British Columbia.
Stevedores and longshoremen belong to a well-established trade, not only on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts but also in the interior. I happen to know something about this business, which is a very hazardous occupation on the Atlantic coast. Of course this is not health insurance; workmen's compensation steps in there to fill the breach. In the city of Saint John, where most of the longshoremen in my province live; in the ports of the Miramichi, and elsewhere, these men work six months in the year. It may not be actually continuous, but so far as winter work is concerned it is fairly continuous. In the summer it is not continuous in Saint John. Some provision should be made for these men, and I make a plea for the inclusion of longshoremen and stevedores within the purview of this act.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I want to support everything that has been said by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) with regard to hospitals. There is a large hospital in the city of St. Boniface, with which I am familiar, having practised medicine there for nearly forty years. There are very few paid officials
Unemployment Insurance

in one of these big hospitals. The institution in St. Boniface is operated by the sisters. They are an exception to the rale; they do make ends meet, for the very simple reason that probably a hundred of these reverend women give their services without charge. Who are employed around hospitals? Chiefly the employees are nurses. About eighty per cent of those nurses are in training, and receive no remuneration whatever. If they become sick the hospital looks after them. It may be that they receive $5 a month. They train for three years and When at the end of that time they have fulfilled their training obligations they become graduate nurses and go on about their business.
What other persons are employed around a hospital? There are orderlies who polish the floors, do the housecleaning and that sort of thing. The girls and women employed in this work are generally speaking those who cannot get work anywhere else. They are paid the very lowest wages received by any working women, but they do obtain food, they have a roof over their heads and some other comforts. The consequence is that they change often. They do not work for six months or a year. On the contrary, they work for two or three months, until they can get a better job, and when they get that job they go to some other place. I should think therefore that it would be absurd to consider insuring those women.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would advise the hon. member that they are not insured.


John Power Howden: All right. Then, who are insured? There is one engineer, one electrician, one cook and one dietitian. I presume those people would be insured. Who else would there be? Perhaps there would be the clerical staff in the hospital, and the superintendent and her chief assistants. Naturally those people are not insured, because they do not receive wages. Nevertheless the hospital will be called upon to pay the insurance rate, the same as other institutions. A hospital is not an industrial institution. It cannot go into debt; on its operations it just about breaks even. I was not on the committee which investigated the bill, and unfortunately I did not receive the brief from the hospitals which apparently a great many hon. members did receive. But certainly I am sufficiently well acquainted with hospitals to realize that a large nonpaying hospital is not a proper institution to participate in this unemployment insurance scheme.


Mr. BRUCE:: Mr. Chairman, may I add my support to the view so well expressed by 
the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) as well as by my own leader (Mr. Hanson). I happen to be on the boards of two hospitals, and I know that neither is what could be described as a money-making institution. I have in mind the Wellesley hospital of Toronto, which began operations as a private institution. For many years, about twenty-eight, I believe, we had the good fortune to have the support of Right Hon. Sir William Mulock as chairman of the board. After a certain length of time the institution was enlarged so as to take in charity patients, and following that it was brought under the provincial act as a general hospital. Even under the circumstances which obtained in the earlier period of its existence it was not a money-making institution. Nor was it started for that purpose. The hospital was organized to give assistance to people who could afford to pay their own way, who did not wish to be charity patients and to whom on that account we could give a little better service. However for many years Wellesley hospital has not been paying its way. Every year it suffers a deficit, but it continues to struggle on. The same situation obtains in connection with several other hospitals in Toronto. They have yearly deficits, and make application to the city of Toronto for help. Each year the city votes them a sum of money to help meet their deficits.
The hon. member for St. Boniface referred to the domestic employees of hospitals. In my view paragraph (g) would not exclude domestic servants in a hospital.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Will domestic servants be excluded?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, under paragraph (f).


Herbert Alexander Bruce: It is not so stated in paragraph (g).


Richard Burpee Hanson: Paragraph (f) does not exclude domestic servants in institutions such as hospitals. It uses the expression "or in any trade or business carried on for the purpose of gain."


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I should like to see them excluded, because to a large extent employment in a hospital is permanent. If employees become sick they are put in hospital beds and cared for during the period of their illness, even if that illness be over an extended period. Their care costs them nothing.
The Canadian Hospital Council was represented before the committee by Doctor Harvey Agnew -who, in his presentation, asked that

Unemployment Insurance
hospitals be excluded. I do not wish to delay progress of the measure by discussing in detail Doctor Agnew's presentation, but it seems to me that if in the future we are going ho appeal to the public to make contributions to hospitals, so that in the public interest they may be kept going, we must not impose any .extra taxes upon them. It is unfair to compel them to come under this insurance measure. They do not wish to be included, and there is every reason why they should not be. I beg the minister to do as my leader has asked him to do, namely to exclude hospitals from .the operation of the act.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Let me follow a line
of argument somewhat different from that which has just been placed before the committee. My criticism of the bill would be that there are too many excepted employments. My observation with regard to hospitals, and the nurses and domestic servants employed therein, is that at certain times those workers require unemployment insurance just as much .as any other class of workers in the community.
I served on the hospital board of the city in which I live for a number of years, and I recall that when the depression came a large number of graduate nurses were without work and had to seek employment as domestic servants, waitresses in restaurants, and the like. 'They were glad to get anything to do. But the fact that they went out to do other work meant that they displaced girls who previously had been doing that kind of work. The result was that there was something in the nature of a vicious circle. So much was that so that in Regina in 1934 girls were doing domestic service in private homes for as little as $5 a month, and the deplorable fact is that some people were taking advantage of the situation 'by offering that very low wage.
I believe the bill is a step in the right direction, and that is why hon. members in the group to which I belong have not been too violent in their criticism of it. We recognize that there are administrative difficulties, but it is our belief that experience will straighten out some of those difficulties, with the result that loggers, seamen and other classes may hope to come under the measure, through amendments at subsequent sessions. I should like to see this bill placed on the statute book, although I believe it to be inadequate. I should like to see it go much further, but I certainly think we should do everything we can to facilitate its passage now and not risk the kind of criticism that is being made in another place and the possibility of advantage being taken of criticisms here to defer the passage of the bill in another place. May I
add that if that were done in another place it would create a deplorable situation in Canada. The disappointment would be so great, I venture to say, that the gentlemen who consider this measure in another place might find themselves faced with a wide and insistent demand that the other place be dispensed with as speedily as possible. In my opinion it would be a good thing if it were dispensed with at once. However that may be, certainly such a demand would arise if the bill failed of passage there.
I want to see this bill go through. I do not think there should be so many classifications excepted. I agree with those who think that loggers should be included; I agree with those who think seamen should be included;
I think that nurses and other classifications should be included, and I can assure the government that at another session, if this bill goes through now as a step in the right direction, we shall urge that the excepted classes be reduced in number at least in order that the benefits of the bill may be more widely applicable.
I think too of the agricultural workers. They also are subjected to unemployment.
I realize that this country has to take advantage of the experience to some extent of the United States and Great Britain, two highly industrialized countries. Canada is not as highly industrialized, but we have modelled our bill on the experience in those two countries. As we go along, however, we shall probably find that our Canadian conditions will necessitate an entirely different set-up from what we find in the United States, Great Britain and other highly industrialized countries. My hope is that we may get together and give this bill as nearly unanimous approval as possible so that we may present a united front in support of it when it appears in another place.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I should like to add just a word to what has been said by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden), and the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Bruce). I do feel that hospitals should be exempt from the operation of this act, especially in view of what was said by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Mayhew). He expressed what I have been thinking ever since the bill came into the house. He pointed out that while some 2,000,000 people may benefit by the measure it is certainly going to work hardships on the other 600,000 people who do not benefit by it. In the province from which I come our hospitals are finding it tremendously difficult to continue in operation. I am sorry one of the hon. members for Winnipeg is not here this morning to
Unemployment Insurance

speak of conditions in connection with the hospital in that city, as the hon. member for St. Boniface has spoken of the hospital in his riding. This bill is undoubtedly going to add to the taxation burden, which is already hard on agriculturists, and our hospitals in the smaller municipalities are having great difficulties in functioning at the present time. I rose to urge that our hospitals which are carrying on largely through charitable contributions should be exempted from the act.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have the solution for the hon. gentleman's problem. Let us trade the hospitals for the loggers-leave the hospitals out and bring in the loggers. One thing this discussion has certainly brought out; the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) -apparently sees eye to eye with a certain well known lawyer from Vancouver on labour legislation.
Mr. O'NEILL: In reply to the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), may I mention that the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) joined his regiment in Winnipeg this morning, I understand, and that is the reason he is not here.


James Arthur Ross: The point is well taken.


Mr. ROY (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I regret having to address myself in French to the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty); however, I would be unable to express myself adequately in English without a 'certain amount of preparation. I wish to call the minister's attention to the lot of two classes of workmen excluded from the operation of this measure, to wit, woodcutters and fishermen. If this legislation is designed, as it is claimed, to work untold benefits for our people, why should we thus ignore those who are most in need of assistance?
It is a well known fact that, for several years now, the Gaspe woodcutters have been jobless because many of our leased timber limits have remained idle. One might even add that unemployment is much more severe in this region than in any other. Our fishermen labour under practically the same difficulties. Their catch of fish is reduced; moreover, since the outbreak of hostilities, we have lost all our foreign markets and, as a result, prices have fallen very low. If this measure is really intended to help workmen,
I cannot understand why we should exclude these two classes of citizens who greatly need any practical form of assistance we can give them.
It has been suggested that we exclude hospitals, which is only fair. I share the opinion of the hon. member who suggested, a moment ago, that the provisions of the act 
be extended to woodcutters instead of hospitals. However, this is not what has been done. Hospitals must contribute to the insurance fund. In Gaspe, we have two hospitals managed by nuns. These institutions are kept open under very adverse conditions, since they hardly receive any assistance at all. Why should they be required to contribute to the unemployment insurance fund, which would be much more beneficial to their staffs?
The present unemployment insurance measure excludes our fishermen and woodcutters who are precisely the ones in need of assistance; yet, they are never exempt from any tax on wheat. May I therefore ask the minister whether there shall remain, once the act becomes operative, any official and permanent means of extending aid to the woodcutters and fishermen of Gaspe and the Magdalen islands?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: I should like
to make one or two observations even though the minister does not feel disposed to change the bill as it stands.
Although I am in favour of the measure, the minister must recognize that it will have a tendency to orientate and almost to regiment business generally, and institutions which like to think of their employees as part of their family, but will now be compelled to contribute to this scheme, will of necessity lay off employees during slack periods knowing they will receive some advantage from this legislation.
Dealing more particularly with the item which was under discussion before lunch, I come to the problem of hospitals. Our hospitals are non-profit-making institutions. As I read the bill, it is not intended that it should apply to such organizations. When hospital employees come under this scheme it will tend, in my opinion, to separate the governors from their employees, because the governors have no sources of income by which they can absorb this tax which falls upon their low-paid employees. Ordinarily a profit-making business paying the scales of wages which are commonly paid in hospitals could readily raise its employees' pay sufficiently to overcome the difficulty. In any event the employees would not be unduly penalized. But those conducting a public institution would probably find it difficult to take any move of that kind as being inconsistent with their responsibility as trustees; moreover they could not do it because they have not the funds with which to raise wages.

Unemployment Insurance
The ordinary hospital of 150 beds will have about 100 employees, most of whom will come under the terms of this measure, and in saying that I refer specifically to paragraph (g). It might be supposed that the provision excepting "employment as a professional nurse for the sick or as a probationer undergoing training for employment as such nurse" would be of some avail to the general hospitals. As a matter of fact it is not. What is a professional nurse? Her duties are not particularly to the hospital itself, but to a patient in the hospital, probably in a private ward, and apart entirely from the general conduct of the hospital. Nurses of a standing similar to that of the professional nurse who are on the payroll of a hospital are supervisors of various services. In a hospital of 150 beds the number of supervisors may be as high as fifteen, each receiving a salary of $75 or $80 per month and a living allowance of around $30, or $1,320 for a working year. These people are in steady employment, and if they conduct themselves ethically and properly they are not likely to find themselves out of employment. Nevertheless, being under the $2,000 salary limit, they must contribute weekly 25, 27 or 29 cents. The institution in turn is required to pay a like amount, or perhaps a cent or two more per week.
In the final analysis this means that a hospital of 150 beds will have to pay into this fund between $1,000 and $1,500 a year, putting itself, as I heard an hon. member say, that much more into the red and making it so much more difficult to conduct a non-profitmaking service to the community without saddling undue burdens on public-spirited citizens who are anxious that sick people shall receive adequate medical attention. Computing the cost from coast to coast, I believe it will be found to amount to about $270,000 from employees and another $250,000 from the institutions themselves, a total contribution of half a million dollars. Certainly the returns they will receive will be in no way commensurate to the amount they have subscribed; they will do well to get back $20,000. That half a million dollars which goes into the general insurance fund will go to support private institutions of the commercial and industrial class, and those who are serving the people through non-profit-making organizations and depending upon citizens like ourselves to meet their annual deficits will find themselves more and more embarrassed.
I trust that the minister will give consideration, in the light of what I have said, to clarifying the position of the professional nurse, and, if she finds herself in the vocation of supervisor in the department of the hospital, will not extract from her small earningssmall, at least, compared with the average of $5 a day received by a nurse engaged by a private patient-any contribution under this heading. If this is done, those charged with finding the wherewithal to maintain the payrolls of these institutions will have their obligations proportionately reduced.
What applies in that field I should like to see applied also in respect of the previous paragraph. It is provided in paragraph (f) that there shall be excluded-
Employment in domestic service, except where the employed person is employed in a club or in any trade or business carried on for the purpose of gain.
In many cases a maid in a general hospital receives about the same amount that she would be paid if she were employed as a domestic servant in a private home. The average amount paid to a maid in a hospital is $35 a month, and the average wage of a domestic servant in the urban centres of Canada is also about $35 per month, but with everything found, including uniforms. In many of our hospitals the maids do not have their uniforms provided. Why should they, who are part and parcel of the hospital staff and can remain there, provided they give proper service and conduct themselves well, for the rest of their natural lives, be required to contribute from their pittance to a fund from which they cannot expect to receive any benefits?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The answer is, of course, that they do not.


Joseph Henry Harris: I am glad to hear the minister say that they do not, although I read the provision very carefully. But if they do not under (f) perhaps we can say the same with regard to (g). Is a professional nurse a professional nurse if she is a supervisor?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Did I understand the hon. member to say that the average wage paid domestic servants is $35? Will he tell me where in Canada that is true?


Joseph Henry Harris: I said that $35 a month was paid in the urban sections. I have known it to be paid. I have not looked up the statistics, but my hon. friend has the freedom of the library. It is a cool place and I hope he will look up the statistics and let me know what they are being paid.
The other point I had in mind with regard to these services is this. In our general hospitals in the summer months, when the members of the profession are away on holidays, there is a tendency for work to slacken off. There is not so much demand for their services at that time, and for some reason
Unemployment Insurance

or other in the Christmas and New Year season there are not so many people ill. If no exemption is made in (f) and (g) it will be incumbent upon those charged with responsibility, when work slackens off, to conduct their affairs on a more businesslike basis with a view to balancing their budget and participating in the unemployment insurance fund. If the employees in these institutions are on the sick list they do not form part and parcel of the workmen's compensation scheme which prevails in Ontario. They receive no compensation. The hospitals however are glad to provide service for their own employees, sometimes free and sometimes at specially arranged rates. If they do not come under the workmen's compensation provisions, then they should not form a part of this unemployment insurance scheme. I do hope the minister will seriously consider the elimination of hospital employees, or, failing that, will give a broad interpretation of the two classes I have mentioned.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Perhaps I might discuss very shortly the question of unemployment insurance in hospitals. I believe that much of the argument has been misconceived. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) made a stirring plea for consideration of employees in the financial plight of hospitals. May I point out that subsection (g) of part II of the schedule is put in for the specific purpose of assisting the hospitals in that it excludes from the operation of the act the professional nurses and probationers. In addition, the domestic help employed in the hospital is, as the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) correctly points out, excluded by subsection (f). You have left, largely janitors and engineers. They are not insured as employees of the hospital; they are insured because they are janitors or engineers and therefore come under section SO.
If we acceded to the request what would be the result? I trust this will show the danger of an amendment. Suppose X is a janitor in the Ottawa Electric building. He secures a position in the Ottawa civic hospital.
Is it fair to him that, because he is employed in the hospital, he should lose the benefits which he had built up under the act? In other words, the coverage is not great so far as the hospital is concerned, though it is essential; and if hon. members will refer to section 50 they will see that the janitor or the engineer is covered not by the fact that he is in the hospital but because he is a janitor or an engineer, but by virtue of that fact is otherwise subject to the act.


Joseph Henry Harris: Well, suppose that man decided to become a fisherman and went fishing. Would he lose the increment he had earned as a janitor?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is entirely different. Whether he is a janitor in the Ottawa Electric building or in the civic hospital he is still a janitor; he does not change the nature of his occupation. He is simply changing the situs. That is entirely different.
In this matter Doctor Harvey Agnew of Toronto appeared before the special committee and made an excellent presentation, as did the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. How-den) and the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) to-day. But it is not putting a penalty upon the hospital qua hospital; it is simply insuring the individual man in the particular employment in which he is engaged.
After Doctor Agnew appeared before the committee the hospital association of British Columbia wired the committee and said that they definitely wished to be under the act to the extent that they are under it. It is not the intention of this measure to penalize hospitals, which, as has been pointed out time and again, are having a difficult time carrying on. Nor is it intended to embarrass their finances. But unless you are going to give coverage to a man in a particular occupation you will find it difficult to meet the situation. That is the objection to any amendment to subsection (g).


Alan Chambers: I have heard the minister's statement with regard to the man who is a janitor transferring from one building to another. Has he considered the position of caterpillar tractor drivers in the woods of British Columbia? They are employed not only in the woods but by contractors. A great deal of logging in British Columbia is done at present by this means. If the driver is working under a contractor he will build up benefits under the bill, but as the bill stands at present, with the logging industry excluded, he will lose those benefits if he continues in the woods.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Oh, no; that is not correct.
I refer the hon. member to section 50. It depends on the employment in which he is engaged and not on the particular employer for whom he works.


Alan Chambers: I accept that statement. There are two or three remarks I wish to make with regard to the exclusion of the logging industry. I think I am in some small degree qualified to discuss the subject because for two and a half years I worked in the woods in British Columbia as a logger. There are no finer people to work with than the

Unemployment Insurance
loggers of British Columbia, but among their habits is not that of great thrift. They are in the main well paid and work steadily. According to the brief of the International Woodworkers of America forwarded to the minister to be heard by the committee in this connection, it was pointed out that employment in that industry lasts roughly eight or nine months a year. During that time the logger is in many instances paid what would be regarded here as a very good wage. He does not save as much as he might, perhaps because of the very nature of his calling, its roughness, the fact that he lives at a distance from civilization, and so on. He stays in the bush a number of months, piles up a fair amount of money, and then comes to town and spends it. That has been the habit of a great many of our loggers. I take it that one of the reasons we have this unemployment insurance bill is to prevent just that sort of thing. If a man does not provide for the time when he knows he will be unemployed, the state is taking this means of ensuring that he will.
I know of no industry in British Columbia in which such a measure as this is more necessary than it is for the protection of the loggers in the logging industry. Many representations have been made to the committee with regard to the bill as a whole, and I compliment the Minister of Labour upon the way in which he has handled the bill up to the present time. But a very important point has arisen with regard to the British Columbia logging industry. This bill is possible to-day only because the provinces have given up to the dominion government the right to legislate in this field. Because they have done so the dominion government can now proceed to introduce a bill to do in those provinces what those provinces could heretofore have done themselves. It is being done with their express consent, as we were informed when the motion was introduced in this house for transmission to the British house with respect to the necessary change in the constitution. Surely then it is of the greatest importance that the things which would have been done in any given province under a bill of this type should be done under this bill.
The committee I believe had before it a communication from the Hon. Mr. Pearson, minister of labour for British Columbia, who represents in the provincial legislature the same seat that I represent in this house, in which he makes it plain that had he introduced an unemployment insurance measure in British Columbia the loggers of the province would have come under it. I do not know that I should emphasize this point too strongly, but it is of the utmost importance that where a measure is introduced by the national
authority with the cooperation of certain provinces, the views of the proper ministers or of the governments of the provinces which have given up their rights should receive careful consideration before they are negatived as is being done at the present time.
What is the attitude of organized labour in the woods in British Columbia towards this measure? I referred a few moments ago to the brief of the International Woodworkers of America. Before I deal with certain points in that brief I should like to refer to what was said earlier to-day by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). To me it is surprising that he should take the position he has taken in this house. I had not thought the hon. gentleman was quite so much of a realist. He intimated that there was very little connection between labour, organized labour and the thought of organized labour, and Liberal members from British Columbia. I do not need to say to the hon. member for Vancouver East, through you, Mr. Chairman, that there are many members of the International Woodworkers of America in the woods and logging camps of British Columbia and in the county of Nanaimo too. I do not need to remind the hon. member that the locals of the International Woodworkers of America, for whom I am now pleading, endorsed the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidature against me in my own county during the last election. Nevertheless I support their brief now. Let us hear no more of these innuendoes as to how far Liberals and Liberal candidates are from labour thought and sentiment on Vancouver island.
Another point of extreme importance to the loggers is not brought out in the brief to which I refer, and I think it should be mentioned. The logging industry of British Columbia is running at full blast at the present time, and it is to be anticipated that so long as the war continues and there is a lack of the former sources of supply of lumber to Great Britain, the British Columbia logging industry will be very active. But there must come a time when employment in the lumber industry will slacken off, and this is the time for which we must now prepare. I could not find an industry anywhere in Canada which is busier than the logging industry now is because of the war, but, for the reasons I have given, it will slump all the quicker after the war. It therefore seems to me essential that we should now take advantage of the activity of the industry and pile up benefits which can be given back to the workers when the war is over or when the industry slumps again.
With regard to this brief, the union brings out a point to which I wish to refer. The
Unemployment Insurance

source of their quotation is "Logging Principles and Practices in the United States and Canada," by Nelson C. Brown, 1934, chapter III, entitled "Pacific Coast Region-Northwest Douglas Fir." Under the heading "Climatic Conditions Affecting Logging" the statement says:
The prevailing mild climate with long, warm, dry season extending from the spring into the fall and general rainy winters do not affect logging methods or operation. The winter shutdowns on account of deep snows or cold weather are generally of short duration, only about two to four weeks.
The minister says he is rejecting this plea not because logging is a seasonal occupation, but because of probable administrative difficulties. Does the minister think, or do his advisers think, that they know more about the administrative difficulties of collecting money -because that is what it amounts to-from working people in remote sections of British Columbia than the minister of labour of the province under whom comes the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act? The Workmen's Compensation Act operates in our woods; the penny a day is taken off the boys' payroll-it works very nicely.
The minister pointed out this morning, and I have no doubt it is correct, that in the logging areas on the Washington-Oregon side of the line, where logging and climatic conditions are similar to ours, it has cost the United States administration 38 per cent more to administer the scheme than it has in other industrial sections. I cannot say categorically, but I suggest that the same situation holds with regard to the Workmen's Compensation Act in British Columbia. Obviously it must cost a little more because it is always more difficult when men are great distances from civilized and industrial centres where money can he collected easily. It takes a longer time, it requires more inspectors, and so on. But I believe that the minister is aware, and his advisers also, that as far as the question of reemployment of those who might conceivably come under benefit in the logging industry is concerned, practically all the hiring of the camps, certainly on Vancouver island, which is the main logging section, and the lower mainland, is done from the city of Vancouver and would not be difficult to control. It would not be difficult for the minister to know whether or not loggers were taking advantage of the act. I take it that is one of the reasons why costs would be higher.
It is now five years since the administration of Right Hon. Mr. Bennett introduced an unemployment insurance bill. Under that bill also, if I remember correctly, loggers were excluded. During those five years we had a

national employment commission, set up by the present administration. That commission went so far as to say-I have no doubt the minister is aware of this-that not only would an unemployment insurance measure have been of the greatest benefit during the depression had it been initiated earlier, but that it should have been extended even to seasonal workers. That was two and a half years ago. There we had the opinion of a body of experienced men, not of someone called in hurriedly, perhaps without known qualifications, to advise the minister. We have had the benefit of that information and advice, and in view of that fact it would seem right and proper that the logging industry should be included under the terms of this bill although I maintain that it cannot be described as seasonal.
We in this country are fighting and our workers are fighting, for democracy. To me a live democracy must mean continuous social progress. Our strongest bulwark is a balanced social security. I congratulate the government on having introduced this measure, because I feel sure it must inevitably be followed, as time goes on, by a measure similar to that described by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., that is to say, a compulsory contributory pension scheme for taking all workers off the labour market when they reach the age of retirement. But, Mr. Chairman, I can see no reason why the industry employing the greatest number of workers in British Columbia should be denied this measure of social progress just because five years ago someone seemed to think that should be done. After all, it would be easier to ask the workers in our logging camps to make greater and greater efforts if they knew they were to receive their rightful share of this social progress. Only the other day the men of one of the largest logging concerns in my constituency decided they were not doing enough to help our war effort; so they went out and threw into the pot a day's pay with which they bought a training plane, which was sent down here to the air minister. The month before that, in the same manner, others bought three ambulances.
I do not see why these people cannot have some share in our social progress. After all, as has been brought out by better speakers than I, they work some nine months of the year. As long as the war continues they will work to the extent climatic conditions permit, and that will be for more than nine months. Why, then, can we not bring them in?
The question has been brought up as to the actuarial balance of the bill being disturbed. If the bill is actuarially sound now

Unemployment Insurance
the addition of further persons, who come within its provisions because of the fact that they work eight, nine or nine and a half months of the year, is not going to disturb it. Certainly I should like to know of any actuary in Canada to-day who can tell this house or this government with any degree of certainty what is an actuarially sound unemployment insurance bill, with the turmoil of war going on about us. Who can look ahead for years and say this bill is actuarially sound and will take care of a certain situation as it may develop three years from now?
In view of these facts, poorly put together as they may be, I would ask the minister if he could not give further consideration to the question of bringing our British Columbia logging boys within the terms of this bill.


Thomas Reid: In view of the fact that Mr. Pearson, Minister of Labour of British Columbia, has been quoted several times during this debate; in view of the fact that t'he wires he sent the minister and myself have been placed on record as well, I think it would be only fair if the complete representations made by Mr. Pearson were placed on Hansard. I wired Mr. Pearson asking for certain figures and data in order to be better informed when the discussion took place in the committee. The figures were sent to me, and subsequently I asked for further information. The first wire I received was dated July 20. The second wire, dated July 23, reads:
Your telegram arrived while I was away yesterday afternoon and was replied to by deputy minister Bell, who gave you the information you asked for. Yesterday I saw a copy of the bill for first time and noticed that under schedule practically all forms of lumbering except logging can be covered. I still believe that logging in this province is sufficiently continuous to cover it without endangering soundness of scheme. I also consider that the act could be framed following the lines of Washington and Oregon state acts which would make it possible to bring many more occupations under it. But I think the most important thing of all is that the principle of the act should be established and that the act should actually be brought into operation. May I suggest that you do not carry objections to the bill to the point where those interests which would like to see the bill destroyed are placed in a position where they can suggest that the operation of the bill be delayed.


Mr. POULIOT:: I was very much gratified to read, at page 1982 of Hansard, the following remark by my revered leader concerning the Bennett insurance bill of 1935:
The whole business to my mind, if I may be permitted to use the expression, was a pure election bluff, nothing more or less.
_ At page 1514 of Hansard for March 7, 1935, the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) had this to say:
This is only election propaganda, and that is why I denounce it.
The words are different but the idea is the same. I was doubly gratified because at page 19S4 of Hansard for this session my esteemed leader said:
The people of Canada had spoken. They had spoken in the general election of 1935, and had made it perfectly clear to the government baking office that they regarded the legislation in question as unconstitutional, and that it should not be on the statute books at all; and I was accepting the decision of the people of Canada.
Mark you, Mr. Chairman; the Prime Minister said it should not be on the statute books at all. On March 2, 1937, the member for Temiscouata moved the second reading of Bill No. 30, to repeal the Employment and Social Insurance Act, which was part of Mr. Bennett's social legislation. That would have taken the act out of the statute books, and there would have been no dirty linen mixed with the clean linen in the cupboard. Of course that debate was adjourned; the matter did not go further, but the member for Temiscouata showed his good-will by this effort to get rid of such pernicious political propaganda.
We have had some experts drafting the new bill. I was utterly opposed to Mr. Bennett's social legislation because I knew it was a fake from first to last. But I am interested in compared legislation. I wonder how many members have looked at the statute of 1935. With the exception of some small changes made by the special committee of the house, the schedule now before us is about the same as the one of 1935. No changes were made by the so-called experts who drafted the legislation ; therefore I can state this schedule is about the same as that then prepared by the powerful brains dn the Department of Labour. Of course in this statement I am not including the minister, a gentleman who deserves a lot of credit, and who is the silver lining of the cloud in the Department of Labour. It is he who hides those who are not so brilliant. I am wondering if the minister might not have dispensed with the services of the experts who drafted the legislation, and might have hired only some typists to copy the 1935 bill.
In the measure we find some excepted employments. The minister must make a distinction between business organizations and charitable institutions. I was delighted to be in the house this morning when for the first time in the session the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) spoke so well, and so much to the point. His remarks were logical, and he made some observations respecting the Hotel Dieu of St. Basil de Madawaska which touched
Unemployment Insurance

my heart. I know that institution, because it was there I learned to read. It was there I acquired the ability to read more bad than good legislation. That is the place where children are educated, and where the poor and the sick are cared for by women who sacrifice their lives for the good of their fellow citizens. The leader of the opposition, who knows that institution very well, has spoken kindly about those people, and I am sure all who know them will highly appreciate his excellent speech in their behalf. In those institutions, under the direction of able persons, the poor look after the poor. The nuns sometimes take in transients, and take good care of them. The transients are clothed and are asked to help in the charitable work. The institution of which the leader of the opposition spoke is not a business concern; neither is it an organization to make profit. Moreover those institutions are self-supporting, and there is no obligation to pay taxes for them, as there is in connection with other civic hospitals.
I point out therefore that the minister should make that distinction. In connection with those benevolent organizations, which remind us of those of the middle ages, consideration should be given to the aim. They do not aim to make profits; rather they wish to work in the interests of charity. Only to-day I received a wire from my esteemed colleague, the Hon. Leon Casgrain, who represents part of my constituency in the legislative assembly of Quebec, and who is a member of the Godbout government. The wire is in these words:
(Translation) St. Joseph du Precieux-Sang hospital opposed to unemployment insurance act being applied to hospitals. Important that such exemption be mentioned in the act.
I know several hon. members have received messages to the same effect. I will ask the minister to give evidence of his open-mindedness, and not to impose upon the house a piece of legislation which can be improved upon. He could easily improve it by accepting some of the suggestions which have been made.
It is very easy to satisfy the majority; that is the rule in all democratic countries. In British Columbia there are divergent views in respect to the exemption of loggers or lumberjacks. Well, it is very easy to settle that question. The minister has only to call for a straw vote of members from British Columbia and to follow the view of the majority. If he does that he will not make a mistake, and he would be better advised than if he were to accept advice from any officer of his department. Of course I warn the minister against

something about which I know a good deal. I warn him against the intrigues made at times by some civil servants, to push through unnecessary legislation so that they may obtain higher positions and higher salaries. I know one I could now name who is advocating this measure, one who has the mouth full of the league of nations, and who is not a practical man. He knows nothing about the actuarial business, but in committee he quoted figures about the league of nations, his trips to Geneva, and the like. What do we care about that? We are not in Geneva, we are in Ottawa, Canada, and we must decide that question in the interest of this countiy. This is not international legislation; it is Canadian legislation for Canadian people.
What happened? Well, we know that one of those gentlemen once made a chair with his own hands and because of that he now calls himself a labour man. What does he know about legislation? Legislation is something sacred. It is a nde for everyone to follow, both the rich and the poor. Legislation must be prepared with the utmost care. But those people have not the least idea about the importance of legislation, and they proceeded to copy a piece of legislation adopted at Westminster, in the congress of the United States, and even by Germany. We know that the marketing bill passed by the Bennett government was copied from the German marketing legislation. Those people make copies of some foreign legislation and dare to offer it as the product of their own brains.
What may work in one country may not work in another, because conditions may be different. England is a small country with a large population; Canada is a large country with a small population, and the United States is a large country with a large population. Conditions are not the same geographically. In the preparation of legislation this aspect of the matter should be considered. We should not take it for granted that simply because a man is employed by the government he is an expert, and that because he is called an expert he knows what he is talking about.
I was struck by the contribution made to the debates of the house when Mr. Heaps sat as a member from Winnipeg. We have heard of Mr. Wolfenden, the great actuary. Mr. Wolfenden was hired by the Bennett government to say that social insurance was the proper remedy for all the evils of that day. Now that he has not been hired by this government and has appeared only as a witness, he says that this legislation, which is the same as the other, is just too bad and that this is not the time for us to pass this bill. But that is our responsibility to decide, not his.

Unemployment Insurance
We must not forget also that Mr. Bennett brought down his unemployment insurance measure when employment was at a very low figure. At this time, while there is still unemployment in Canada, employment is much higher than when Mr. Bennetft was in power, and that must be borne in mind in considering this bill.
If this bill passes the house and is agreed to by the senate and receives royal assent I wonder if it would not be a good thing to leave it on the statute book for two or three years before starting to apply it. That was done in the United States with very good results. There should be a reserve fund before the act comes into full operation. What insurance company would start an insurance scheme on such a large scale as this without having any reserve fund? The ordinary insurance company, of course, grows little by little, but this insurance scheme is to be applied to the whole country at once, and benefits to people who lose their employment are to be paid at once, when no reserve fund has been accumulated. This is an important point. Again I suggest to the minister that if the bill passes both houses and receives royal assent a period of two or three years should elapse before the aot is put into operation so as to give us time to accumulate a reserve fund.
There is another point. Compensation has to be paid at once, and that serves as a protection for a certain number of employees who are thrown out of work. This is not absolutely social insurance, but it is a part of it, and it accomplishes a lot in case of emergency. In the steel business, for example, when orders are not so numerous, the men will be paid compensation at once over a short period of time. I am afraid that social insurance may turn into a kind of dole, and the more so since this act has been copied in part from the English act and has been advocated by three Englishmen. I do not mean three English-speaking Canadians but three gentlemen from England-Mr. Purvis, Mr. Humphrey Mitchell of the Department of Labour and Mr. Heaps now of the same department. The dole has had a pernicious effect upon the English people, and it would be unfortunate if we had the same results in Canada. Will the minister kindly tell the committee whether he would be prepared to postpone the application of the act for such a period of time as would allow a reserve fund to be accumulated?


Mr. SINCLAIR:: As a member representing an industrial riding it is of course obvious that I should have something to say on this unemployment insurance bill. I cannot begin to tell the house how pleased the majority of the workers in my riding are at the attempted rapid passage of this bill. The British Columbia members, with possibly one exception, have deplored the fact that loggers are not included in the bill. Logging is the principal industry of British Columbia. It affects every man, woman and child in the province, and yet loggers do not come within the provisions of this bill.
I shall not labour the point whether our logging industry is seasonal or not. Whatever logging may be in eastern Canada, in western Canada, on the Pacific coast, logging is an all-year-round occupation. The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Mayhew) struck the nail square on the head this morning when he said that if the logging industry of British Columbia were considered quite separately from the logging industry in general across Canada, there is no doubt that the loggers of British Columbia would be included in this bill. A little earlier the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) had suggested that we could not have regional divisions of industry. We could not, to use his own words, make fish of one and flesh of another. I do not agree with that, because, as I said a moment ago, our big timber-logging operations in British Columbia continue the year round and are an entirely different industry from winter bush cutting in eastern Canada. This government and previous governments perhaps of a different colour have shown no great reluctance to distinguishing between the wheat farmers of the west and the fanners of the Fraser river, between the apple growers of the Annapolis valley and the apple growers of the Okanagan valley, between the fishermen of the eastern mari-times and the fishermen of the west coast. For the industries in the east there are bonuses and subsidies, but from the west rugged individualism is expected. And under this bill you expect rugged individualism from the loggers.
A good deal has been said about administrative difficulties, and that lovely phrase "actuarially unsound" has been used a great deal in this debate. Three years ago I campaigned enthusiastically with Doctor Weir on a scheme of provincial health insurance in British Columbia, and in that campaign we heard, over and over again, from big business and from the opponents of health insurance, that same phrase, "actuarially unsound". It may be more than a coincidence that we had representing the manufacturers at that time the same actuary who regards this scheme as actuarially unsound. I am a mathematician myself, after a fashion, and I cannot see how the addition of 13,000 loggers, the best paid workers in British Columbia, can upset the actuarial soundness of a scheme that is to cover over 2,000,000 workers. The boss loggers back home, the men who run this far-flung logging empire, who are at present opposing
Unemployment Insurance

this bill and have hired the ablest counsel in British Columbia to come here and present arguments against it, have no administrative difficulties in their own organization. The government of British Columbia for twenty-four years has collected compensation for loggers from these same gentlemen, and has collected one per cent in income tax for the last nine years. The Department of National Defence now collects two or three per cent for the national defence tax on workers engaged as loggers. We are at a loss to understand, therefore, why the Department of Labour is going to be faced with such tremendous administrative difficulties if loggers are included in this bill. We have in British Columbia, as has been said and justly said in this house, an extremely able minister of labour and I am quite sure that he will be only too glad to lend his officials to the Department of Labour here to straighten out the administrative problems which are at present blocking the entry into this great scheme of our most important industry in British Columbia.
I must confess that I have been pleased with one amazing change Which has taken place in the discussion of this bill. The leader of the opposition is not at present in his seat, but I read that in 1935, as Minister of Trade and Commerce, he supported the Bennett government's measure, which did not include loggers, which did not include seamen, and which did include the hospitals. Perhaps it is his proximity to this Liberal bloc which has caused him to change his point of view.
We in British Columbia have been surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). After reading his remarks on Friday, one would not be astonished even to learn that he had been- very properly-transferred to that chamber which is quaintly called "another place."
Some remarks have been made about lobbying. I do not know what lobbying is in the actual technical sense. I do know that I have not been approached or influenced by any such agency. Naturally these people put forward the best ease they can. Our loggers at home, the men who work in the woods in the most dangerous and hazardous occupation in British Columbia, are poorly organized. They are poorly organized because the boss loggers in British Columbia have long been the most powerful influence in the province. The men could not afford to send expensive counsel down here to plead their case before this committee. They did send to the British Columbia members an excellent and very able brief stating their case. Our friend the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Chambers) has
fMr. Sinclair.]
quoted from that document. So far as these loggers are concerned there is no group more deserving of protection, and right now.
The minister referred to an advisory committee which will very soon take action. Almost in the same breath he said that this matter had been under consideration for five years. For five years some government committee has studied this, and now we are to put implicit faith in the ability of this committee very soon to include our loggers. I have every faith in parliament. I have practically no faith in commissions. A plague on these leisurely discussions, which are more and more throttling this country of ours! What we need is the sort of discussion we are having now on the floor of this chamber, when every British Columbia member in turn has been up and told the minister exactly the views of himself and the people he represents. That to my mind is far more valuable, and in conformity with what the loggers at home expect, than having some commission sitting like a poet in an ivory tower, owing no duty to the people, who after all are the people who sent us here.
We have talked a great deal about the four or five points which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who represents the biggest logging riding in British Columbia, enumerated this morning. But the discussion really has simmered down to one point-administrative difficulties. The British Columbia members! would like to know from the minister just what are these profound difficulties, so different from the difficulties of the administration of the workmen's compensation board, for example. If he can explain to us these difficulties and point out some way by which this commission intends to surmount them, we from British Columbia will feel a little better about the exclusion of the loggers from this bill.


Mr. ROEBUCK:: I should like to say a word before we close-


John Ewen Sinclair: I asked the minister a question.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: -before we close the discussion of this very important section. We are all interested in hospitals. I do not suppose anybody would yield in that respect to any other hon. member on the floor of the house.
I myself joined in the building of a hospital in the north and for years took part in its management. I know there will be those who ask why I am prepared apparently to sacrifice their interest in this schedule of the bill. I am not. And yet I am not in favour of

Unemployment Insurance
excluding the hospitals from the provisions of this bill to the extent to which they are now included. This for several reasons.
In the first place, nearly every hospital has a deficit. That has been pointed out already on the floor of this chamber. These deficits for the most part are taken care of by the municipal authorities in the localities in which the hospitals are located; so that if we took the burden off their shoulders and attempted to throw it on the employees, in actual fact we would be lightening the load slightly, perhaps, if at all, of those who are bearing the final burden of the deficits, but as between, not the employee and the hospital, but the employee and the municipal authorities, who are the final well from which the hospital deficits are drawn.
That is one reason, and there is another one which is perhaps even more cogent. It is most necessary in considering these problems to trace them to their final conclusion and not stop half way. Were we to ask the employees in the various classes included in this measure to forego its benefits when they work in a hospital, and to obtain its benefits when they work somewhere else, the result must necessarily be that the hospital would either take the least efficient of those in that particular classification of employee, or would give some other concession equivalent to that which is common to the whole trade. That is to say, the hospital would find itself in this position, that it must accept the left-overs in the trade because they are denied the things which are given to others in the trade elsewhere, or it must give an increase of salary to induce these men to work in hospitals rather than somewhere else.


John Power Howden: That is what they do.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: So that you would gain nothing. You would spoil the act. Perhaps this will be a disservice for a time to those who are now covered by its provisions, but in the course of time these matters will adjust themselves.
The arguments which we have heard so forcibly put to-day, were, I do not doubt, advanced with equal vigour when the Workmen's Compensation Act was under discussion in the provincial legislatures.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And the old age pension act.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: And the old age pension act, no doubt. But of the two, the more closely analogous is the Workmen's Compensation Act. I do not doubt that at that time the financial difficulties of the hospitals were advanced as an argument why workingmen
should be deprived of the benefit of the act when they worked for hospitals. Yet the good sense of the legislatures, if my memory is correct-I think I am right in this-resisted those arguments, and men come under the Workmen's Compensation Act even though they work in the hospitals. I am not satisfied to shoulder off upon the poor working people in the hospitals-the janitors, the men who fire the boilers, the men who run the hoists, all that kind of labour-even if we could, a portion of the burden of the deficits of the hospitals in which they work. The labourer is worthy of his hire, and he is worthy of the benefits of this bill, even though he works in a hospital.
There is one other little point I should like to make before sitting down. I have listened with a great deal of interest and some instruction to the very forcible statements of hon. members from British Columbia arguing their case as to why the loggers should be included, and I have thought that under the circumstances the minister has taken the reasonable action. He has said that the question will be referred by himself or by counsel to the commission when it is sitting and the whole matter may be studied. I had the honour of presenting to this house a telegram from the seamen's union protesting against exclusion from the terms of this bill. I am glad to see that people are protesting against exclusion; they wish to be included in it. That is a good sign.
I would ask the minister if it would not be possible, when he submits the question with regard to the loggers of British Columbia and elsewhere, for him at the same time to submit the question of seamen on the great lakes, and of stevedores, and let their case be studied also. It would be an assurance to them if they had that word from the minister. I realize that we have excluded stevedores for several reasons perhaps, but including this, that stevedores are supposed to work for numbers of employers. I am under the impression, however, that that is not so on the great lakes. I know numbers of stevedores who work for shipping companies. I know some who work for independent contractors under the railways. It may be that a study of their case will reveal the fact that they can be included in Canada and that the arguments against them, drawn from the quays of England, do not apply. It would be received with a great deal of satisfaction and relief if the minister could say that when he is referring the question of loggers he will also submit the facts, as far as we know them, with regard to these other classifications of employment.
Unemployment Insurance


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I have been interested in what the British Columbia members have said with regard to the loggers. They know the situation, perhaps much better than some of the experts who have worked out the bill, and in view of their representations I feel that the minister should give even more assurance than he has given to those members, if he does not intend to include the loggers in the act. I realize that under the act there are going to be certain trades that will be found in one part of the country and not in other parts, and we shall have to work this out to some extent from a geographical point of view. But the one thing I am afraid of is that there will be a great many disappointments when the act really begins to function. We have continually called it unemployment insurance. Let us be frank and honest with ourselves and call it what it is. It is a piece of social legislation, and to finance this social legislation we are going to levy a tax on certain types of workers in the country, on the industries in which those workers are employed, and on the government or the taxpayers of Canada. This tax in turn is going to be passed on, because industry, in paying its tax, will charge it in the cost of the product and the farmer and everyone else who buys the product will pay his share of the cost of this unemployment insurance scheme. The government, in paying its share, must of necessity raise the money somewhere and it will raise it through taxation, so that everyone in the country will be very much interested in the act because everyone will contribute to it.
One regret I have with reference to this bill is that we have not included the civil service of Canada. I quite realize that perhaps this is not a popular thing to say. Sometimes I am just a little fearful that governments stand more or less in fear of the civil servants, not only in the dominion but in the provinces and in the municipalities. The time has come when we have to be honest and frank with ourselves and deal with these matters as we ought to deal with them, in a businesslike way, so as to work out the greatest good to the greatest number. This is a tax we are going to levy on certain people in the country for the purpose of carrying out what we consider to be certain social obligations which the country has to people who find themselves unemployed. The bankers came before the committee and presented perhaps the best brief that was given. Every member of the committee admitted it. It was a good sound argument that they presented, but we said, "You must come under it." What was the reason given? It 
was not that there was not continuous employment in the banks. All members of the committee realize that if there is one institution that gives practically continuous employment it is the banks. The real reason for the inclusion of the bankers was that without them this scheme would not be actuarially sound. That industry was the one thing in the whole set-up that was going to keep the unemployment scheme solvent. Now if it is social legislation, passed because we realize that those who are employed have a responsibility to those who are not employed, then is it not all the more reason why members of the civil service, no matter how they are employed, ought to come under the act and pay their fair share of that responsibility which we feel that one Canadian owes to another?
Perhaps I am a little bold in saying this, but because there are forty-three or fifty thousand federal civil servants governments are hesitant about being just as businesslike with them as they ought to be. What we ought to do is to let every Canadian bear his fair share of this responsibility. These people have not much chance of losing their jobs, and the very security of their positions makes it all the more just, in my opinion, that they should accept some share of the responsibility under the act. That is the one regret I have as a member of the committee and I expressed my views in the committee. I regret that the civil servants have not been brought under the act.


Norman Alexander McLarty: In reply to the hon.
member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), I would refer him to the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee at page 259, where he will find some evidence with regard to one of the administrative difficulties which will have to be overcome. With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck), I suppose under section 86(a) it will be one of the functions of the advisory committee to carry on a running investigation to see what trades can be best brought under the act or what can be excluded. That is one of the strong points of the act; it is the elasticity which is allowed the governor in council to work in conjunction with the commission and the committee.


Angus MacInnis: Attempts have been
made by some hon. members from British Columbia to give the impression that I have been opposing the inclusion of the loggers in this unemployment bill. I do not think I need try to deny such a statement; it is too preposterous to be given even a thought. I am afraid that some of those hon. members

Unemployment Insurance
do not even like the fact that I support this bill and want to see it pass. If there was a possibility that the amendment would be carried some of them might not be so loud in its support. I am so anxious to see this bill put on the statute book in the best form attainable that I am willing to take what we have.
From anything I say now I wish to exclude the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, (Mr. Neill) because he has worked consistently for measures of this kind and other such measures year after year in this house. But when hon. members who never in their constituencies or anywhere else, so far as I have been able to find out, have done anything in the interests of the working class, now show such particular interest in this measure, I am rather suspicious. The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) referred to the fact that he had been working on a farm all these years and that I had not done anything since I became what he called a politician. I assume that now that he is a politician himself he intends to take life easily. That is what the ordinary politician does-he takes life easily; but that is not the reason I have taken pant in politics. I have taken part in politics to enlighten and inform my fellow worker so that he may know why he is poor, why although he produces the world's wealth he is continually in poverty. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Chambers) and the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) will not get up on the platform and tell the workers in their constituencies the real cause of their poverty.


John Ewen Sinclair: We certainly have done so. That is why we were elected.


Angus MacInnis: Certainly the hon. member has not, and if he had he would not be in the Liberal party. The hon. member for Vancouver North has gone so far as to suggest that by my support of this bill I shall earn the gratitude of the government so that I may at some time in the near future be transferred to another place. Well, I am sure my hon. friend knows the hog-trough politics of British Columbia too well really to suppose for a moment that I would be given any consideration or reward for any services performed. Besides, I am not performing a service to the government; I am performing a service for the working class of Canada. These are the considerations that lead me to support this bill.
Let no one delude himself with the idea that this bill, if it passes, even if it took in all the workers in Canada, would remove poverty, distress, misery and insecurity from the lives
of the working class. It will not. There is only one thing that will do that, and that is the taking over and operation of the industries of the country by the working class, for their own benefit. They produce the wealth now; others take it. I did not notice that hon. members who are so much interested in the workers in this matter were equally interested in voting against the two per cent tax on the low wage-earner. It is all right to soak him in that way, but here is a chance to play a little politics, and they go to it.
The matter of actuarial soundness has been brought up on a number of occasions. Hon. members should try to understand what we were confronted with in the committee when that question was raised. Taking it by and large the committee was in favour of the suggestion-we had a number of representations on it-that the wage limit of persons coming under this scheme be raised from $2,000 to $2,500, and when we were in camera I moved a motion that the bill be so amended. But the actuary, Mr. Watson, informed the committee that any important changes in the bill would require a new actuarial survey, if I remember correctly, and that he could not give a new actuarial certificate without further investigation. Now, that might suit some hon. members here who want to delay the bill-by the time the new actuarial survey was finished the session would be over. I am not interested in that sort of thing. I am interested in seeing the bill pass, and when the measure is in operation we can then bring under its operation the various categories now excluded.
I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to section 86. He said thes* various categories now in the excepted list could be referred by the governor in council to the commission for investigation. If the logging industry is referred to the commission by the governor in council will it be so referred as a matter of national employment, or will British Columbia be considered separately? The logging industry in British Columbia is altogether different from the logging industry in other provinces. I should like, therefore, to have the assurance of the minister that logging in British Columbia will be considered apart from the other provinces.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member for Vancouver East has asked a perfectly fair question. In making any reference to the commission, which in turn will refer it to the committee, rather than place on it a limitation of any kind, such as its application exclusively to British Columbia, I think that is a matter
Unemployment Insurance

which should properly be left to the committee. Let them bring in their recommendation without our attaching any limitations or restrictions to the reference.


Howard Charles Green: The minister said he would point out to the committee that there is a difference between logging in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think'it can be assumed that the representations which have been made in this committee and also in the special committee will all be brought to the attention of the committee and the commission.


Mr. RYAN:: I wish to congratulate the government and the Minister of Labour upon having brought down this bill. I hope it will become law within a very short time. While the bill is not perfect or nearly perfect, it is a matter of satisfaction that the law will be placed on the statute books; on the suggestion of the advisory committee it can be amended year by year, and in the course of time, perhaps within five years, we shall have what might be considered a perfect bill.
I have heard the demands of hon. members from British Columbia that the loggers be brought under this measure. If I had a suggestion to make it would be that they should not ask that the loggers or anyone else be brought under the bill, because for some years to come the loggers and any others who will be out of employment will be better off if they receive direct relief. The amount payable to the man with a large family who receives low wages would not be sufficient, and he would have to get direct relief just the same. I do not know anything about the actuarial correctness of the proposal, but I know that the benefits payable under this system are not sufficient for the man who gets low pay. This is an insurance bill, not a security bill. What we need is security for those who are unemployed and cannot get money that they do not earn. These men must be looked after. Under this bill I find that a man in class 7, receiving five times the pay of a man in class 1, pays only twice the rate. A man in class 7, paying only twice the rate of a man in class 1, receives three times the weekly benefit.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but if he will look at it he will see that it is three times, not five times. In each case it is three times.


Robert Ryan: I do not want to take up too much time in discussing these matters, so I will let that go. A married man in class 2, earning an average of $8.55 a week, will receive $6 a week. A man in class 4, earning
fMr. McLarty.]
an average of $13.50 a week, will receive $8.40 a week. Under direct relief, as it is paid in my town-and I assume it is the same everywhere else

a man with five dependents receives $9.25 a week and a man with seven dependents gets $11.50 a week.
The only reason why I am satisfied to have this bill placed on the statute books now is that we may have something there which can be amended and improved. We cannot expect a perfect bill at once. I think it is a good thing we are getting this legislation now, after so many years. I have heard hon. gentlemen say that it has taken twenty years to have this bill introduced, so I think it is about time we placed something on the statute books. But let us not fool ourselves by thinking that we are going to get away from direct relief or that this will not mean a charge on the consumer. No matter what you do, no matter what improvements you make, in the end the consumer always pays. We all know that, and that is the only way in which the burden can be divided as equably as possible. We must not forget that direct relief will have to be continued. I would suggest, as the hon. member for Temiscouata suggested, that it might be a good plan to continue direct relief for the next three or four years, so as to allow the fund to be built up before any benefits are paid out.
In my opinion the most important part of this bill is part III, which has to do with the employment service. These employment bureaux will be opened throughout the country to try to find work for the unemployed. That is what must be done. The more employment there is, the quicker this fund will grow. The less unemployment there is, the fewer the benefits that will have to be paid. Before I came to this house I always regretted that the report of the national employment commission, which urged that employment bureaux be opened throughout the dominion, was not accepted. If that recommendation had been carried out, the government would have had a great deal of information for its guidance in preparing and piloting this bill through the house at this time.
There are many more matters I could discuss, but I do not want to delay the passage of this bill any longer, because I think it most important that we pass it and get it on the statute books.


John Ewen Sinclair: I was asking the Minister of Labour to specify the various administrative difficulties in connection with including loggers. He referred me to page 259 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the special committee. If this is the chief reason why loggers are not included, I say they should

Unemployment Insurance
be included. In British Columbia the one industry that maintains an employment office is the logging industry. It runs its own agency, Black's agency, which keeps records of all the loggers, showing where they are employed, and so on, and also keeps a black list of those loggers who do show a little spirit. If this is the administrative reason for not including loggers, I think it is a very weak one. I should like a little more information on this question of administrative difficulties, not only for my own benefit but for that of the people at home, the loggers, who do not have a chance to read these reports. They would like to know from the minister what these great administrative problems are which prohibit the inclusion of loggers under this bill.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to correct the hon. gentleman in one particular. It is not Black's agency; it is the British Columbia loggers' agency, under Mr. Black.


John Ewen Sinclair: I should like an answer to my question. I asked for details.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Let me state quite clearly that personally I know very little about the logging industry. On Friday, and again to-day, I have heard a great deal about it. Naturally in the preparation of legislation a minister has to take the expert advice that is tendered him, and I can state definitely that those who have advised me have raised as the objection to the inclusion of the logging industry the administrative difficulties that would be encountered. I appreciate the genuine desire of a great many members to have that industry included. I have no objection to the logging industry as such, but this morning I did suggest-and I think the suggestion is sound-that the matter can be dealt with by the committee to be set up under section 86 of the bill. I do not think I can add anything to that. There is no objection on my part to the logging industry as such.


John Ewen Sinclair: We are tired of generalities, and I do not think there can be any objection if I ask the minister to tell us specifically what are these grave problems of administration so different from the problems in connection with the collection of the workmen's compensation payment, or the one per cent income tax, or the national defence tax. He has two of his experts sitting in front of him, and surely he can give us something specific.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Perhaps this memorandum might enlighten the hon. member for Vancouver North. The foundation of the administration of unemployment insurance is through the employment offices. For the major portion of those covered, the offices will have special 95826-131
significance. This relates to the logging industry. It is there that they will obtain insurance books to be lodged with their employers and to be stamped by them during employment. When they are unemployed the insurance books will be lodged with the employment office again, as the first step for making a claim to insurance benefits. They must keep in touch with the employment office, by daily registration or otherwise, as one means of satisfying the employment office that they are capable of and available for work when unable to obtain suitable employment. They must also keep in touch with the employment office in order to avail themselves of any opportunity for work of which the employment office may have knowledge, and it is through the office that unemployed persons will be paid their benefits at weekly intervals.
Keeping in mind the above considerations, the excepted employments in part II of the first schedule of the bill must lead to the conclusion that at least some of these employments are carried on in such places and under such conditions as to make a reasonable approximation of sound administration very difficult. If an attempt were made to bring these excepted employments within the scope of the scheme at its inception, the whole scheme might speedily be brought into chaos and disrepute.
Reference is made to Hansard of March 7, 1935, where Sir George Parley, in charge of the bill at that time, said:
It has been represented to the government very strongly that this section should be amended in some way to include the workers in the log trades, such as sawmills, shingle mills, et cetera.
As the hon. member knows, those are included in this bill; that is to say, they will now come under the legislation. We realize perfectly well, and no one more than myself, the difficulty about the logging business itself. I should like to see some way devised by which the men working in the woods would be able to come under the measure, but so far I have not been given any wording which seems suitable for the purpose. Perhaps it will be remembered that this legislation is not final.
It might also be in order to quote part of the debate which took place on March 7, 1935. These are the observations of the then hon. member for Cariboo, Mr. Fraser, who, having listened to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) said:
May I direct this fact to the attention of the committee While the hon. member is undoubtedly correct in his representations about the logging industry along the coast of British

Unemployment Insurance

Columbia being an all-season or all-year round operation, his observations do not apply to the interior of that province. The interior of British Columbia is in the same position as was indicated by the hon. member for Quebec South. They get out their logs in the winter time and do their milling in the summer time. The people who work in the winter time are very often working in the mills in the summer time. The point I make is that the representations made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni do not apply to all of British Columbia; to be specific they do not apply to the interior of that province.


John Ewen Sinclair: So far as occupations are concerned, the minister's remarks describing the employment office report describe exactly the conditions in British Columbia.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, last Friday
I introduced an amendment to paragraph (c). I shall read it again so that it may be in the minds of hon. members of the committee. I moved in amendment:
That paragraph (c), as adopted by the committee be struck out and the following substituted in lieu thereof, as paragraph (c):
"Employment in lumbering and logging which are not reasonably continuous in their operations."
That amendment is to allow loggers to come in. It would allow sawmills and shingle mills to come in-all of them, if they are reasonably continuous in their operations.
The chairman of committees, who is not now in his seat, offered the tentative suggestion that it was out of order, but the matter was not really settled. He quoted two authorities, one of which was a citation from Doctor Beauchesne's book, and another which had been ruled on March 9, 1863-four years before confederation. It must be a pretty thin point of order when one has to go back seventy-seven years for it, or to secure a precedent for what is done. Surely it must be somewhat mouldy and moth-eaten in this day and age. However, that was the argument then presented by the chairman.
After some of us had discussed the point of order the discussion drifted off. The leader of the opposition then suggested the minister should waive the ill-begotten point of order, and permit a vote to be taken. However, no decision was made, and I now suggest that the hon. gentleman at present in the chair ought either to rule my amendment in order, so that we may have a vote on it- in which event I would be satisfied-or to declare it out of order.


George Black: The minister urges that the present measure should not apply to logging and lumbering because of difficulties in connection with administration.


Norman Alexander McLarty: It does apply to lumbering.
IMr. McLarty.]


George Black: Logging and lumbering are identical, in practice. The minister, however, has not enumerated the difficulties he would expect in connection with administration. To whom will those difficulties present themselves? Will there be difficulties in the way of the men whom it is sought to protect or to insure? Will they be faced with difficulties, if the measure is applied to them? Will their employers be faced with difficulties? Or will the government staff operating under the measure be faced with difficulties?
It seems to me that all three of those classes ought to be able to get over their difficulties. If we are to leave to the advisory committee the matter of deciding whether or not logging is to be included in the legislation, why not leave all occupations to the decision of the committee? Give them a blank cheque. Just hand the bill over to them and say, "Here, you members of the committee, decide to whom this applies." We might a3 well do that as leave it the way it is.


Mr. GOLDING:: Why did they not do that in 1935?


George Black: The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) says he is supporting the bill because it is the best we can get. I am supporting the bill, but I do not admit it is the best we can get. I believe we ought to improve it, and in my view this committee is the place to do that. The special committee did not accept the bill as it was submitted to them. On the contrary they suggested amendments which the minister has seen fit to accept. There is no reason why the amendments so suggested should not be allowed. I would point out that paragraph (c) now reads:
(c) Employment in lumbering and logging, exclusive of such sawmills, planing mills, shingle mills and wood-processing plants as are, in the opinion of the commission, reasonably continuous in their operations.
Why not add after the words "woodprocessing plants" the words "lumber and logging operations", so that it would read "wood-processing plants, lumber and logging operations as are, in the opinion of the commission, reasonably continuous in their operations." If they are reasonably continuous, they should be under the measure.
I have been astonished in looking at the evidence given By Mr. W. B. Farris to find that he pointed out that not only did Mr. Pearson, minister of labour of British Columbia recommend that this measure should apply to logging, but that Mr. Pattullo, premier of that province, is of the same opinion.

Unemployment Insurance
Surely those two gentlemen, in the high positions they occupy, ought to know whether this measure should apply to logging.
1 see that Mr. Farris goes on to say:
I might say to you that many logging concerns in British Columbia are more or less transient concerns, and that has caused a very considerable loss to the government of British Columbia in respect to their collections in connection with workmen's compensation.
If that is so, then I say it is simply neglect on the part of the workmen's board which collects the dues from the operating loggers. They should not be permitted to start operations unless they put up their fees in advance. That applies with as much force to mining as it does to logging. Many mining concerns are transient. They commence operations with high hopes, but very soon go out of business. In my opinion there would be no more difficulty in applying the administration of this measure to logging than there would be in applying it to mining-and we must remember that it does apply to mining. Mining is the life-blood of the people in my constituency; if we had no mines, that part of the country would not be inhabited; it might as well go back to the Indians.
This bill can be applied to mines in the Yukon territory and the rest of Canada, and I submit it might just as reasonably be applied to the logging industry and to the men working in logging camps as to the men working in mining camps.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The one distinction which might be drawn between mining and logging is that in respect of mining there is a definite place of employment. Moreover, one point which might make the hon. member hesitate is that no benefits would be paid under the measure in the off-season. That point might have an important bearing on the matter which, in due course, the committee would have to consider.
My impression has been that employment in the logging industry is fairly generally transient. I may be incorrect in that, but certainly the representation was made that loggers would be here to-day and somewhere else to-morrow, and that there was great rapidity in employment changes.


George Black: That is, a logger may change his place, frequently, as do miners?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is right.


George Black: The men seldom stay in one mining camp. They move from place to place. Mr. Farris says:
The average logging operation is closed in winter from December until March or May owing to snow.
If they have any snow in British Columbia, it is a curiosity; they do not know what to do with it. Then Mr. Farris continues:
And in summer they are generally closed from June for about two months owing to fire hazard.
If ever there were a summer in which there was plenty of fire hazard, surely it is this summer of 1940-and the logging camps are running full blast. Occasionally they are closed for a few weeks, not for two or three months, by order of the province because of fire hazard, but they run winter and summer three hundred and sixty-five days in the year,


George Alexander Cruickshank: I might switch
from logging to hospitals because it proves our contention that loggers should be brought in. I am a member of a hospital board, and I am proud of the fact that the hospital association of British Columbia insists on having workers in hospitals included in the bill. We believe in progressive legislation in British Columbia. That is all the more reason why we favour the inclusion of 27,811 loggers in this measure.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but his figure is excessive. Already over fifty per cent of the lumbering industry is, I understand, covered by the bill.


George Alexander Cruickshank: All right, but in nearly every instance sawmills and logging camps are owned by the same companies in British Columbia, and therefore it might be said that our workers are all engaged in the logging and lumbering industries. In 1938 the average wage paid was $26.59 a week.
The minister has said that we shall have an opportunity of appearing before a committee that is to be set up, but, like the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), the hon. member for Fraser Valley has no use for committees and commissions. We have had commissions ever since I was a boy of eight and some of them have not functioned yet. I point out to the minister, and in particular to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) who questioned whether the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Chambers), the hon. member for Vancouver North and the member for Fraser Valley represented labour, that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) represents the largest logging district in British Columbia; the hon. member for Vancouver North, the second largest; I happen to represent the fourth largest, and each of us at the last election beat a member of the party to which the hon. member for Vancouver East belongs. So I think we can say that we do represent labour. I would point
Unemployment Insurance

out to hon. members that the best committee of all before which members of this house can appear to present their views are the elected members sitting in committee in this chamber now. The loggers cannot afford, any more than the fishermen, to send expensive counsel and other technical advisers to appear before some committee that may be set up to hear their representations because they have not the necessary funds.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They expect you to present their views.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes; that is just what I am doing to the best of my limited ability. The best speech that has been made here in the last three days was made by the hon. member for Nanaimo. I wish I could make as good a speech as he did. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has said, who is in a better position to speak for the loggers than the elected members from the logging districts in British Columbia? The three members who have spoken this morning and this afternoon represent the three largest logging areas in western Canada.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Hon. members will be
quite free to appear before the committee and make their representations.


Alan Chambers: We are giving the views of the people of our constituencies. We are not making any special plea; we are not high-priced lawyers. We are simply exercising our privilege to make known to the members of the house the views of our constituents.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is the point. We believe in team-work in British Columbia and that is why we get elected. I believe that parliament should rule, and that this is the place to express our views.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Unless parliament is
scuttled.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member will find that the government rules.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member for Vancouver North delved into Hansard and discovered that the present leader of the opposition was opposed to loggers coming under the act of 1935, but this morning after listening to the member for Fraser Valley, he said that he hoped the loggers would be brought under this bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was over there then, and I am here now.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. gentleman will have his chance in a minute. I am going to get after the leader of the opposition if he *does not leave me alone. Even the member
J Mr. Cruickshank.]
for Temiscouata says that the loggers of British Columbia should receive the consideration we are asking for them. I am a little embarrassed, Mr. Chairman, because I have criticized other hon. members for reading their speeches and now I find myself glancing at my notes, but my writing is so bad I cannot read them.
As I was saying, we have 27,000 men engaged in the logging industry in British Columbia, and I represent the logging industry, in spite of what the minister says, because the great majority of our lumber mills are under the same control as our logging companies. Seventy per cent of their capital is United States capital. Why should the loggers be excluded from this bill? I have this on the authority of the man in charge of that branch of government work, that in British Columbia we are ten per cent short in our lumber production for the war effort. Surely, as the hon. member for Vancouver North has pointed out, this is the time, when our mills are working at full capacity and our loggers are fully employed, that we should bring them under the bill.
It may seem strange to some that I should advocate bringing loggers under this bill because the district which I represent is primarily agricultural, and I am not going to be too popular in my own district for not boosting for agricultural workers to come under the measure. But I realize that this is not feasible at the present time. But it certainly is feasible that the loggers should be brought in, and it is-I will not say an insult-a setback to progressive social legislation, in which British Columbia has been in the very forefront in this dominion, to exclude loggers from this bill, particularly after the premier and the minister of labour of the province have urged that they be brought in. Surely those two gentlemen know all the circumstances and any administrative difficulties there may be. I am sure that the Minister of Labour for the dominion, with his excellent staff, would be able to collect the dues in British Columbia without the slightest difficulty.
It was suggested by an hon. gentleman sitting on this side of the house that we are holding up the bill. It was suggested by an hon. member to my extreme left that we are opposed to the principle of the bill. Of course we are not, and we do not want to be put in the embarrassing position of being opposed to this bill. We are fighting for the principle of the bill. That is what we were elected for, and it is our duty to do it. I do urge the minister to reconsider. It would take only five minutes to include the loggers in the bill. It requires only the slight change in

Unemployment Insurance
wording that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) suggests. I personally have no confidence in these committees and commissions. They may start out with the best of intentions, but soon an array of legal talent will come down from the west to present their side of the story. It is all very well to say that we members can appear too, but we are appearing now before the board of Canada. What better body could we appear before than the 245 members of the House of Commons led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)? I think this is the proper place for us to make our representations. As I said before, I shall no doubt be criticized in my riding because I have not advocated that agricultural workers be brought under the bill, but I realize that this is not feasible at this time. But it is absolutely feasible and practicable to bring loggers in, and I implore the minister to leave us in the position of being absolutely loyal supporters of his. I was criticized by the hon. member for Vancouver East, who said that if I was for labour I was in the wrong party. Let me tell him that every bit of progressive labour legislation on the statute books was brought in by a Liberal government. I am sure that if the minister will reconsider his position with respect to loggers, he will have no objections from British Columbia.


Alan Chambers: In answer to the hon.
member for Vancouver North the minister stated, and rightly so, that his statements were made upon the basis of expert information supplied to him by his advisers. That is clearly understood. But I would ask the minister whether among his expert advisers there is one who has first-hand knowledge of the workings of the logging industry of British Columbia?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I could not say that there was one who had personal experience in the logging industry of British Columbia, any more than I could say that the other experts who are advising me on other phases have had first-hand knowledge of other industries. I mean, they are experts on unemployment insurance, not on any particular branch of industry. I think the hon. member will realize that I have to be pretty well guided by the advice I receive in that particular, having no personal information in connection with it.


Alan Chambers: I appreciate the minister's answer, and I anticipated that that was pretty much what he would say. The suggestion now is that we pass the bill; that this controversial section should be referred to the advisory committee to be set up under the terms of this measure, and that, reference
having been made from the executive com -mission to the advisory committee, the question of the inclusion of these loggers can arise again. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has pointed out, that is in the future, and it will take a great deal to get this bill going. It will require a good deal of organization, and it must necessarily be some time before a committee of that kind can come to consider the matter. In view of the fact that the minister has not had the benefit of the advice of anybody having a first-hand knowledge of the logging industry of British Columbia, may I express the hope that the advisory committee which will have to pass upon this eventually under the terms of this bill will get expert advice from those who are in first-hand contact with the logging industry of British Columbia?


Mr. ESLING:: Just a word with reference to hospitals. There can be little doubt that those who had to do with the framing of this bill had in mind its application to hospitals in the large cities, and did not have a clear picture of hospitals in rural communities, notwithstanding that the measure must apply with the same force to employees in the little rural hospitals as to employees in hospitals located in the large centres. Only one who has had intimate relations with the financial distress of the rural hospitals is in a position to know how impossible is any further burden. These rural hospitals, particularly in the mining districts, where the low price of metals has caused mines to be closed, are maintained purely through local pride and human interest in fellow members of the community, and maintained by whom? By women's auxiliaries who sew perhaps one afternoon a week in order to provide linen; by women's institutes who resort to all avenues of earning with which to contribute a few dollars.
It is impossible to impose on these institutions any further burden. A large number are located in districts in which the majority of the people are on relief, and I say without fear of contradiction that most of the patients also are on relief. A contribution, which in British Columbia is about seventy cents a day, is provided for each patient in the hospital. But there is also an obligation upon the municipality, and in some places municipalities are in such distress that they cannot even provide their seventy cents. I have in mind one such which is indebted to a charitable institution to the extent of three or four thousand dollars. Nobody has known of a case wherein a patient has been refused admission to a hospital because he or she could
Unemployment Insurance

not pay. So these rural hospitals are maintained in large measure by the free-will offerings of the members of the community; and while one may refer in the bill to "an engineer" or "a janitor" or "an orderly," in these small hospitals one man does all these jobs, yet he cannot get from under the measure in any way one might wish to apply it.
I ask the minister to consider making some exception in favour of these rural hospitals. It is financially impossible for them to pay. It is simply taking the money out of the pockets of those who voluntarily contribute in order to keep open the doors of these institutions. I think that is going pretty far. I am sure that the minister, with his generous disposition, will give thought to the serious consequences of imposing further burdens on the employees and on the hospitals themselves.
Mr. O'NEILL': It had not been my intention to speak on this unemployment insurance bill. I am entirely in agreement with the principle involved, but rather' than have my silence misinterpreted I thought it would be better to say something with respect to the non-inclusion of loggers.
I do not know just what place my constituency occupies in British Columbia with respect to the logging industry, whether it is third or fourth. I know it is the best district in British Columbia.
We have heard as a reason for not including loggers the administrative difficulties which may be encountered. When it was first mooted this session that we might expect an unemployment insurance bill, those opposed to it among the employer class hurried to Ottawa to say that they did not have sufficient time to investigate the bill thoroughly, regardless of the fact that unemployment insurance has been talked of in this country for years, and that it has been more or less before the people for the last four or five years. Nevertheless they contended that they did not have sufficient time. That excuse appeared so ridiculous that they had to look for something else. Now we hear of administrative difficulties.
I am at a loss to understand, even though such difficulties may exist, where they are with respect to the administration of this measure among the loggers of British Columbia. The hon. member for Nanaimo has suggested that if a committee is appointed to look into this matter, it should have the assistance of someone who has first-hand knowledge of the logging industry of British Columbia, with which I agree. The president of the logging association of that province is certainly a man who has first-hand knowledge of the logging industry, but he would not be

my choice to appear before this committee to speak for labour. I do not believe that man could properly represent labour's point of view. I say that in all sincerity. He would be just as sincere as it is possible for a man to be, but he has not the labour point of view and could not represent it upon the committee. I say that with some knowledge and experience of the labour question. Ever since I started to work or was eligible to belong to a labour organization I have belonged to such an organization, and I have held administrative posts in labour organizations. Therefore I know something about labour questions.
With regard to the objections that have been raised here in connection with the logging industry, I may say that the troubles we had in British Columbia so far as the compensation act was concerned emanated from the same people who now object to unemployment insurance. A compensation act was put on the statute books of British Columbia in 1916, and at that time objections were raised by the very people who now take exception to this act. Some consideration should be given to that fact; and I suggest, further, that if an untrammeled vote of all the members from British Columbia, regardless of political affiliations, were taken, it would be found that ninety per cent of them are prepared to have the logging industry included. That is something which ought to be taken into consideration. As I have pointed out, the employees who would be covered under this bill, if the logging industry were included, have not been heard. They sent down an excellent brief, but it did not get here until this morning. I have, not had an opportunity to read it thoroughly, but I have no hesitation in saying that the employees of the logging industry of British Columbia are prepared to come under the measure.
It is remarkable to hear some people talking about the interests of the consumer. One would actually think that men working for a living were not to be included among the consumers of the country. Those who work for a living are just as much in the consumer class as are employers of labour and others, and those workers are not afraid to come under the bill on the ground that it will increase the cost of living. They are not fearful of the cost that will be entailed, but they are all prepared to come under the measure. We have heard from some who champion the cause of the consumer, but they may know absolutely nothing of the point of view of labour. The only means whereby one can obtain a knowledge of the point of view of labour is to be actually employed. If a man is an employer of labour, he cannot have the point of view of the working class. In

Unemployment Insurance
order to do that, one must preferably belong to some labour organization, because all the labour organizations have been striving for years to protect the interests of the working class.
I cannot agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). It appeared to me that he tried to create the impression that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation were the only ones who represent labour in Canada, and in the last election members of that party made the statement, from public platforms in my constituency, that I did not represent labour. There were people making such statements who did not belong to any labour organization, although they claimed to represent labour. Another statement they made on the public platform in my constituency, in an endeavour to prove that I was opposed to labour, was that I had spoken in the house for only five minutes in five years; that in that time I did not discuss labour, and that for that reason I did not represent labour. I do not need to take up the time of the house in discussing that suggestion, nor do I intend to spend any more time in discussing this bill, because I am anxious to see it placed on the statute books of the country. Before closing, however, I must say I am greatly disappointed that the government cannot see their way clear to include logging, because in my opinion that is one of the industries in British Columbia which should come under the measure.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I did not intend to say anything on this bill, but seeing that every other hon. member from British Columbia has spoken on behalf of the loggers I deem it my duty to make a brief statement to show where I stand on the subject. I am fully in sympathy with the principle of the bill, and I sincerely trust that the government will see their way clear to include in it the loggers of British Columbia. I have some knowledge of logging because it is the occupation I have followed all my life. I had something to do with compensation in British Columbia; I established an eight-hour day in my own business several years before that province introduced that law, and when the principle of compensation was discussed I considered it a good thing and did everything I could to foster it.
This bill follows the legislation that has been passed in British Columbia and it will have my fullest support. There seems to be some difficulty in connection with the collection. It has already been explained, however, that, so far as the compensation fund and the one per cent tax levied in British Columbia are concerned, they have worked out satisfactorily, and I do not hesitate to express
the opinion, in connection with this bill, that ways and means will be found of making these collections as easily as the compensation fund to which I have referred and the one per cent tax in British Columbia are collected.
I associate myself with those from British Columbia who have spoken with regard to the logging industry. I know something about the industry in eastern Canada, but it is altogether different from the industry in British Columbia. If we cannot accomplish more than is now proposed, I hope that when the minister refers this question to the commission, who will have the administration of the measure under their care, he will ask them to look into the possibility of including the British Columbia loggers. I suggest to him that it would be better to get the views of those who are actually engaged in the business in that province rather than the views of lawyers or exclusively of technicians.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Judging from what has been said with regard to the logging industry, one would suppose that the chief determinant as to whether or not an occupation should come under the bill would be the administrative difficulties which it was likely to raise. We find in paragraph (k), however:
(k) Employment-
(i)	in the public service of Canada pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Service Act; or
(ii)	in the public service of Canada or of a province or by a municipal authority upon certification satisfactory to the commission that the employment is, having regard to the normal practice of the employment, permanent in character.
These two very broad classes are to be excepted, according to the bill as it stands.
I had the honour to be a member of the committee that discussed these matters before the bill was presented to the house and to this committee of the whole, and no witnesses appeared before the committee either for or against the inclusion of the civil service, although in a discussion among the members of the committee no sound reason could be found for the exclusion of civil servants from the unemployment insurance scheme.
Like other hon. members almost without exception, I found myself knowing perhaps on Thursday or Friday of the week before last that I was on the special committee, then all last week we sat for three sessions a day and gave as great consideration as W'e could to the bill under the able, courteous and friendly chairmanship of the Minister of Labour. However, as one has had time to consider the implications of some of the provisions of this bill, his opinion becomes gradually crystallized and perhaps somewhat strengthened. My opinion now is, while we discussed the civil service and the exclusion of civil servants
Unemployment Insurance

from this bill, that they should beyond all doubt be included. Certain arguments were put forth by the men from the Department of Labour, the so-called experts, as to why civil servants should not be included, and I may point out some of the anomalies that arise from the way the bill is now drafted. I understand that those employees of the government coming under the Civil Service Act are excepted, but that employees of the Bank of Canada are not to be excepted. In Ontario, employees of the Ontario HydroElectric Power commission, which happens to be a body corporate, according to the information we had last week, are to be excluded from the measure-


Norman Alexander McLarty: No.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I understand that to-day the ruling has been changed.


Norman Alexander McLarty: No; I think the hon.
member is not correct. I understand it was stated the other day that they were included.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: At the time there was
considerable uncertainty, but we had among our members an expert who had great experience in Toronto, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck), and it was his opinion that the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power commission, being a body corporate, would come under the bill but the hydro-electric commission of the city of Toronto, being a municipal body, would not come under it.
Let me give one or two other instances. I was informed that some of the employees who would have to do with the administration of this very measure would come under its insurance provisions and others would not. In other words we do not know exactly which civil servants or temporarily employed people will come under the bill and which will not. The chief reason given why civil servants should be exempt, according to the dominion government actuary, is that these civil servants could not make use of the labour exchanges, which are a fundamental and basic part of the whole measure. It was suggested that these labour exchanges could not find other positions for these civil servants as they might reasonably be expected to do for people in other occupations.
My submission is that no workers earning over $2,000 a year are included. Thus the civil servants who would come under the bill are in most instances performing services which could be adapted to employment in other fields. Also workers in many industries now included under the bill perform services which are not adapted to lines of endeavour other than that in which they are now engaged. I do not see anything in connection

with civil service work which makes it more difficult to place them, particularly such civil servants earning less than $2,000 a year remuneration, than people in other lines of industry.	Furthermore, when a man becomes over forty years of age it is difficult for him to get new work; also there are many kinds of occupations where a man develops a particular skill, and it is only with the greatest difficulty that he can transfer that skill into another industry. If civil servants are performing a useful occupation- and I may say my experience with them in my brief time in Ottawa is such that I have nothing but the highest respect and regard for them-I am sure they could be useful in other lines as well as serving this particular government.
The second argument put up is that, unlike any other employer, the government of this dominion is contributing twenty per cent to the fund and carrying the whole administration costs. I think that argument is answered by the fact that the contribution by the government on account of civil servants' wages or salaries could be offset by a reduction in the percentage of the total fund contributed by the government. As we know, the government now will contribute twenty per cent, and if it were felt unfair that the government should contribute a slightly greater sum because of the inclusion of the civil servants, then it is the merest actuarial adjustment to compensate the government for the small amount they would have to pay because of the inclusion of civil servants. I would suggest it would probably be something like 19-5 per cent instead of 20 per cent, the *5 .per cent to be distributed over the wage-earners who would also contribute and the other employers.
A third point is this: Civil servants should be protected against unemployment, and the fact that it is to their advantage to come under the plan is indicated by the experience of only a few years ago, when it was necessary, in order that the deficit of this country should not be too great, that many hundreds, I suppose thousands, of civil servants had to be let out because of the inability of the government to raise sufficient money to pay their salaries. At the present time five per cent is deducted from the salaries of those workers who are temporarily employed in connection with war work for the very reason that unemployment is expected after the termination of the war. There is no sound ground for the exclusion of civil servants from this scheme any more than for the exclusion of the salaries of civil servants or the indemnities of members of parliament from the dominion income tax. Fortunately for sound principles, that has never

Unemployment Insurance
happened, and the principle of this insurance measure is that those who have jobs must help those who are temporarily out of employment. Unemployment is looked upon as social rather than as individual.
I am reminded here of the case of France, where we have learned since the debacle that the French civil service and the many people in that country who were dependent upon remuneration by way of pensions or special treatment from their government even had a separate administrative law set up to regulate their conduct. I think the experience there should be a warning that Canada should not embark even to the slightest extent upon any differentiation between the ordinary people and the civil service class. I repeat that no sound financial or social reasons were advanced for the exclusion of the civil service from the operation of this measure, and no sound political reason was advanced for their inclusion.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fournier, Hull):: I understand that the hon. member for Comox-Aliberni (Mr. Neill) on Friday evening moved an amendment to the first schedule of the bill. I have read over the record on page 2034 and following of Hansard to see what decision was rendered by the chairman on Friday evening. It would appear that at one moment the hon. leader of the opposition intervened in the debate and suggested to the minister that the amendment should be accepted and made in the name of the minister; then some other hon. members spoke, and the amendment was lost sight of. I find no decision from the chairman at that time on the amendment.
This afternoon I am asked to give a ruling on this amendment. As I find it in Hansard, the amendment proposed by the hon. member would be an amendment to the amendment brought in by the special committee to which this bill was referred. Paragraph (c), as amended by the special committee, reads;
(c) Employment in lumbering and logging, exclusive of such sawmills, planing mills, shingle mills and wood-processing plants as are in the opinion of the commission reasonably continuous in their operations.
To which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni now moves in amendment:
That paragraph (c), as adopted by the committee be struck out and the following substituted in lieu thereof as paragraph (c):
"Employment in lumbering and logging which are not reasonably continuous in their operations."
The first thing that strikes me is that if this amendment were adopted, it would impose a charge upon the public funds. I shall have to
do as the chairman did on Friday, go back many years in order to show that ever since we have had our parliamentary system it has been against .the rules for a private member to introduce any amendment or motion which would increase the expenditures of the country. Citation 549 of Beauchesne sets out the complete procedure to be followed with regard to money bills. Under this procedure the minister concerned or the government must obtain the recommendation of the governor general. Then a resolution is introduced and debated in committee, serving as a basis for the bill. This bill cannot be amended at a later stage by a private member. I would quote part of citation 551 of Beauchesne:
... it must be initiated in committee by a minister acting on behalf of the crown.
Section 77 of the bill states:
The Minister of Finance shall also credit in like manner from time to time out of moneys provided by parliament an amount equal to one-fifth of the aggregate credits from time to time made as aforesaid after deducting from the said aggregate credits any refunds of contributions from time to time made under the provisions of this act from the fund.
The government is called upon to pay 20 per cent of the cost of operation of this statute when it becomes law, so my ruling is that the amendment is out of order.


Alan Webster Neill: I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and compliment you upon the care with which you have prepared it. I now desire to raise a point of order. Just now you quoted paragraph (c) and said it included the amendment drawn up by the special committee. But a special committee cannot make amendments in this house; they can only make recommendations, as they did. They came to this house with certain recommendations. But that particular recommendation has not been moved by anyone; it is utterly and entirely non-existent. If it has been moved by anyone I should like to be shown where that was done.


Alphonse Fournier: I was not sitting as chairman on Friday, but I understand that amendments were moved by one of the ministers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The bill comes back from the committee as amended, and the only duty of the minister then is to direct attention in committee of the whole to the amended sections of the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: With all due deference to the minister I contradict that statement. The bill does not come back as amended by a special committee. All they can do, and all

Unemployment Insurance

they do in their report, is to make a recommendation. The minister himself used that language at page 2035 of Hansard, where he said:
I direct attention to the amendment recommended by the committee, and which will be found on page 2.
You cannot have it both ways. If the committee only recommended it, then the minister should have moved it, but he did not. He then merely quoted the amendment made by the special committee, which was put into the section holus-bolus, without any official sanction by this committee of the whole. That is absolutely so; it cannot be gainsaid.


Alphonse Fournier: I shall have to render another decision on the point of order. I understood from the orders of the day that this bill was considered by the committee of the whole on July 26. Item No. 6 on the orders of the day reads:
House again in committee of the whole on Bill No. 98, an act to establish an unemployment insurance commission, to provide for insurance against unemployment, to establish an employment service, and for other purposes related thereto (as amended)-the Minister of Labour.
I further understand that the hon. member's subamendment was moved to this amendment, and I still declare it out of order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The record will not bear that out.


Alan Webster Neill: This is utterly in contradiction of our rules of procedure, and I am afraid I shall have to appeal from this ruling. I suggest once more that the leader of the government consider these points. The Minister of Pensions and National Health did move four or five of these amendments; he said, "I so move". He directed attention to the particular item on the mimeographed sheet and said, "I so move". Then the amendment was accepted and the section as amended was accepted. That was the proper method. In this case I suppose everyone was getting tired and the minister simply directed attention to the amendment, but you cannot have an amendment passed in this house by directing attention to it. If the chairman rules, as I hope he does not, that I am wrong in saying that these amendments cannot be incorporated until they have been passed by this committee, I must appeal from that ruling. It is so obviously wrong that I really think he might reconsider it. If he will excuse me I would point out to him that the Minister of Pensions and National Health confirms my position, because eight or ten times he said, "I so move", and the amendment was accepted, but that was not done in this case.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What happened is very clear. I moved two or three amendments, and then I was instructed by the chairman that it was not necessary to do so. After that I directed the attention of the committee to the amendments as they appeared on the mimeographed sheets which were circulated.


Alan Webster Neill: But the minister did move a number of them?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: But the minister did not move
this one, on page 2035 of Hansard:
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) :	I direct
attention to the amendment recommended by the committee, and which will he found on page 2.
He then should have said, "I so move", but he did not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That wras not the ruling of the chair.


Alan Webster Neill: At all events the minister did it on all previous occasions. Why did he do that?


Alphonse Fournier: It should be understood that when the original of the bill came back from the special committee, paragraph (c) was deleted and replaced by the following:
(c) Employment in lumbering and logging, exclusive of such saw mills, planing mills, shingle mills and wood-processing plants as are in the opinion of the commission reasonably continuous in their operation.


Alan Webster Neill: That was the recommendation.


Alphonse Fournier: On Friday evening, while the committee was considering this amendment which was presented by the minister, the hon. member moved a subamendment, thereby admitting that this amendment was legally before the committee.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the chairman look at page 2022 of Hansard? There he will find:
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre): I direct attention of hon. members to line 29; after the word "him" insert the word "respectively". I so move.


Alphonse Fournier: At page 2035 the minister said:
The amendment which I have mentioned is automatically before this committee. It is the bill as amended by the special committee which is before the committee of the whole.
Following this statement, the hon. member for Comox-Albemi moved a subamendment, but to-day he wishes the chair to declare this amendment out of order.

Unemployment Insurance


Alan Webster Neill: I did not move a subamendment; I moved that the whole section be struck out.


Alphonse Fournier: And that something be substituted for it, and to-day that amendment has been ruled out of order. I suggest that the hon. member is late in bringing up the second point of order, now that the amendment is really before the committee.


Alan Webster Neill: What is before the committee?


Alphonse Fournier: Part II of the schedule as amended.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I shall appeal from your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Reid: Could we not clarify the matter if a ruling were made as to whether or not the bill coming before the committee in its amended form is the bill the committee is discussing? If it is an amended bill that is before the committee, then it seems to me that no amendment by the minister is required.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the ruling which was given on Friday evening by the chairman, as reported at page 2016 of Hansard.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But that ruling was not followed, in most instances, by the Minister of Pensions and National Health; and I do not think the ruling was sound. As I understand it, the effect of the ruling was that the amendment was just a recommendation by the committee to the house. In this instance the minister did not give effect to it. In some instances he did, but in others he did not. Perhaps we were all tired, and atmospheric conditions were not agreeable. But the fact is that with respect to this schedule there was no motion to amend. Therefore I do not think the amendment is in order up to the moment.


Mr. KINLEY:: At page 2035 of Hansard the leader of the opposition is reported to have said:
And is an amendment to the amendment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was the amendment then suggested.


Alphonse Fournier: As I understand the rules, when a bill is submitted to a special committee and returns to the house with amendments, those amendments are moved by the minister sponsoring the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.
95826-132J


Alphonse Fournier: And they form part of the original bill. This bill came back with amendments-


Richard Burpee Hanson: With recommendations.


Alphonse Fournier: No, with amendments which form part of the bill as originally drafted.


Olof Hanson: With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I suggest you cannot have it both ways. Either one or the other is irregular. I do not know which is the proper way to do it, because, after all, this is a highly technical matter. But in most instances the recommendations of the committee were moved as amendments. I think that was the regular way to do it, and I still think so.
With respect to the amendment now under consideration, due to something said by the chairman the minister did not make the motion. I must confess I do not know where we stand, because I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters.


Alphonse Fournier: The leader of the opposition knows that when the chairman of the committee of the whole calls a section of a bill in committee it is moved by the minister. When section 13 was called on Friday, it was moved by the Minister of Labour.


Alan Webster Neill: But he omitted to move it; he only called attention to it. He might just as well have said, "it is a fine day," or something like that.


John James Kinley: This is what was said on Friday:
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre):	The
amendment which I have mentioned is automatically before this committee. It is the bill as amended by the special committee which is before the committee of the whole.
Mr. Stirling: This is an amendment to the amendment.
In that instance the minister referred to the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). Then the minister said:
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is the amendment before the committee.
And the leader of the opposition said:
And is an amendment to the amendment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest that, in order to get out of the present difficulty, the Minister of Pensions and National Health should now move his amendment. So far as I am concerned, I cannot take exception to it.
Unemployment Insurance


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I refer my hon. friend to page 2016 of Hansard. However, in order to facilitate the proceedings of the committee I now move the amendment.


Alan Webster Neill: I am sorry to say so, but the minister is too late. He is out of order in moving the amendment now. I quote the following from Doctor Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
If any motion be made in the house-[DOT]
And the minister has made a motion, and cannot get away from it.

for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned until such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
A minute ago the chairman ruled that I was out of order, and that for some reason I could not introduce the amendment. If the minister now introduces his amendment, then as a minister of the crown he must produce the governor general's consent. In other words, he would have to begin de novo-throw the whole bill out, and begin all over again. It is clear that he must have the governor general's consent. Is he prepared to say he has secured that consent?


Alphonse Fournier: I would point out that I have given my ruling, and it is the same as that given at page 2016 of Hansard, where the chairman on that occasion said:
I should like to point out to the committee that the bill, as it came to this committee, already includes this amendment, which was adopted by the special committee; but inasmuch as the bill has not been reprinted, a mimeographed leaflet has been distributed among all hon. members, containing all the amendments, for * their convenience. The bill that I have before me, which has been laid on the table of the house, and which we are now considering, contains all the amendments which were adopted by the special committee, and which are contained in this leaflet.


Alan Webster Neill: The Minister of Pensions and National Health has admitted the situation by moving the amendment, without the consent of the governor general.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Question.


Alphonse Fournier: Shall section 13 carry?


Alan Webster Neill: No; I w'ant to say a few words respecting paragraph (e) of the schedule, which has to do with employment in transportation by water or by air and stevedoring.
i Mr. R. B. Hanson.]
Either in the house or before the special committee-and I have forgotten which-objection was taken to the inclusion of stevedoring, on the ground that stevedores were a transient people, and that therefore it would be impossible to administer the bill. The old story about administrative difficulties was raised.
May I point out that the very word "stevedoring" compels a recognition of the fact that the stevedores are situated at a port, such as Vancouver, Victoria or Prince Rupert, and that they are doing stevedoring work. One does not do stevedoring away up in the bush; on the contrary it is done by the water, and, may I point out, there are well organized bodies of stevedores in Vancouver. There would be no trouble at all in making collections from them. As a matter of fact, in the port of Alberni, where I live, I believe there are thirteen gangs, each gang consisting of about twenty men. That would mean that there are between two hundred and three hundred men who all work for one firm. Ships come in from all over the world; the stevedoring is contracted for by the stevedoring company which employs the men in question. There would be no trouble in the world with these people, so far as administration is concerned, because they are all living there. There is no reason in the world why stevedores should not be included.
Then, for a moment may I speak for those employed in transportation by water. There are people living in Vancouver, Victoria and elsewhere who work the year round on coastal steamers. So long as they can obtain work they work regularly, but occasionally they find themselves out of work. In my opinion they are as much entitled to unemployment insurance as is any other group.
Would the minister explain why those two bodies, namely the stevedores-or, as they are known in British Columbia, the longshoremen-and those engaged in transportation by water, could not be included. Again may I point out the difference between conditions in the west and those in the east. It will be understood that in eastern Canada boats are tied up when the rivers are frozen. However, in British Columbia there is all-year-round traffic to the ports of Vancouver, Victoria, Prince Rupert, San Francisco and other points up and down the coast. In this connection the minister is up against exactly the same argument as that urged in connection with logging. People in the east appear to be incapable of seeing matters beyond a narrow limit.
May I finish my few observations with a reference to the situation respecting domestic servants. I have yet to hear some good reason why domestic servants should not be included

Unemployment Insurance
within the provisions of the measure. When at home I employ a stenographer and a maid in my house. I have to deduct from their wages so much for the government, and turn in that amount. At the end of the year if they have not obtained a certain income they will receive a rebate. I have no more trouble doing that for the maid than I have for the stenographer. That has prevailed all over British Columbia. I cannot see what there is so peculiarly transient about domestic service. Many girls work for years in the same household. They get low wages and are entitled to justice. Of necessity they work as constantly as they can. Also there is this peculiarity, that if the girl is working in a club or boardinghouse which is carried on for gain, she qualifies under the bill. What difference does it make if I am deducting a percentage from my maid's wages, whether she is working in a household or in a boarding-house? When she leaves the boarding-house to work in a private house there are more complications there. What concrete reasons are there for excluding them? They are poor and not vocal at election time, I know. Also I would ask the minister about transportation by water and stevedoring.


Norman Alexander McLarty: As regards stevedoring, I know the hon. member appreciates that stevedoring does not cover freight handlers; they are covered by the bill. I think the reason for the exception of stevedores is the difficulty they have had in the old country in their experience of the operation of that act. I am advised that they have been trying for a great many years to overcome the difficulties, but that even yet it does not appear to work out successfully.
One member of the special committee pointed out that there was a situation that was peculiar to British Columbia which might make it possible to bring stevedores under the measure. But the experience in Great Britain, we were advised, has been so far most unsatisfactory.


Alan Webster Neill: What was the objection there?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I understand that there was employment of stevedores by a number of different employers on the same day, that there was no continuity of employment with one employer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In Saint John there are stevedoring companies which contract to do this kind of work and the men work for the company, or an individual who is a stevedore employs longshoremen. There is no difficulty so far as that system is concerned. I do not just appreciate what the system is to which the minister refers.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I am giving the representations that were made to the committee. We were advised that the men might be employed by a number of different employers on the same day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not the system on the Atlantic coast.


Norman Alexander McLarty: So far as domestic servants are concerned, one difficulty is the matter of inspection. Hon. members will observe that the right to enter private homes is not given under section 72, and if we included domestic servants our advice was that inspection would be a tremendous task. The difficulties in the administrative end would be extremely great, and for that reason it was thought that domestic servants should not be included.


Alan Webster Neill: I cannot see the point about administration difficulties so far as domestic servants are concerned. You do not have to inspect them. You could have stamps put on & card'. I deduct one pe*r cent from my stenographer's salary and I pay it into the government-not she-and at the end of the year, if she has not earned the minimum salary, she applies for and eventually gets a refund. I have to pay the money in because I am the employer.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I might add to what I said that domestic servants are still excluded in Great Britain after twenty-nine years' operation of the act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the minister has said of domestic servants applies here with respect to domestic servants in private homes, but what about domestic servants employed in a boarding-house? Are they included?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, because the employer is engaged in a business for gain. They would be included.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is my interpretation of the law. In the city of Fredericton, where we have a normal school, a high school and university, hundreds of young people board, and a great many people eke out a living by taking in boarders. If all the service is to be set up for them, you are going to meet with that difficulty all over the country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, in view of what has been said at different times about the desire of the government to hasten the passage of this measure through the house I have said nothing to-day during
Unemployment Insurance

the course of the. debate but have been listening to the different arguments that have been presented. I think we have heard some arguments presented at least a dozen times.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not on
this point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For the most part the discussion to-day has been a continuous series of repetitions. I think everyone who has been in the house throughout the day will have "loggers" and "hospitals" ringing in his eats for the next few days. The argument has been mainly about those two classes, and now it concerns domestic servants. At any rate I do think that the business which this house has been called mainly to consider is of-sufficient importance for me to emphasize the importance of the committee not unduly wasting the time of parliament with further discussion which is going to lead nowhere.
A moment ago we had some discussion as to matters of procedure raised at a time when the bill has practically completed its passage through the house. I understand that the correct procedure with respect to a bill which has been referred to a committee for consideration, if it comes back from the committee in amended form, is that the chair places the bill before the committee of the whole, and it is considered in.committee section by section just as a new bill itself might be.


Alan Webster Neill: In the case of a standing committee, but not a special committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, from a special committee. If that special committee had by adding some clauses undertaken to increase expenditure under the bill, it would have had no right so to do without obtaining special authority. Similarly, when hon. members seek to add a clause or clauses which would involve increased expenditure under the bill, it would not be in order to admit such a clause without the governor general's consent being obtained in advance.


Alan Webster Neill: That is just what the committee did. They increased the expenditure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that what has been done by the committee has not altered in any material particular the scope of the bill or the payments under it. However, it is now very near the hour of the dinner recess. I rather hope that we may get the division, if one is necessary on this bill, before six o'clock, so that this evening we may get on with placing before the country, as we have been asked to do, the record of the government with respect to its war effort. That is what the country is anxious to hear,

and I do not think it would deprive anyone of any of his rights, after all the discussion we have had to-day, if we began to think of concluding discussion on this measure at this time.
First schedule, part II, agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
Bill reported.


Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not want to delay this bill, but I had something to say on the third reading. If, however, the Prime Minister says that it is imperative that we should have the third reading now, then in order to expedite the business of the house perhaps I had better forgo my remarks.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend would like to speak on the third reading, we could have the motion for third reading as the first business at eight o'clock.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Mr. Speaker, in view of the last paragraph of the committee's report, I understand that it is necessary for me to make the following motion, which I now do:
That the recommendation made in the report of the special committee on unemployment insurance to the end that the annual report of the unemployment insurance advisory committee be placed before the standing committee of the house for their deliberations and the hearing of representations be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Hon. N. A.. McLARTY (Minister of Labour) moved the third reading of Bill No. 98, to establish an unemployment insurance commission, to establish an employment service and for other purposes related thereto.
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the third reading of the bill. I have been in the House of Commons since 1921 to see this come about. But I wish to refer to the position of the soldiers who are serving us at the risk of their lives and for whom no provision has been made in this bill, although it takes care of civilians and those who stay at home. Successive governments have had since 1921 to look after this matter, but one finds not a word in the bill about the men who are fighting the battles of this country.
I would not, however, have mentioned the subject at this time were it not for the course

Unemployment Insurance
Of action which a number of insurance companies in this country have followed ever since the first contingent was mobilized last September. I know of an able surgeon who was making almost 140,000 a year. He gave up his practice and went with the first contingent, as a consequence of the action of the companies he has to pay prohibitive rates for his insurance. I may say that the province of Ontario has prevented the municipalities from establishing any more civic soldiers' insurance systems of the type which was carried on by the city of Toronto during the first world war, when 60,000 of its citizens enlisted for active service. In November, 1914, the city decided to purchase, at its own cost, insurance coverage for all citizens of Toronto who enlisted for overseas service. Under such plan, 9,609 $1,000 insurance policies were purchased during the period from November, 1914, to May, 1915, at a premium cost to the city of $1,247,261. As the city in May, 1915, was unable to obtain further insurance cover from local insurance companies, provincial legislation was applied for and granted, under which the city itself became the insurer of all citizens who thereafter enlisted for active service. In all cases, whether the citizens were insured by companies or by the city under the legislation referred to, the city was appointed beneficiary with power to administer the losses under such policy. Under the plan, which became effective in 1915, approximately 35,400 citizens enlisted for active service overseas; all claims under such insurance scheme were paid by the city. The total number of death claims paid by the city was 4,904, which cost the city $4,378,020. Mr. Bradshaw, the able city treasurer, stated that this system ms the means of effecting economies in other directions after the war, in dealing with aid to soldiers and their dependents. But now the province of Ontario has intervened to prevent any municipality from establishing a system of insurance on behalf of the soldiers.
The United States established a national system and also effected large economies as a result.
I have given the government ample opportunity to reply to my question and motion. It was not my wish to speak on the third reading of the bill, but hon. gentlemen opposite have had nineteen years since 1921 to deal with insurance for civilians and have not devoted nineteen minutes in this chamber during the discussion of this question to dealing with the needs of the soldiers of Canada who are risking their all in the defence of this country. I recently saw the 48th new battalion on parade; it is a fine new battalion with hundreds of men in training, some of whom gave up prominent positions to take
$1.30 a day. They are not insured. What is the attitude of the Canadian insurance companies? Instead of showing patriotism and consideration for these men, and setting up a national scheme that would help, what do they do? Certain insurance companies are actively pushing the sale of insurance to enlisted men, using as an argument the possibility of disability preventing their purchase of life insurance on their return. I say that a statement upon the question should be forthcoming from the government and from the inspector of insurance of these companies. After the last war, "returned soldiers' insurance" was made available. I believe the government should make a statement as to what its plans are along this line for the present war-I can assure the house that I have had many letters on the matter-to allay the fears of those who are now considerably concerned regarding this question and regarding what will become of their policies now in existence. They would like to learn how they stand with the companies and what consideration they will get. Some of them now cannot carry all their insurance, and these companies who have amassed millions should help a government scheme instead of just blocking it in a war like this. The companies are not acting towards them in a patriotic way, and there should be an investigation and survey into the matter by the superintendent of insurance and a statement from the government before prorogation. A statement of the government's plans would result in saving for these boys who are enlisting and have enlisted, hundreds of dollars overcharge in premiums for insurance which they may not be able to continue after the war.
In the United States the rates for "war risk" insurance were based on the old American experience table of mortality with interest at 34 per cent. The Canadian men's ultimate table of mortality, based on the mortality experienced in Canada prior to 1915, while not reflecting present-day mortality figures, comes a great deal closer, and I may say that the situation in Canada is morel favourable. I have here a table of comparisons, which I prepared for a motion that did not come up, with respect to the mortality in the last war and in the present one, giving rates for $1,000 of life insurance. The time has come when something should be done, and I ask that the government reply at once to the questions which I have raised, and decide to have a system of national insurance on all its soldiers with protective clauses after the war to help-soldiers who are out of em-* ployment.
During the last war the government of the United States treated this problem in a much
Unemployment Insurance

more businesslike fashion than ours has done. Faced with almost impossible "war service premiums," or usury, demanded by the life companies, the government of the United States established their own "soldiers' insurance fund," provided each member of their forces with a policy of $5,000 gratis, and in addition, gave the boys an opportunity of purchasing additional coverage at cost. Nor was this coverage based on the "cash value" type of policy. Straight death protection was provided, but those returning were given the opportunity to convert this death insurance to any of the standard plans, premiums for this converted insurance being based again on actual cost, without loading and without surrender charges.
I do not need to apologize to anyone for raising this matter on the floor of the house to-night. I find soldiers' insurance here has few friends. I introduced it last September. I put it on the order paper on the 25th of January. I put it on the order paper again on the 16th of May, and nothing has been done while we "peg prices" of commodities. Yet we have not had one word of reply from hon. gentlemen opposite as to what they propose to do for the soldiers with regard to national insurance, although other people- some, at least-will be covered by the scheme under Bill No. 98, who stay at home and work in civilian pursuits.
In conclusion I demand an answer, or let me say, I will request it, because I must admit that since May 16, the government has done something towards bettering conditions in certain directions, but not all. However, there is still a great deal to be done. The government should announce what its policy is on national soldier insurance, and that policy should take care of the soldier during and after the war. We were told last year by the former Minister of Finance that the government can borrow money for two-thirds of one per cent. If they can, let them insure their soldiers and not merely civilians who are staying at home.
The second matter on which I should like some information from the minister can be stated in one or two sentences. What is being done with reference to these public utilities in Ontario and any other provinces and municipalities which have already established a pension system? Can they rank under the new scheme? Will there be some ways by which they can be taken care of, by adjustment or coordination or both?


Norman Alexander McLarty: There are.


Thomas Langton Church: I think the minister might very well devote a sentence to that matter.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I can correct that at
once. They are taken care of now, under the scheme.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to tell us what is the policy of the government on national soldier insurance. He has been a pioneer in this field; I will admit that, although nothing was done for twenty years to get things started. I will ask the leader of the government-I have asked other ministers of the government until I am tired-before this bill is read a third time: What does he propose to do for these soldiers who are on the other side of the water, or prepared to go, as regards a scheme of national soldier insurance? Further, what does he propose to do to provide some further regulation of these life insurance companies which already carry insurance on civilians, now soldiers? Some of these soldiers are scared to death, as far as premiums go? Has he any reports to table regarding this matter? This is an important subject, and it should not be turned aside simply because somebody over here suggests that someone may be holding up this Bill No. 98. We on this side are not holding it up. It has been held up by hon. gentlemen opposite who have taken from 1921 until now to do anything about it. I should like to hear from the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon.
friend that I think his questions will be more appropriate if asked when we are discussing matters pertaining to defence. At that time any questions with respect to the soldiers overseas and at home will be in order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I had intended, as I intimated
before the dinner recess, to make some remarks on the third reading of the bill; but having regard to the fact that we have spent five hours to-day on one or two details, important though they may be, with the delay which thus ensued, and having regard further to the fact that we are all anxious to conclude our labours this week and also to the fact that I might be open to the charge of delaying the measure, of doing which I have not been conscious at any time, I have decided that I will not make any remarks at this stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Mackenzie King

[Stage Direction]
Canada's war effort
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
He said:	Some days ago the leader of
the opposition (Mr. Hanson) mentioned that the house would like to have, before the end of the session, a statement from the government with respect to Canada's war effort. I replied that statements had from time to time been made but that I could appreciate his feeling, as well as the feeling of other hon. members, that, receiving these statements intermittently and only in part, a comprehensive picture would not readily present itself to their minds. I promised that the government would therefore take an early opportunity of giving in outline the essential features of Canada's war effort as it has been put forth up to the present and also in relation to what is being planned with the future in view. The government has felt that the most effective manner in which to make this presentation, would be on a motion to go into supply, at which time the different ministers whose departments have most to do with Canada's war effort could make separate statements to the house, with His Honour the Speaker in the chair, thereby ensuring that the statements might be made without interruption and without occasioning debate until their presentation had been completed. If that course should meet with the approval of hon. members, the government would, after the statements had been made, expect that the house would then go into committee of the whole and upon an item relating to defence being called, a discussion might thereafter ensue on the entire subject of Canada's war effort.
There has been a suggestion that it would perhaps be most appropriate to discuss defence matters, in part, in secret session. I hope, for many reasons, that this may not be necessary. I will not say that the government will decline to have a secret session, but my experience with regard to secrets is that if you wish to have something told, the best thing to do is to announce that you are telling someone a secret. I am very much afraid that a secret session might only result in many statements being made with respect to what had taken place at the secret session which in the end would prove more embarrassing to all concerned than if
we sought to face the questions in open forum. If, however, it should appear, after the ministers have replied to questions asked, that there are some matters on which the house would wish to be further enlightened, and for which purpose a secret session would be necessary, the government will be prepared to take that necessity into consideration.
The order I would suggest in which the presentation of the various statements should be made would be to begin with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who would speak more particularly with relation to the army, to be followed by the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), who is also acting in this house as Minister of National Defence for Naval Services. He would speak with reference to the war effort as it affects the air forces and the naval services. Then the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) would review the war effort from the point of view of his department, to be followed by the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner), who would deal in part with mobilization and questions in relation thereto, the presentation to be concluded by a statement from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), who would touch upon the financial aspects of our war effort. That does not include the part of the war effort relating to what might be described as economic defence on the home front, the control of prices, the production and marketing of products and the like. These matters have been discussed at considerable length already, and they may be taken up further on the estimates of the departments concerned.
That, in brief, is the proposal with respect to the manner of informing the house of Canada's war effort as it is being pursued at the present time.
It might assist hon. members in following the presentation if I were to call to mind outstanding phases of the war to date. They have an immediate bearing upon what will be presented in the statements. I need not say anything about the period foreshadowing the war, nor need I say anything about the early beginnings of the war. It was on the 1st of September last that Poland was invaded and on the 10th of that month Canada went into the war; so that the presentation will cover a period that does not yet extend fully to eleven months. What is set forth will represent what has been accomplished, in the main, within that period of time.
The early stages of the war, as hon. members will recall, were largely concerned with conflict at sea and in the air. I am speaking now
2090	COMMONS
Canada's War Effort-Mr. Mackenzie King
more particularly of war between Germany and Great Britain. It was not until the spring of this year that there began a very significant change. It was the invasion by Germany of neutral countries. We then witnessed first, Denmark and Norway invaded, then Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg, and finally the invasion and collapse of France. I might give the house a few dates that will present these events in their proper sequence. They help to explain a change in some particulars in the methods employed by our government as well as the government of the United Kingdom in expediting much that had been planned at an earlier period.
The German invasion of Poland was on September 1. Britain and France declared war on Germany on September 3 and our Canadian declaration of war came on September 10. On November 30 Finland was attacked by Russia. The peace between Russia and Finland was signed on March 12.
In the interval, on January 25, the Canadian parliament was dissolved and the general elections took place, or at least the period of the general elections followed immediately. The elections themselves took place on March 26. Before and during the elections I ventured to say that one of the reasons why we had been anxious to have the elections at that particular time and have them over before the spring was that it was anticipated that the war would reach an intensified stage in the early spring and that it would undoubtedly be of advantage to the country to have a new parliament in existence before that phase of the war came about. It so happened that the invasion by Germany of Denmark and Norway followed on the 9th of April. On May 10 Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg were invaded by Germany; on May 14 the Dutch army ceased resistance. It was just at that very critical time that the first session of the present parliament met. That was on May 16. On May 28, the Belgian army surrendered under King Leopold'; on June 10, Italy declared war on Britain and France; on June 16, the Petain government was formed in France, and on June 22, France signed an armistice with Germany and on June 24, an armistice with Italy.
I 'have said that several statements have been made on Canada's war effort up to the present. I have in my hand a brief reference to the more important broadcasts that have been made by members of the government on Canada's war effort or aspects thereof, and also a brief record of important statements in parliament reviewing Canada's war effort or aspects thereof. With the consent of the house I should like to place these lists on 
Hansard. I believe they would be helpful as a ready reference to anyone who might wish later on to review Canada's war effort.
Broadcasts by Members of the Government on Canada's War Effort or Aspects Thereof
October 31-the Prime Minister on "Organization of Canada's War Effort".
November 24-Minister of Finance on "Canada's W ar Effort on the Economic Front". December 10-Minister of Labour on the work of the War-time Prices and Trade Board. December 17-Prime Minister on "The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan". December 20-Minister of National Defence on Canada's war effort,
January 7-Minister of Transport on work of the War Supply Board.
May 22-Minister of National Defence on Canada's war effort in the new emergency.
May 23-Minister of National Defence for Air and Minister of Munitions and Supply on the war effort of their respective departments.
June 7-Prime Minister on Canada's war effort. June 18-Minister of Finance on war finance and the effects of the national resources mobilization legislation. Repeated in French by the Minister of Justice.
June 23-Minister of Justice over French network on the effects of the mobilization legislation.
July 10-Minister of National Defence and Minister of National Defence for Air on plans for increased recruiting and training of troops.
July 26-Minister of National War Services on the forthcoming national registration.
Note.-This list does not include broadcasts during the general election campaign in which the war effort was fully reviewed.
Important Statements in Parliament Reviewing Canada's War Effort or Aspects Thereof
May 20-A comprehensive review by the Prime Minister.
May 21-The defence services, by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers).
May 22-War supply, by the Minister of Munitions and Supply.
June 3-Internal security, by the Minister of Justice.
June 4-Naval assistance to Britain, by the Prime Minister.
June 7-War supply, by the Prime Minister. June 11-Canadian action in Greenland, by the Prime Minister.
June 11-War supply, by the Prime Minister. June 11-Internal security, by the Prime Minister.
June 13-Veterans' home guard, by the Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr. Power). June 13-Air Training, by the Minister of National Defence for Air.
June 18-Review of recent developments (West Indies, Newfoundland, Iceland, etc.) and announcement of National Resources Mobilization Act, national registration and Department of National War Services, by the Prime Minister.
June 18-Recruiting, by the Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr. Power).

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Mackenzie King
June 19-Reception of British children and of prisoners of war, by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines and Resources. June 24-The budget, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston).
June 27-Reception of British children, by the Minister of Mines and Resources.
July 8-Review of the war organization, by the Prime Minister.
The only point I should like to mention before saying a word in general about the picture is the relation of the events I have cited to the discussions in our own parliament. As I have already mentioned, Canada's declaration of war came on September 10. That was at the time of the special session of the last parliament. At that special session important legislation was passed which enabled the government to organize Canada's war effort, lay the foundations of it, so to speak, in the months which immediately followed. I do not think it will be necessary for the ministers in their presentation to-night to review, except in the barest outline, what was accomplished between the time of the special session and the period of the general elections. The whole war effort of the government was very fully reviewed during the general elections, which extended over a period of two months, and the Canadian people passed upon our war effort and the government's programme and policies up to that point.
As I have mentioned, parliament reassembled at a moment of intense warfare in Europe. It reassembled just shortly after the invasion of Denmark and Norway, and at the time of the fighting in Holland and Belgium. That particular period of the war I suppose might be described either as the period of invasion by Germany of neutral countries or the period of the blitzkrieg in relation to these several countries. The blitzkrieg, or lightning war, as the expression is in English, did necessarily have an important bearing not only upon Canada's war effort but upon the war effort of all the different parts of the British empire. As hon. members are aware, in planning Canada's war effort the government did so in close cooperation with the British government. Our plans were laid in accordance with those of the high command in Britain and in consultation with the governments of other parts of the British empire.
It was the generally accepted view at the outset that the war would be a long one, the period mentioned being three years, and possibly longer, and plans were laid in relation to a war that would extend over that period of time. Now I do not say that the high command of the British government have changed their view in any particular as to
the length of the war. The war may still be a war of three or four years. But in one particular a very real change has been made, as a result of the sudden invasion of these neutral countries, the intensity of which invasion was something wholly unexpected. I do not think it was assumed, at the beginning of the war, that even Germany was going ruthlessly to violate these neutral countries, Whatever else she might attempt. At any rate, the effect of the subjugation of these different free neutral countries, and the attack upon France, to say nothing of the results that it produced, did necessitate a speeding up of the entire preparations to meet an immediate situation. And Canada, along with other parts of the British empire, at that time, undertook new obligations in a number of directions, obligations which had not been either foreseen or anticipated until events developed as they did.
In expediting the work and enlarging the scope of Canada's war effort, it has been found necessary, as hon. members know, to create new ministries. Where we started with the one ministry of national defence we have to-day three departments of defence, one specially concerned with the army, another with the air force, and the third with the navy. We have undertaken enormous obligations with respect to the British commonwealth air training scheme. There is also the new Department of Munitions and Supply, and more recently Still, the Department of National War Services. The legislation creating these new departments has, except in the case of the Department of Munitions and Supply for which provision was made at the special session, been passed by this present parliament. Hon. members are I think fairly familiar with much that has since been accomplished under the direction of the ministers in charge.
As an introduction to what may be said by my colleagues, may I say that the kaleidoscopic changes in the war itself have brought changes equally swift and equally colourful in the methods which have been necessary to meet them. Improvisations have had to be fitted into plans. Men have had to be moved to unexpected spheres of action. The production of materials has needed to be enlarged and hastened beyond what were believed to be the necessities of time and extent. Unprecedented measures had to be taken to provide for the requisite financial appropriations. The collapse of neutral and allied countries, the intensity of air warfare, the spread of the conflict to distant lands, circumstances which have sent Canadian soldiers and resources and ships to the West Indies, Newfoundland, Iceland and the seas that wash the shores of
2092	COMMONS
Canada's War Effort-Mr. Mackenzie King
the United Kingdom and France-all these things have made it difficult for anyone to reduce to a single presentation the panorama of passing events.
It is not easy for anyone to see the picture steadily and as a whole. The whole has sometimes been obscured by the parts. The perspective of 1940 has often been lost in the memories of 1914. The Canadian scene has often become almost invisible in the smoke of the battle ground of Europe. I hope that as a result of the facts which will be told to the house to-day a clearer picture will emerge in the minds of parliament and the people of Canada. Let me say that the recital of facts which will follow is not intended as a recital of the achievements of a political party. It represents the achievements of the Canadian people, directed by the government and assisted by the constructive criticism of his majesty's loyal opposition.
May I give just a few broad outlines of our war effort. We have had:
First, to organize and expand the defences of Canada on land, on sea and in the air;
Second, to furnish the maximum aid to the common cause in men and machines of war, wherever they were most needed;
Third, to organize the production of machines and munitions of war, so that output shall reach the highest possible maximum and private profits be held at the lowest possible minimum;
Fourth, to organize the production, distribution and transportation of foodstuffs to meet the needs of war;
Fifth, to prevent any undue rise in prices, and to protect the consumers of Canada against manipulation and speculation;
Sixth, to strengthen the nation's financial structure by taxation, by borrowing, and by the stabilization of international exchange;
Seventh, to provide the necessary machinery to mobilize the material and human resources of the country in the national interest, without fear or favour towards any class, section or interest in the country; and to mobilize these resources by progressive stages in a manner which will best serve to enlarge the scope and enhance the effectiveness of our war effort;
Eighth, to make provision for the internal security of the nation against sabotage to industry, transport and other vital services; to guard against hostile propaganda and espionage and other so-called "fifth column" activities; to take precautions against enemy aliens and sympathizers;
Ninth, to assist in providing for the security of Britain through the reception of enemy aliens and prisoners of war for internment in Canada, and for the reception of such 
children as the British government is prepared to send to Canada in order to remove them to a place of safety;
Tenth, to correlate national war services and voluntary effort under government direction and to provide appropriate and helpful ways and means of utilizing the essential patriotism of our citizens and their willingness and expressed desire to work for the common cause.
To accomplish these ends and to further these purposes it may be said, in a word, that Canada has brought into being, on a scale that is constantly expanding, an army for service overseas and for home defence; has been building and manning a navy which to-day is assisting in the defence of our coasts, in convoying ships across, in patrolling Atlantic waters, and in repelling enemy forces which threaten the invasion of the British isles; and has organized and established an air force which is in service at home and abroad. We have, moreover, assumed responsibility for the supervision of the gigantic commonwealth air training plan and have vastly expedited its development. In a word we have, in addition to the measures taken for the immediate defence and security of our own land, sent ships and troops and airmen to the West Indies, to Newfoundland, to Iceland and to Europe. We have made tremendous commitments for the production of machines and munitions. The house is aware of the terms of the National Resources Mobilization Act and the National War Services Act, and of the operations of the War-time Prices and Trade Board, and of the Foreign Exchange Control Board.
The review by the ministers of the departments of government more immediately concerned will set forth in detail what has been done and is further planned to fulfil our duty and implement the legislation which parliament has passed. The statements to be made will give in terms of men, machines and money, the state of the army, the navy, and the air force, and the progress of the commonwealth air training plan; and detailed reports, in so far as they can with safety be given, on the manufacture and production of aeroplanes, munitions and mechanized equipment.
I believe it will be agreed that the record which will be unfolded represents a remarkable transformation of a peace-loving nation of eleven millions into a people unitedly and effectively organized to fight for the preservation of freedom and democracy, and determined unceasingly and increasingly to give of their utmost to the cause of human freedom which, alone among the nations of the world, if the orient be excepted, Britain and the British dominions are defending in arms at the present time.

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Ralston
National Defence
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, if the house will permit me to do so I should like to follow my notes rather closely. I have prepared a somewhat lengthy statement, and there are certain portions with regard to which I should like to be particularly accurate.
At the outset of what I have to say I am impelled, not only by a sense of esteem but by a sense of deep obligation as well, to pay tribute to my late and lamented predecessor in the post which I now occupy, the late Hon. Norman Rogers. It is the irony of fate, and it only adds to the tragedy of his passing, that he is not here to see some of the fruits of his untiring energy and veritable consecration. The fact that to continue the work which he was doing is taking the time and, I assure you, the undivided attention of three ministers and additional staffs, speaks more loudly of his capability and devotion to duty than any words of mine. I am sure my colleagues will agree that anything which has been accomplished in the last two months has been due in no small measure to the sound and broad foundation which he laid in the administration of the manifold and perplexing details of his triple department. His patience, his dauntlessness in the face of discouragement, and his everlasting industry and determination are, and will continue to be, a challenge and an inspiration to those of us who take up his work.
I had expected, in connection with the estimates of the Department of National Defence, to give to the house such information as might be possible regarding the activities of the department. I welcome this earlier opportunity to give the house a resume of the situation as I see it. I am well aware that in what I have to say there will be very little in the nature of a review. Rather I would have you see the situation as I see it at the present time and as we plan for the future. I know perfectly well that the information I have is not in particularly attractive or interesting form, but I believe the house is interested in facts, and these I shall try to give.
Regarding policies, it is perhaps a little presumptuous for one who has been in my post for only a bare three weeks to attempt to sort out and present solutions for the problems of military preparedness and effectiveness which confront us. I think, however, it would help toward clearer thinking, greater confidence and more effective action if we understand and agree on the broad principles of our defence policy.
I conceive that there are two main aspects. First, a short term policy-and that policy
may cover years-which is to combine in maximum degree and in minimum time, with other countries to defeat the common enemy in the present war; and this country, along with the United Kingdom and the other dominions, is turning night into day and leisure into ceaseless activity to bring about that result. Second, there is the long term aspect. It seems distant and relatively unimportant at the moment. But we must realize and prepare to meet the absolute necessity for a comprehensive organization of Canada's armed forces so that whatever befalls we shall in future be a country which shall be as adequately prepared as it possibly can be to take care of its own responsibilities in respect to defence.
I have had the benefit of discussing these vital questions on several occasions already with Major General Crerar, the chief of the general staff, since his recent return from the United Kingdom. His appreciation of the immediate and future military contingencies which this country, and the empire and its allies, now require to face, has been considered by the war committee of the cabinet. We have great confidence in his views, and I know that confidence is shared by the authorities in London. We are fully agreed on methods and objectives. Speaking generally, the method to be continued and intensified is the maximum development of all our resources in man-power, in weapons, in equipment and in training facilities. The objective is that Canada may throw its increasing military power into the scale in the most effective manner, and in the minimum of time.
We are also fully agreed regarding the general order of priority which should be considered in connection with our military preparations.
In the "immediate" category, I place the following:
First, the re-strengthening and the adequate organization of our fixed and mobile defences and our armed forces in the area of our eastern seaboard and of the approaches of the St. Lawrence. As will be immediately recognized, this is our most vulnerable area. Measures have been taken accordingly, and I can announce that a command headquarters is being set up immediately in the maritimes, to organize, control and coordinate for operational purposes the forces in this area. These will include the Canadian active service force and the non-permanent militia forces which are or will be located there. The object is to use them to the best advantage, in conjunction with the coast defence forces, wherever an attack may threaten. Included in this command will be the Canadian forces in Newfoundland.
2094	COMMONS
Canada's War Effort-Mr. Ralston
I need hardly say that in presently concentrating increased energies on the requirements of our east coast, it is not to be assumed for an instant that the continued strengthening of our west coast defences is being in any way overlooked.
Second, but of equal importance, and only secondary in the matter of immediate urgency, is the continued concentration of our resources on the training and equipping of the Canadian active service force now organized in this country. Where these troops will eventually serve depends, of course, on the developments of the future. In the meantime, our policy is to continue the training and equipping of these units eventually as divisions, so that they may be ready for operations in whatever theatre they may be required, either in Canada or overseas. The front line is the island fortress of the British isles, and we will shortly have a corps of two complete divisions and ancillary troops in that front line. The house may be interested to know that my advisers are definitely of the opinion that it would not serve the common cause at this time to have additional Canadian forces added to such a corps. It must be remembered that there is at the moment no shortage of man-power in England. The real demand is for equipment.
I am giving away no secret when I state that it is impossible for the United Kingdom to make up in two or three weeks the losses of equipment suffered by the gallant British expeditionary force during its epic struggle in, and the subsequent withdrawal from France.
Consequently, quite apart from any question of Canadian security, we can make our best contribution at the present by training and equipping our third and fourth divisions in this country. And so the "drive" is to bring the training and equipment of the divisions now organized in this country to the highest possible level in order that they may quickly be available for active operations, whenever and wherever the call may come for their services.
Third, we must provide the maximum preliminary training for the available manpower of Canada. It is obvious that this is a primary^ and essential step in the preparation of the citizens of this country for the ultimate duty they may be called upon to perform- that of defending their hearths and their homes against the possible attack of a ruthless enemy. That step is being taken now; it is one of the purposes of the National Resources Mobilization Act, and my colleague the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner), will be giving the house an outline of the procedure which is being followed to call for training the young men of this

countiy. Later on, I shall explain how these young men will fit into our military units and formations.
Fourth, we must not for a moment lose sight of the necessity, in certain instances, of military protection to vulnerable points and the relation of the military forces to internal security. The matter of internal security is principally a police problem, but we are so arranging our organization that there shall be no gap between the responsibility of the police and the responsibility of the military forces to assist them where necessary. My colleague, the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), is, in addition to his other duties, giving particular attention to this matter and has accepted the post of chairman of the sub-committee which deals with the protection of vulnerable points.
I need not to-day go into the matter of long-term requirements, but I assure the house that this phase of Canada's defence is having most earnest attention as well. We must never again lapse into the inadequate position which the armed forces of Canada- and Canada was not unique in this respect- were in for many years prior to the outbreak of war. While our immediate task is to deal with first things first, the future is our very definite responsibility as well.
My colleagues and I realize that the work of carrying out these policies is probaoly the most many-sided and responsible job in Canada, and it goes without saying that we must enlist and use the ablest men on staff and in executive positions which this country can provide.
Adjustments have already been made in the staff of the department in order to utilize the capabilities, experience and training of the personnel to the best advantage. This principle will continue in connection with the organization of these vital services.
Now, Mr. Speaker, those are the principles of our present military policy, and I think it well to have that broad picture in mind so that, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has just said, we may see the situation clearly and see it whole.
The methods by which those policies are being carried out are, after all, details which depend upon competent administration and staff work.
The purpose of giving these broad outlines of our policy is so that members of the house and the citizens of Canada generally may themselves have a better appreciation of what we are trying to do.
It will avoid, I think, many questions and inquiries on matters of method, because I would hope that the organization of the Department of National Defence will be such

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Ralston
that the country generally will feel that we have competent personnel and a sufficiently clear appreciation of our duties and responsibilities to be able to work out and put into effect the details necessary to accomplish our purposes.
I do not mean that I have any desire to prevent inquiries where it is thought there is inattention or failure in any particular phase of the work, but I do want to inspire hon. members if I can with the idea that the machinery of the Department of National Defence is, if I may use the colloquial expression, "hitting on all eight cylinders," and that we can confidently expect that there will be no slacking in connection with anything which may be required to make the machine function to the highest point of efficiency.
But in order, Mr. Speaker, to try to demonstrate that attention has been given to details and to satisfy the perfectly proper desire for some particulars of the way in which we are going at the tasks which I have outlined, I do want to deal with certain major matters, even though they involve details.
I shall speak of :
(1)	The possible duties of Canada's military forces;
(2)	The military units and formations through which these duties are carried out;
(3)	The progress of organization and recruiting of these military units and formations;
(4)	The matter of equipment;
(5)	The camps which we are establishing and the accommodation which is available and which is in prospect; and
(6)	General methods of training.
Duties of Canada's Military Forces
Let me outline some of the possible duties of Canada's military forces. Those duties Which can be actually envisaged are of a good many different kinds, and the geographic location in which these duties may have to be performed encompass at least half the globe. The order in which I enumerate them has, of course, nothing to do with the order of their importance.
First, we must provide guards for the protection of certain vulnerable points regarded as so extensive and so important nationally as to warrant military protection, and we must be ready to deal with civil disturbances.
Second, we must maintain guards for the exacting duty of guarding internees and prisoners of war in internment camps.
Third, we must provide personnel for the land defences of our east and west coasts.
Fourth, our military forces have the duty of providing the tactical defence of Canada
against whatever force may be contemplated as having a reasonable chance of reaching our shores. We must have forces in position to move quickly and effectively. That duty is very much in our minds just now.
But the duties of Canada's military forces do not end with our borders. A fifth type of duty is called for in what might be called the outposts of the north American continent. Canada, as the Prime Minister has said, is already substantially represented on active service at strategic points in Iceland, in Newfoundland and in the Caribbean. Sometimes I think we do not fully realize the fine service which is rendered by the men on guard duty and in coast defence positions and these troops of ours who "stand to" at home and in these isolated outposts. They are on duty day and night. They are in exactly the 6ame situation as if they were in the trenches, holding positions in the face of the enemy. Their work is monotonous, but vitally important To maintain eternal vigilance under conditions of inactivity is one of the stiffest tests of character and discipline which either soldiers or civilians can undergo.
Finally, there is the large and rapidly growing Canadian active service force now in the United Kingdom, which, under the inspiring command of Lieutenant-General McNaughton and our other distinguished commanders face the enemy with determination and confidence. They are the spear-head of the Canadian army. We know that they will prove in every way worthy of the highest traditions of the old Canadian corps.
What I want to impress on the house is that Canadian soldiers have plenty of jobs to do and that these jobs are so varied that they make a stirring call on the adaptability and resourcefulness of Canadian young men. Every one of these different jobs has its own requirements as far as preparation and training is concerned. The house will realize, I know, that the training, equipment, administration and allotment of our troops for those varied duties is no simple or easy undertaking. But the foundation of a soldier's military training is discipline, a readiness to obey orders. Initiative and ability to work on their own, if the emergency arises, is a characteristic of Canadians; and our system of training, while insisting on discipline, is being so worked out as to use to the full these native resources of our people. Discipline, physical training, drill, training in the fundamentals of a soldier's life and musketry are the foundations, and given those foundations, special training for the different arms of the service can be readily superimposed.

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Ralston
Units and Formations
Now what are the organizations, the units and formations in which the Canadian soldier is trained and in which he serves in carrying out the duties I have spoken of? First., there is the Canadian active service force. This is a force in which men of the age of from nineteen to forty-five years, both inclusive, may enlist for full-time service and receive pay and allowances at Canadian active service force rates. They serve in Canada or outside of Canada, as required. The enlistment is for the duration of the war and the demobilization period. This force includes four divisions, ancillary divisional units, corps ancillary units, coast defence troops, reinforcements and depots, veterans home guards and a number of unattached infantry battalions. There are over 133,000 officers and men in all. The members of this force serve overseas; they are serving in the outposts of the continent; they man our coast defences, guard prisoners of war, protect the most vital vulnerable points in Canada. A little later I shall say a word on the numbers authorized for this force and on its recruiting.
Second, we have the non-permanent active militia. The militia has, as hon. members know, been the back-bone of Canada's military organization ever since Canada was Canada. The traditions of some of the militia battalions which have been the foundation for active service units, both in the last war and in this one, recall the finest type of patriotic service. We want to keep the non-permanent active militia with its splendid associations; but more than that, we want to extend its usefulness by having it take in and make part of it the men who will, in probably a little more than two months, be in training under the National Resources Mobilization Act.
Consequently, the non-permanent active militia will consist of:
First, men between the ages of eighteen to forty-five both inclusive, who have enlisted for a three-year period. These men may in time of war be required to serve continuously in the field for a period of not more than eighteen months. These enlisted men could under the Militia Act be sent on service outside of Canada, but declarations by the government have made it clear that men will not be required to serve outside of Canada unless they re-attest voluntarily for such service.
Second-and this will be the point on which there is the greatest interest-the nonpermanent active militia will also include men between the ages of from twenty-one to forty-five who may be called for training from time 
to time under the National Resources Mobilization Act. These men may be required to serve during the continuation of the war, but by the terms of the National Resources Mobilization Act they cannot be required to serve outside of Canada. The result of this declaration of policy and of the provisions of the act is that in practice the members of the non-permanent active militia, -whether enlisted or called under the National Resources Mobilization Act are not obliged to serve outside of Canada without being re-attested voluntarily for such service.
The non-permanent active militia will do part-time training at local headquarters, or in camp, or in both. Men will be paid at nonpermanent active militia rates for the training period-thirty days in each year. For men who are not in camps, two nights or afternoon periods of -two hours each, are regarded as constituting a day. Registration under the National Registration Act commences August 19, 1940, and to make room for those who will be called for training, it has been decided that recruiting for the non-permanent active militia will be suspended on August 15. It will be understood, however, that even though recruiting is suspended on that date, men who have enlisted previously will be allowed to finish their training for the year by attending camp or drills at local headquarters, provided such training is completed with reasonable promptness.
As I have indicated, the plan is that after August 15 additional personnel for the nonpermanent active militia will be made up from those called for training, and this training will probably commence about October 1. Those called for training will be just as much a part of the militia, so far as service in Canada is concerned, as those who had enlisted before August 15. They will be taken on the strength of a non-permanent active militia unit, will do exactly the same amount of training. They will be paid the non-permanent active militia rates for the period of training and will receive free transportation from their residence to the training centre and return.
I should like the house to note this. We are anxious to encourage men to keep on with training, even though the thirty days may have been completed. We have, therefore, decided that all members of the nonpermanent active militia units, whether they have enlisted or been called for training, may elect to take training as may be authorized at local headquarters, in addition to the regular thirty days. They will receive pay for this extra training.
As the house has already been told, the training to be carried on this winter will be the result of the activities of two departments,

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Ralston
namely, the Department of National War Services under my colleague, the minister of that department (Mr. Gardiner), and the Department of National Defence. To express the relative duties of each department in a word, the Department of National War Services does everything necessary to have the men on hand at the training centre for training, and when they get there the Department of National Defence takes them over, provides them with food, accommodation, clothing and equipment, and pay, and trains them for the thirty-day period. The registration to be conducted by the Department of National War Services begins August 19. My colleague, the Minister of National War Services will, of course, be dealing fully with the procedure which will be followed to have these men ready. I need only give the broadest outline.
The Department of National Defence will advise the Department of National War Services of the number of men required for training. The Department of National War Services will notify sufficient men in the lower age groups, probably twenty-one to twenty-two years of age, to report at some specified date and place. They will be called in groups of probably 30,000 per month.
The Department of National War Services will, under its regulations, deal with any postponements which may be proposed, but it is understood that postponements must be arranged so that every physically fit man in the class will have had his training within the year. The Department of National War Services will have the men who are called medically examined at convenient points as close to their homes as possible. Then it will see that those found fit report from time to time, as directed, at the training centres for training. The medical examination will, of course, be subject to any necessary review by the Department of National Defence regarding categories. There will probably be thirty or more training centres across Canada.
I should like to stress again that all these members of the non-permanent active militia, whether they have enlisted or been called for training, are to be regarded on exactly the same basis. Training is being given in order that they all may be ready and able to defend their country. The call for training is a summons to the highest service which any citizen can render. They are all Canadian soldiers. They go to the same kind of camps and belong to the same regiments, and there will be no distinction whatever between them.
It must be remembered that there are many young men in the country who have already offered themselves for active service in special branches and who have not been taken on
because there were no vacancies in that particular branch. There will also be men who would have been ready to enlist in the nonpermanent active militia but who, because of being regarded as essential in industry, were convinced that they could better serve for the time being in helping to produce essential war supplies. These men will be called for training as their age class is reached, and it would be unfortunate indeed if any line of distinction were drawn between them and those who had enlisted.
That is the Canadian active service force and the non-permanent active militia. Now I should mention two other military organizations which we have and by which we set great store.
First, there are the veterans' home guard companies. These are composed of veterans of the great war, both Canadians and imperials, fifty years of age and under. The members of these companies volunteer for the duration of the war and for such time as the government sees fit to retain their services. Their service is full time and they are paid Canadian active service rates.
Twenty-two of these companies with 250 men each have already been authorized and, as has been indicated on a number of occasions, the department is disposed to increase the number of these companies as veterans who are fit and qualified offer their services.
The veterans in these units are already performing valuable work in, supplying guards for vulnerable points, for internment camps and for other duties. I know of no better service that the veterans can render than to join these home guard companies, for by so doing they release younger and more physically fit men of the Canadian active service force for overseas duties.
Then we have the infantry reserve companies of the veterans' home guard. This is composed of veterans of the great war, Canadians and imperials, fifty years of age and under. They are men who are not in a position to take on full-time service, either with the Canadian active service force or with the veterans' home guard companies, but who volunteer for part-time training. They correspond to the non-permanent-active militia units and they are attached to these units for their training.
Members of these infantry reserve companies are paid the non-permanent active militia rates for the regular thirty day period of training.
Let me just recapitulate these various military forces which are administered by the Department of National Defence. Here

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Ralston
I am not including the navy or the air force. We have the Canadian active service force and the veterans' home guard companies, all on full time service, and we have the non-permanent active militia and the infantry reserve companies of the veterans' home guard on part-time for training.
Now may I say a few words about the progress of organization and recruting of these units and formations?
The Canadian active service force has its foundation in the non-permanent active militia. When the -war came, instead of organizing new units, the first and second divisions and ancillary troops were raised by mobilizing militia units and authorizing them to recruit to full war strength. These two divisions with the ancillary troops are at full strength, and as hon. members know, a large proportion of them are overseas.
On May 24, Mr. Rogers stated in the house that immediate steps were being taken to proceed with the organization of the third division.
By July 21, the date of the last complete strength returns, the third division was practically at full strength. Here and there men specially skilled in one of the trades are needed to complete the complement, and there are one or two units which need a few more men.
At the same time in May, it was announced that the infantry battalions of a fourth division were to be mobilized, and this authorization was later extended to include all the units of the fourth division, namely, artillery, engineers, ordnance, signallers, et cetera.
I am pleased to say that the fourth division recruiting has been equally satisfactory and that on July 21 it was well on the way to being full strength. Many units have in fact reached their full complement, while others are short by only a few men, and in almost all instances the men required are in the category of specialists of one kind or another.
Since the beginning of the present session, a number of additional units have been authorized. The most important of these
are:
Infantry battalions	 9
Motorcycle regiments	 5
A forestry corps.
Additional coast defence units.
These are not completely up to strength, but we are informed by commanding officers all over Canada that recruiting has been extremely successful.
My colleague, the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), stated in the

house on June 18 that the strength of the Canadian army was a total of 90,743. Those figures were taken from the strength returns of June 14. On July 21 there were 31,607 troops outside of Canada and 101,965 in Canada, or a total of 133,572. In five weeks, therefore, we have recruited over 42,000 men for active service, or the equivalent of over two and a half divisions.
Just at this point I should like to say a word in connection with recruiting. The response which has been made by the young men of Canada has been almost overwhelming. I hear frequently these days of men who are disappointed to find that the units which are being mobilized have been filled up. If they can find no place in the Canadian active service force I urge them to join the nonpermanent active militia.
I know there are many who feel that we should go on-and on-and on-continuously mobilizing new units and enlisting personnel. It is said that if this is not done we shall dampen the recruiting ardour of the young manhood of this country. Nothing could be easier than to give way to these representations, but I want the house and the country to feel that this matter has not been given haphazard consideration. We have at the present minute nearly 100,000 men in the Canadian active service force in Canada. A large part of these will probably be here all winter. We shall be training probably 50,000 or more of the non-permanent active militia, and in addition, we shall have in training during this winter, those members of the militia who will be called for training, as I have described, at the rate of something like
30,000	a month.
Inactivity and monotonous training routine are bound to affect morale. There is a limit to the number of men who can be adequately and properly trained and employed. My advisers are strongly of opinion that on the best forecast which can be made at the present time, it would be unwise to increase the number of men on the strength of the Canadian active service force by further extended mobilization at this time. They think it is much more important to complete the equipping and training of our third and fourth divisions and develop them into first-class fighting formations, than by calling out additional military units until such time as they can be usefully employed. My colleagues and I, after the most serious thought, concur in that conclusion, and I sincerely hope that the house and the country will accept our judgment. This does not mean at all that there will not be further recruiting. Indeed, there are at the moment plans for some 15,000

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Ralston
in the authorized Canadian active service force, and there will be further calls for reenforcements from time to time as well as for further units, as men can be utilized. As these further calls are made from time to *time, we shall follow the principle of giving every portion of the country an opportunity to share in the enlistment.
The first principle of good organization is to have men serve in the task which is most important and for which the individual is best fitted. Due to the splendid and almost instant response to the recent call for recruits, the need for materials assumes equal if not greater importance for the moment than the need for men. All I ask is that the patriotic urge for service be allowed to express itself in the way in which it will be most effective, notwithstanding the individual preference.
Non-Permanent Active Militia
I have already referred to the role of the non-permanent active militia in connection with the formation of the Canadian active service force.
Now I wish to speak of the non-permanent active militia itself. Some non-permanent active militia units of course had not been mobilized for active service; others had been. But whether so mobilized or not, all the nonpermanent active militia infantry units are now authorized to recruit up to full war strength. This is not Canadian active service force recruiting. It works in this way: There are ninety-one non-permanent active militia infantry units in Canada. Some of these [DOT]have been mobilized and have become part of the Canadian active service force, and some of those mobilized units have gone overseas. We have said to those which have been mobilized, "You are authorized to recruit a second battalion; this will not be a Canadian active service force battalion, but you can take on men right up to war strength for training on a militia basis, that is, in the evening or other spare time plus camp, and pay them militia rates of pay." To the nonpermanent active militia infantry units which Shad not been mobilized for the Canadian active service force, we have said, "You can [DOT]take on more men up to war strength, on the same militia basis for training and pay." There are also some artillery units in the nonpermanent active militia which have received the same instructions.
The total war strength of the non-.permanent active militia infantry units is approximately
88,000	officers and men, and according to the latest available returns this non-permanent active militia force has a total strength of 47,373 actually enrolled. While there is plenty
of room for more enlistments in the non-.permanent active militia units, there are [DOT]instances where lack of available qualified officers, especially for some of the technical units, has made it necessary to forgo active recruiting until the staff of officers has been built up. These cases are having the intensive interest of the district officers commanding and we hope that it will not be long before [DOT]the lack can be supplied.. These are the lunits which will suspend recruiting after August 15 and will after thaft be augmented [DOT]by those who will be called for training.
Let me repeat again the non-permanent active militia are not Canadian active service force troops. But they are Canadian soldiers, part of the Canadian army which will be training at local depots, at camps or training centres in rotation this summer and autumn and on through the winter.
Veterans' Home Guards
The announcement of the formation of these units was made by my late colleague, the Hon. Mr. Rogers, on May 23. The authorization at that time was for twelve companies of 250 men each.
Between the time of that announcement and the 21st of July, which is the latest date for which accurate figures are available, the twelve originally authorized have already been increased to twenty-two companies of 250 each and ten platoons of thirty-nine each or a total authorized strength of 5,890. Enlistments in these veterans' companies up to July 21 totalled 3,743 and recruiting is still proceeding.
Infantry Reserve Companies of the Veterans' Home Guard
Twenty-six veterans' reserve companies have been authorized up to July 26. Their authorized strength is 4,238. Recruiting for these units has been fairly active. About one-quarter of the establishment has been filled up to July 26 and recruiting is still proceeding.
Accommodation and Camps
Now a word about accommodation and camps. I know some hon. members at least are interested in the location of camps in Canada. The troops of the Canadian active service force have been housed in various ways. We have used buildings which have been rented or taken over; we have used huts, and in the summer we are using tents. Incidentally, to show what unforeseen demands have been made on our tent accommodation, the house might be interested in knowing that we have had to send away for the use of troops in outpost positions beyond our coasts no less than about
2,000	tents and 375 marquees.

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Ralston
From the beginning of the war to the end of June we had built huts to accommodate twenty thousand troops. In June, when our programme was expanding so rapidly, we decided to increase our hutment accommodation to house the Canadian active service force units and thus have our tents available for the nonpermanent active militia camps. In the month of July we shall have built 802 huts capable of housing 35.000 men. That accomplishment speaks for itself and is a testimony to the engineering staff both at headquarters and in the districts.
The huts built this month are located all across Canada. The largest programme has been at Camp Borden, but very extensive construction has been done at Valcartier, Pet-awawa, Borden, Shilo, Dundum, Barriefield and at other places in the maritime provinces and in the west.
More huts will be required for the training programme which is to be carried out during next fall and winter. Locations are now being determined. Lumber requirements of about 86 million feet have been called for and we expect that this will be made available.
The huts we are constructing are substantial. They are built to last for a number of years and are suitable for winter accommodation. Some idea of the magnitude of the construction programme will be realized from the fact that it takes twenty-two huts to provide accommodation and recreational facilities for the officers, non-commissioned officers and men of one battalion of about one thousand all ranks. These huts are equipped with shower-baths, running hot and cold water and the most modern kitchen facilities, and by the end of the month we shall have built this year huts for a total of 55,000 men.
Location of Camps
Our larger Canadian active service force camps are at Valcartier, Petawawa, Barriefield, Camp Borden, Shilo and Dundum, but in addition to these there are troop concentrations of quite considerable size at Aldershot, Nova Scotia; Barriefield, Ottawa, Winnipeg, and Calgary. These centres house what are known as Canadian active service force training centres. Each centre takes in and trains officers and other ranks reenforcements for Canadian active service force units of one or another arm of the service. For example, Aldershot is an infantry training centre, while at Barriefield our Royal Canadian Corps of Signals and Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps are trained, and at Winnipeg we have an artillery training centre and an infantry training centre. Seven of these training centres

are at present located in four of the main training camps at Valcartier, Petawawa, Camp Borden, and Dundurn. The total number of training centres at the present time is fifteen.
Non-permanent Active Militia Training Camps
I have mentioned making tents available for non-permanent active militia camps by the construction of hutments for the Canadian active service force. At the present time preparations are being made for the opening of canvas camps for normal non-permanent active militia training to commence early in August at fourteen or fifteen points across Canada. Some of these camps will be in the five large training camp areas already mentioned, but will be separate from the hutted Canadian active service force portions of these camps. The remainder are either in small non-permanent active militia training camps which were used before the war or in new areas which have been acquired for the purpose. The locations of these camps are:
London-Thames valley golf course.
Niagara-on-the-Lake-a pre-war camp.
Kingston-a pre-war camp.
Peterborough-a new camp.
Saint Bruno, P.Q.

a pre-war camp.
Farnham, P.Q.-a new camp.
Aldershot. N.S.-a pre-war camp.
Sussex, N.B.-a pre-war camp.
Vernon, B.C.-a pre-war camp.
Sarcee, Alta.-a pre-war camp.
The total number expected to be in these camps at one time will be in the vicinity of 20,000. The numbers in each camp vary from about 3,000 at Petawawa, Saint Bruno, and Farnham, down to 400 to 500 at Kingston, Peterborough, and Dundum.
For the training of those members of the non-,permanent active militia who will be called for training after registration there will probably be thirty or more training centres across Canada, each taking care of about me thousand men. The definite locations of these centres now are being arranged by the district officers commanding in the various military districts. Each district will have one or more centres, based in general upon the manpower of the district. The intention is that these centres will not be at the same points as existing Canadian active service force concentrations, but will be located with reference to the headquarters of the non-permanent active militia battalions or regiments with which each training centre will be affiliated. It is anticipated that for most of these centres it will be necessary to construct hutted accommodation, which will be precisely the same as that used for housing the Canadian active service force. The construction of the

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Ralston
thirty centres mentioned will form the bulk of our remaining programme for winter accommodation. Probably there will be, however, a fairly large amount of winter accommodation in permanent buildings all across Canada, as well as in our permanent barracks which are now used mainly for the housing of the Canadian active service force training centres.
1 o summarize the anticipated capacity of our training accommodation, therefore,' we expect to have hutments and permanent barracks sufficient to accommodate about
93.000	men, together with available winter accommodation in exhibition buildings and industrial buildings in large centres for another 12,500 men. and this type of accommodation can be substantially increased, if required. In the figures given I have not included the hutted accommodation already built for coast defence garrisons which number approximately
8.000	all told.
Equipment.
I do not think the house will expect me to go into too much detail. I would be wanting in candour if I did not say at once what I think everybody knows, that there is a serious shortage in some items of equipment. We have to face that fact.
As I have said before, Canada, by the break through on May 10, has suddenly been put very much on her own. Sources of supply which we considered could be depended on have suddenly been cut off or very much restricted on account of their own needs. It is common knowledge that our friends in the United Kingdom were desirous of being allowed to provide us with as much equipment as they could, in order to offset to some extent at least their very heavy purchases of food and supplies in this country.
The United States has always been regarded as a desirable source of supply for certain items of mechanical equipment, the production of which in Canada for limited Canadian needs would have resulted in extremely high unit costs.
The change of events has resulted in colossal demands on United States production, not only because the United Kingdom has suddenly called on United States industry to fill orders of wholly unexpected magnitude, but because the United States itself has its own requirements due to the emergency and feels it necessary to preempt productive capacity for domestic requirements on a scale unprecedented in its history.
Canada has not hesitated to take on this unexpected task of providing supplies for herself, by extending of present industrial facilities, the organization of new plants and, generally, gearing up industry to meet this new situation.
My colleague, the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), will, I am sure, say something about the way in which Canadian industry has responded to this challenge. I can assure the house that the Department of National Defence, by eliminating procedure which might cause delays and by man-to-man conferences and consultations, has helped to make possible an acceleration of activity in two months which I really think is almost phenomenal.
Speaking of what we might call the more staple items of personal equipment, such as clothing, we have authorized and there are on order, supplies for a year ahead and in quantities sufficient to satisfy what is conceived to be any reasonable need.
If figures mean anything, let me give the house a few items regarding supplies already received and of our immediate prospects.
Clothing
The following represent some of the more important items of clothing already delivered by contractors and issued to the troops since the outbreak of war.
Serge battle	dress	 210,927 suits
Boots	 264,840 pairs
Socks	 694,475 pairs
Shirts	 240,284
Web equipment	 104,674
In addition to the serge clothing for all Canadian active service force troops proceeding overseas, special provision was made for the force which proceeded to the British West Indies and Bermuda. A complete issue of summer clothing has also been made available to the second division and the issue of khaki drill clothing has been extended to units of the third and fourth divisions and all other Canadian active service force units located in Canada. This is being rapidly overtaken. To show how the deliveries have been accelerated, I give below the deliveries for the week ending July 21:
Boots	 17,519
Drill jackets	 10,509
Drill trousers	 15,890
Battle Dress Serge (complete)....	13,074
Battle Dress Denim (complete)....	17,033
Shirts	 13,061
Web equipment	 12,000
And the Department of Munitions and Supply give us as prospective deliveries for the four weeks following July 12, as follows:
Boots	   100,000
Drill Jackets	 47.200
Drill Trousers	 70,000
Battle Dress Serge (complete)_____	48,000
Battle Dress Denim (complete)....	53,400
Service shirts	 80,000
Web equipment	 30'000
Let me deal now with a few items of unit equipment.

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Ralston
Mechanical Vehicles
Our first and second division requirements, as well as those for ancillary troops in the United Kingdom, together with full maintenance requirements, have been fully met. We have progressed so satisfactorily with the supply for the third and fourth divisions and for coast defence troops, ancillary troops and training centres in Canada that we considered it possible to agree to give United Kingdom requirements certain priorities in two types in later months. In the meantime the supply for our own requirements is flowing in rapidly. I might tell the house that in designing these vehicles we have found it possible, instead of following meticulously the British army pattern, to adapt to our needs north American standards of design in commercial production, while attaining a high degree of interchangeability, and effecting substantial savings in cost.
Anti-gas Equipment
All troops proceeding overseas have been equipped with anti-gas respirators, and all coast defence garrisons have been similarly equipped. Respirators are being delivered in sufficient quantities to ensure an adequate supply for all our requirements, and a substantial number is also being furnished from our production for allied troops.
Rifles and Machine Guns
Canadian troops went overseas fully equipped with Lewis machine guns in lieu of Bren guns which at that time were not available. These Lewis guns have since been replaced in England by the issue of Bren guns, and are now in the hands of local defence troops. Bren gun production in Canada is a complete success. Production of Bren guns is ahead of contract. Substantial numbers have already been issued, and a steadily increasing flow of guns is issuing weekly from ordnance. With regard to rifles it is pretty well known, I think, that at the request of our allies in the emergency, we supplied them with a very large number of rifles. I am glad to say that we have been successful in replacing these rifles with another pattern, a limited supply of ammunition for which is already on hand. Further supplies are being arranged for. With this replacement my officers are satisfied that we are in a position to meet the situation adequately.
But in addition to this, eighty per cent of the machinery is secured and tenders have already been called for the erection of a rifle factory for the dominion's needs alone. I have had the layout of this plant examined by one of the best authorities in America, and I am assured that nothing has been left undone in the preparation for and layout of

this factory which could have been done by a most expert and efficient commercial organization in the United States.
Small arms ammunition is being manufactured at the dominion arsenal. Production has already been vastly increased; a further increase of fifty per cent is expected within the next month, and we have assurance that that capacity will in turn be doubled before the year ends.
Artillery
For obvious reasons I am not giving any details of our coast defence artillery. A full complement of our quick-firing 18-pounder equipment was shipped overseas with our first division at the request of the United Kingdom government.
A general redistribution of field artillery equipment has been made to provide for the requirements of the artillery training centres at Petawawa and Shilo, and also the divisional artillery units at these points.
Our supply of field guns has been recently augmented by a further complement with necessary ammunition.
Signal and Wireless Equipment
A great many items are included in the requirements for equipment in this branch. Telephone sets, switchboards, wireless sets, lamps, generator sets, battery charging sets, electric cable and reflectors are only a few of these.
Due to inability to procure in the United Kingdom adequate expected supplies of the desired British pattern, arrangements have had to be made for production of the British pattern here. In the meantime Canadian concerns are rapidly producing training equipment made up from standard commercial parts. Two of the largest concerns in Canada are working in cooperation on this equipment.
Ammunition, etc.
A substantial supply of shells is on hand and shells are being manufactured in a number of plants in Canada, while the dominion arsenal at Lindsay is expected to provide an additional source of supply very shortly.
I have not attempted to exhaust all items of equipment. My colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply will, I am sure, deal with the enormous capacity in Canada which is being utilized for the production of these and many other items.
I can further assure the house that the most vigorous and effective steps have been and are being taken, both by this department and by the Department of Munitions and Supply, to make Canada, to the maximum extent possible, self-supporting and self-sustaining.

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Ralston
We shall not rest ymtil we have produced or procured every item which will complete our military requirements in every respect to carry out effectively the tasks which we have set for ourselves and which I outlined in my opening statement.
Outline of Training-C.A.S.F. and N.P.A.M.
I should like now, just in a sentence or two, to deal generally with one or two aspects of our training.
1.	General system of training. The mechanization of the army and the increase in the number and complexity of the weapons used necessitate a considerably longer period of training than was required in 1914. As an example there are in an infantry battalion to-day twenty-four different kinds of skilled soldiers, most of whom must learn to use five different kinds of weapons. In the more technical arms the number is higher.
2.	Provision of instructors. As the house will realize, this is a tremendous task in view of the numbers to be trained. In order to provide the large numbers of instructors needed, district and central schools have been established and are conducting courses in weapon training, grenade training, signalling, engineering, anti-gas, bayonet fighting, physical training and other specialties. In addition, courses have been held for quartermasters, quartermaster-sergeants, cooks, motorcycle mechanics, searchlight operators, and general refresher courses in tactics and administration for senior officers.
3.	C.A.S.F. camps. Canadian active service force units have been concentrated primarily where facilities for their special type of training exist: artillery at Petawawa and at Shilo; engineers at Petawawa and Dundurn; signallers at Barriefield; the army service corps at Borden, where large and very modern workshops have been built. Training in armoured fighting vehicles and tanks is being carried out at Camp Borden, where special facilities are available.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that these matters of method with which I have detained the house so long will accord some assurance that not only have we a definite line of policy but we have some conception at least of the details which are involved in carrying them out.
I have spoken particularly of the military forces. No one recognizes more fully than I that adequate defence consists in the integration and coordination of the three arms of the service. I do not propose to go into any details with regard to the organization or operations of the navy or of the air force. Their separate functions will be dealt with by
my colleague, the Minister of National Defence for Air. The house will not expect me to disclose the defence plans for this country, but I can assure hon. members that the joint staffs committee have a plan prepared, submitted and approved for the proper defence of Canada, involving complete cooperation of the three services.
In conclusion, may I emphasize that the policy of the dominion government, carrying out the united purpose of the Canadian people, is to utilize the maximum resources of this country towards the winning of this war.
We are now engaged in the second phase of the war, a phase that has been called the battle of Britain. We are actively assisting in this phase by the employment in Great Britain and in British home waters of certain elements of our sea, land and air forces. In addition, we are participating in the protection of Newfoundland, of Iceland, and of certain islands in the Caribbean.
In Canada we are continuing to improve our organization for home defence, but at the same time we are taking the most active steps to prepare for the next phase of the war.
The nature of the next phase is dependent on the results of the present phase. If the independence of Great Britain can be maintained, and I am confident that it can be maintained, then the final phase will and must be of an offensive nature. Then the active service components of our defence forces will be operating in overseas theatres in cooperation with other empire forces. This war must be won, and no war can be won by defensive measures alone.
Canadians have made history in offensive warfare. There are no finer pages in the story of the great wrar than those which tell of the Canadian corps at Vimy, Amiens, Cambrai and Valenciennes. The time will surely come when we will take the offensive and when the empire beyond the seas, to use the words of Mr. Churchill, will "side by side with Britain, deliver the decisive blows which will liberate the world from the evil ambition of an evil man". There will be other Vimys and other Amiens.
Finally, then, our task is to see to it that with the support and the resolute determination of the people of this dominion, the fighting forces of Canada are trained and equipped, able and ready to put the full strength of this young country into those decisive blows, and help to make forever sure that, in the words of the Prime Minister of Britain, "the dark curse of Hitler is lifted from our age". To that task, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I will give our best.

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Power
Air Forces and Naval Services


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Mr. Speaker, the work of the Department of National Defence for Air can, for purposes of convenience and perhaps for clarity of expression, be somewhat arbitrarily divided into the exposition of the operational work, and that connected with the organization and administration of the joint empire training plan. With respect to operations it will be necessary again to subdivide the subject into operations overseas and operations under the home war establishment.
Overseas, Canada is represented at the present time by many hundreds of its young men. Some were trained in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Some went over of their own accord to join the Royal Air Force. A large number of those have been formed into a Canadian squadron of the Royal Air Force. This squadron has already had contact with the enemy. Unfortunately there have been many casualties; but we learn with some degree of pride from the ever-lengthening list of awards and decorations that these young men now in the Royal Air Force bid fair to emulate those who twenty years ago brought honour and glory to the name of Canada.
Besides these young men in the Royal Air Force there are overseas distinctly Canadian contingents, one of which left early in February, and others which have gone forward within a comparatively short time-some hastened by the events in Europe. The latter have their own aircraft, are composed of pilots trained in our own airports, and groundsmen and aircraftsmen recruited, raised and trained in Canada. At the present time they are cooperating with the first Canadian division, or are employed as fighters in the defence of Britain.
Besides these men overseas we have also what is known as the home war establishment. The home war establishment has as its principal duty the defence of Canada. Its function is and has been to carry out reconnaissance duties, to engage in anti-submarine patrol, 'to provide aerial protection to our convoys going overseas, to Newfoundland or to the Caribbean. Besides this, it is charged with the duty of training men for its own operations and for overseas. It also had rendered invaluable service to the British commonwealth air training plan by the lending of its personnel and of its facilities in the early stages of that plan. Moreover, it is at the present time busily occupied in strengthening the defences of Canada in the way of aerodromes, airports and hangars. And only within the last few days it has been found necessary to authorize

the expenditure of an amount of something like $6,000,000 in addition to the $7,000,000 reported to the house in a statement I made on June 13, for the purpose of expanding, enlarging and building new aerodromes to be used in connection with the defence of Canada. If hon. members were to ask me whether the home war establishment is fully, completely and adequately equipped with aircraft for the full defence of Canada, quite frankly and bluntly I would be obliged to say no. The extent of our coast-lines is such that it is unlikely that at any one time the whole can be so adequately patrolled that it will be, so to speak, perfectly airtight. But even were we to contemplate, as we do, something less than such a perfect but, in practice, unattainable arrangement, we would still at this time have other factors to consider. We must bear in mind that at the present time the tactical situation is that so long as Great Britain remains in supreme command of the seas, as she is at the present time-and as we have reason to believe she will remain- the scale of possible enemy attack on our country will be so necessarily restricted that it can be met, sustained and almost certainly overcome.
In consequence, although our aircraft equipment resources at the moment may not be so great as might be considered desirable, we would not wish to make good our shortages by depriving Great Britain of supplies essential to her immediate needs from sources to which both Canada and the United Kingdom have access. In other words, from the air point of view at least, Great Britain is now our first line of defence, just as Canada might eventually become the first line of defence of this north American continent.
Obviously the first duty with which we were charged, equally from the point of view of our protection as from that of cooperation, was to assist in fortifying as speedily and as completely as possible our present front line. This has been and is being done. That course was the logical commonsense course to take. But taking a realistic view, we feel that we must not overlook the possibility of a shift in the front line, and provision has been made and continues to be made daily and hourly to strengthen and increase our home defence. To this end we are making the best use of our time and energy to provide accommodation for aerodromes, and personnel for such aircraft as should be at our disposal if unfortunately the active defence of our own Canadian territory becomes an actual necessity, instead of a possible contingency.

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Power
Now, with respect to the British commonwealth air training plan, that air training [DOT]plan is a vast enterprise which the United Kingdom has stated that it regards as Canada's greatest contribution in this war. Through the plan, undertaken jointly by the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand there is assured an inexhaustible supply of trained airmen to carry on for years, if needs be, the war against Germany. This agreement was signed in December, 1939, its programme designed to begin training officers and men as soon as possible, but to increase its production to full pitch in 1942. In short, it was a three-year plan. Canada was to administer the plan, and the Royal Canadian Air Force was to organize and operate it. At that time the cost was estimated at something like $600,000,000, of which Canada's share was to be $350,000,000, including the entire cost of the initial training and elementary flying training schools. Canada was to provide, moreover, about eighty per cent of the pupils, and about ninety per cent of the personnel of the Royal Canadian Air Force was to serve as administrators and instructors. This, then, was the plan as it was designed.
To-day is another day. The turn of events in Europe has in no way deterred the participating countries from their determination to carry on the long-range aspects of the plan, but it has prompted them to speed it up in many directions. This we have done, as is apparent from the fact that personnel has been increased, construction has been undertaken far ahead of time, and schools are being opened months before the dates of schedule. Indicative of the acceleration of this schedule is the fact that to-day there are twenty-two schools in operation, although the original plan called for operation at this time of only fifteen. Eight elementary flying training schools are operating, in place of two; two initial training schools are operating in place of one. Besides the various types of schools, there are in operation to-day twenty recruiting centres, three manning depots, three equipment depots and one repair depot.
Plans have been completed to finish construction this year of all aerodromes, hangars and other buildings for all schools scheduled to open in 1941, whereas much of this work was going to be carried out next year. By July 1, seventy-eight of the eighty-eight aerodrome sites had been considered and approved and work was progressing on sixty-three. To-day an additional four sites have been approved and work is progressing on seventy-eight. Perhaps the house will bear with me
while I describe as briefly as I can the system of training which is carried out under the scheme. Throughout the country we have twenty recruiting centres from which enlisted [DOT]men are sent to one of three manning depots where for two weeks they learn the ABC's of military life. From here the pilots, observers and air gunners go to one of three initial training schools where for four weeks they learn the fundamentals of aviation.
After this they go different ways. The pilots have then eight weeks at one of twenty-six elementary flying schools, fourteen weeks at one of sixteen service flying schools and two weeks at one of ten bombing schools. The air observers have twelve weeks at one of ten air observers' schools, six weeks at a bombing and gunnery school and four weeks at one of two air navigation schools. The air gunners take a twenty-four weeks course at one of four wireless schools and four weeks at a bombing and gunnery school.
It is not possible for the full complement of schools to be opened simultaneously. The necessary instructional staff must be provided. Aerodromes have to be developed, and buildings erected. Aircraft must be made available, either from Canadian sources, Great Britain or the United States. Maintenance crews have to be trained in order that pilots, air observers and air gunners may embark on the flying phase of their training with complete confidence that their aircraft are in perfect condition. Administrative personnel, fully familiar with air force procedure, pay and allowances, and a multitude of other pertinent subjects must also be made available in order that the schools may be operated with a maximum of efficiency. Provision must also be made for aircraft overhaul and repair.
In order, therefore, to bring this plan into operation, we require (1) sites and buildings; (2) staff, both operating and maintenance, and (3) equipment.
With regard to (1) sites and buildings, on June 13 I described to the house the method followed in the selection of sites, the clearing, grading and preparation of aerodromes, and indicated in some detail what the construction programme was in the way of schools buildings, hangars, et cetera. I also pointed out that speed was one of the essentials. I should like to say here a word in tribute to the admirable way in which the construction industry of this country has enabled us to meet our problem. Through the thoughtful cooperation of its leaders and the magnificent response of labour, we have been able to surmount what might have been impeding obstacles. The programme is well under way, and we are
RKVISiD DnOH

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Power
to-day seeing everywhere across Canada visible evidence that our construction industry is efficient, capable, and, above all, expeditious.
Now, with regard to personnel, there were needed flying officers, to be used as instructors, administrative officers, equipment officers, photographic officers, accountant officers, supply officers, armament officers, and navigation officers. Moreover, thousands of persons were required to look after maintenance of equipment. All, or nearly all, of these had to be trained. So, there were established equipment schools, accountant schools, schools of administration and technical training schools for such trades as aero-engine mechanics, air-frame mechanics, armourers, instrument makers, engineering inspectors, motorboat crews, and finally in order to provide adequately for the physical comfort and well-being of our men we established a chef school. These are all now in operation and rapidly turning out graduates to take their places in the general scheme. For instance, the technical school at St. Thomas, starting August 24 and every week thereafter, will graduate 120 aircraftmen of mixed trades, that is, air-engine mechanics, air-frame mechanics, fabric workers, instrument makers, electricians and all allied air force trades. The length of the course is twenty-four weeks. The capacity of the school is approximately 2,500. There are now 2,009 men there in training. The total output of trainees to date is over 700. As I have already said, during the month of August we will turn them out at the rate of 120 a week. The procedure is that 120 aircraftmen will graduate every Friday night and 120 new recruits will take their place the following morning.
In addition to mechanics, we are also training equipment officers and accounting officers. At the present time there are fifty-seven equipment officers in training and thirty accounting officers and eighty stores officers. Also in training are 170 equipment clerks and 150 accounting clerks, and 331 equipment assistants and storekeepers. There are to-day 1,216 officers trained and in training for the administration, maintenance and instruction of the plan. Besides these, there are 10,524 other ranks serving in the plan and 2,298 civilians. That number, therefore, a total of 14,038, may be regarded as the staff, and those in training for staff positions, required to run the plan this year.
As regards the pupils, who, after all, are the important and essential element in this scheme, and for whose training all these preparations have been made, I would say that two months ago there were 488 pupils in training as pilots, air observers and gunners. To-day we have 2,643, and this number will increase steadily in the coming months.

We shall increase this number of pupils by the accession within a comparatively short time of a number of New Zealand, Australian and United Kingdom pupils who will be coming to this country for their advanced training, but I do not expect the house will ask me to give either the date of their arrival or the numbers composing these contingents. Thus far we have had no difficulty in procuring recruits. Indeed, our problem has been to explain to the great number of men we have been unable to accept why their generous offers of service were not immediately put to use. The public has seemingly found it hard to appreciate that this training plan is much like a university, but a university which starts from nothing. In an established university, when on graduation day numbers of our young men step off the platform proudly clutching that parchment roll which entitles them to initials which may mean they are our future lawyers, doctors, engineers, accountants, et cetera, it is realized by all that the university which confers these degrees has, throughout the years, built up faculties of law, medicine, engineering, et cetera; has provided the variety of equipment necessary thereto and has most certainly provided the buildings to accommodate these students. The students will go forth equipped with the knowledge that they have obtained, but greatly assisted by having readily available the experience and accomplishment of others now practising in their chosen professions. And, individually, they will have had from three to five years' training before they are qualified.
In the upbuilding of these pioneer universities of the air, before our graduate can step forth as qualified, land had to be surveyed, sites located, buildings constructed, equipment obtained and installed. Professors had to receive instruction as such. Faculties, so to speak, had to be established, pupils recruited and training undertaken and completed, training in the knowledge, management, repair and maintenance of perhaps the most complicated machine in the world. All this in a period of twenty-six weeks.
When our graduate goes forth as qualified, he stands alone. He will not have beside him, when his real test comes, the advantage of advice from mature years and successful experience. It is essential that this instruction shall be thorough, efficient and complete, for on these graduates depends not only the success of the plan, but in large measure the lives and future destiny of the nation.
Now with respect to equipment for the joint air training plan, as the house knows, the training aircraft for the joint air training plan can be roughly divided into two classes, elementary trainers and advanced trainers.

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Power
This classification is not strictly scientific, because, for example, the Anson, which is used for twin engine intermediate training, is also used in the air observers schools, but this division is useful as a brief description. Of these two types the former, that is to say the elementary trainers, are produced in Canada, some with engines obtained from the United Kingdom, some with engines obtained from the United States. Orders for considerable quantities of these planes and engines were placed a considerable time ago, and deliveries have been proceeding well in advance of schedule. With respect to aircraft of this type, that is to say the elementary training type, we face the future with complete assurance.
It is with respect to the more advanced trainers that some difficulty has arisen. These, as the house knows, were to be furnished by the United Kingdom as part of its contribution to the joint air training plan. Some of these advanced trainers were to be produced in the United Kingdom. Others were to have been purchased on account of the plan in the United States and sent on to Canada. We have received a number of these aircraft from both sources, but during the month of May we were informed that the schedules of deliveries from Great Britain, already somewhat behind, were to be completely interrupted for a period of at least two months. This meant in plain words that we would have a serious immediate shortage of certain types of planes vitally necessary for training. In addition, there was quite evidently before us the possibility that at the expiration of the two months' period referred to, it would in fact not be found possible for the United Kingdom to resume shipments.
To give the house some conception of what is needed in 'the way of quantities of such advanced trainers, may I say that each service flying training school, which is the school where the pilot pupils do their intermediate and advanced training, requires, when in full operation, about 100 planes. They do not need them all at the same time. They can begin with about twenty-five planes, but within the course of a few weeks they must have the full complement as the full complement of pupils arrives. When it is recalled, that there are sixteen of these schools in the plan, it will be seen that the total quantities involved are impressive. It is true that not all of these schools can be opened immediately, but the house may rest assured that we are anxious to open as many as possible as soon as we can.
It will be obvious, therefore, that the situation I have described was one which caused us the greatest concern. It will scarcely
95826-133J
be necessary for me to add that such concern was in no way tinged with any feeling of criticism for those in the United Kingdom who, we well knew, had not reached this decision without the fullest appreciation of the difficulties it would create for the plan.
Under those circumstances, when the plan itself appeared to be in jeopardy, we took the only course which I think the Canadian people would have liked us to take. We accelerated all other factors of the scheme in the hope that aircraft would eventually be forthcoming, and then proceeded to make an intensive effort to make good on our aircraft deficiencies. This action in making good on our aircraft deficiencies took the following forms: We proceeded to the preparation of production of Anson air frames. It will be remembered that under the British empire training scheme contract only the Anson wings were to be manufactured in Canada. In order to proceed with the production of the air frames, a considerable quantity of engineering was required in order that we might get into a position to produce the completed frame. Next an engine was required to fit such frame or a modification thereof. A large supply of suitable engines was purchased from the United States, and we are now assured that we shall shortly be in full production of complete Anson. aircraft.
Besides this, the engineers of the department took steps to procure a new type of single engine advanced trainer designed to take an American engine. This aircraft has been developed here and has been found satisfactory after thorough tests. It was especially designed to facilitate quantity production on short notice and can be very usefully employed on intermediate training. The supply of engines which we were able to obtain in the United States is available for this type of plane, and there is a satisfactory assurance that in regard to these engines the future will be provided for.
Nevertheless, notwithstanding the progress made, it was clear that some months would have to elapse before these planes would start coming in, and that there would therefore be a gap in deliveries which would mean serious shortage in the immediate future. This gap had to be filled, and it could only be filled by the purchase of existing aircraft in the United States or from current production in that country. Just at this point I should like to interject that one cannot think of this problem of aircraft supply in general terms. Our requirements were not for planes in general, but for planes of a specific type or types-twin-engine planes for various purposes, high-powered advanced trainers for

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Power
our service flying training schools-precisely those types of plane that are most difficult to obtain in quantity.
As we were conscious of the difficulty of obtaining adequate quantities of precisely the types needed, we naturally decided to accept anything available that could within reason be made to serve our purpose. Here again I am happy to be able to report a substantial measure of success. Not only were available United States planes acquired in considerable numbers, but fortunately for us the British purchasing commission, through the indefatigable efforts of Mr. Purvis and others, came into possession of a substantial number of trainers of the Harvard type, which were originally intended for France, and which the United Kingdom authorities have agreed to place at our disposal immediately.
Finally, we have only recently been advised by the United Kingdom that it is prepared almost at once to resume shipments to us of the particular kinds of training aircraft of which we stand most in need. Looking, therefore, at the whole situation as it stands to-day, I think we are entitled to express a considerable degree of optimism. This does not mean that our troubles are over. There is always plenty of room for delay and disappointment between promise and performance, between planning and actual delivery. Arrangements tnade will have to be closely followed up and prosecuted with vigour.
In this connection, I should like to pay a tribute to the indispensable aid we have received from the Minister of Munitions and Supply and his department in dealing with this problem. Not only has he given us of his own time and counsel and been willing to journey to the United States on our behalf several times, but he has shown energy in enlarging and fortifying his department with increased executive and technical personnel to meet the new demands we have been forced to make upon it.
I should like at this stage of my remarks also to pay a tribute to one who had a great deal to do with the beginnings of this empire training scheme-the late Norman Rogers; and, as my colleague the Minister of National Defence has done, I wish to remind the house that not so long ago the work now divided among three was handled by one man, the late Norman Rogers. I do not intend to say any more than that; it is a fact which requires no adorning. But I did just wish to recall his name to the house on this day when the work of the three services over which he presided is being placed before hon. members.
To sum up, with respect to the air training plan; though only in its very beginnings, it

has already had its trials and tribulations, its vicissitudes, dark days, et cetera. There were those of us who in our impatience and, perhaps, despair, were ready to scrap it altogether. It was and is difficult of comprehension to an eager and impatient people. But there is to-day a better and clearer understanding. After all, a little reflection and a sense of comparative value will bring one to this conclusion, one which so far as I know has not as yet been publicly expressed. If it takes, as it did in the last war and again in this one, at least six months to train an infantryman, the least technical of all soldiers, why should it not take twenty-eight weeks to train an air pilot, who handles alone one of the most complicated pieces of mechanism known to humanity? There is, I know, a sentiment in the public that the plan is liable to be strangled or impeded by what is known as "brass-hatism". This is a widespread sentiment. Many of us have heard of it. Some have felt the impact of it. I can only say this, that as a Canadian, with I hope the civilian trend of thought, I have found the regular permanent officers of the force not only fully alive to the importance of the plan, but thoroughly imbued with the determination to make it go. Associated with these permanent men are other high officers either from the reserve or taken directly from civilian life, men who six or eight months ago were leading engineers, architects, businessmen, commercial aviators and business administrators. If any red tape ever existed, it disappeared long before my time and they have been too busy ever since to wind up any new rolls. The plan is proceeding; the work is progressing, and when it seemed bound to slow down and perhaps be halted, we accelerated it. To-day we are not yet out of the woods, far from it; but we believe we can see a picture, not finished, not complete, but somewhat less gray and nebulous than it was. We have had our share of disappointment. Mistakes and blunders we make and commit every day. We endeavour to repair the one and to remedy the other. We need help. Tell us what is lacking; point out what is wrong. If possible, tell us how to repair our mistakes; show us where the drawbacks are.
Those of us who are closely associated with the plan firmly and steadfastly believe it will win through. We have been told that it is Canada's most important contribution to the common effort and ultimate victory. We are determined that it shall be.
Perhaps before passing to the next subject which I propose to take up, namely, the Royal Canadian Navy, I may be permitted to mention-because we are in a sense discussing the estimates of this department-that the

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Power
estimates, so far as we can see what may happen in the future will, as regards the air force, be considerably increased.
On May 21, 1940, the then Minister of Finance, now the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), in introducing the resolution in connection with the war appropriation bill of 8700,000,000, gave certain estimates as being the figures of proposed expenditure during the fiscal year 1940-41 for air services. The figures were.
Home war	Commitments
establishment.. $86,624,403 99 $10,457,471 90
Overseas
establishment.. 13,382,598 00		
British commonwealth air
training	 138,417.264 00	24,272,432 00

I must advise the house that in all probability there will be an increased request for war appropriations, in respect of the home war establishment, of something like $10,700,000 for the purpose of constructing aerodromes and buildings, the purchase of guns, bombs and munitions, and an increase in new personnel; and there will be an increase in the amount required for the British commonwealth air training plan of something like 854,000,000, of which $42,000,000 will be re-imbursible by the British government. The remaining $12,000,000 is to provide for additional expenditure in aerodromes, hangars and buildings, and also for additional personnel and an increase with respect to machine guns, oil, gas et cetera.
I may inform the house that the strength of the Royal Canadian Air Force at present, as oompared with what it was in March, is as follows:
Officers Airmen Total
March 31	
1,223	9,187	10.410April 30	
1.307	10,824	12,131May 31	
1.418	12.331	13,749June 30	
1.631	15,870	17,501July 24	
1,765	17,688	19,453
It will be seen that the personnel has doubled in numbers during the past five months and it is anticipated that these numbers will steadily increase from now on.
Now I take up. on behalf of my colleague the Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs, an exposition of the work of the Royal Canadian Navy. In August, 1939, the Royal Canadian Navy was equipped with fifteen vessels of varying sizes, from one small sailing craft to six modern destroyers, and naval personnel on active service numbered 1,774 all ranks. When war broke out, the navy undertook the responsibility of protecting thousands of miles of widely separated coast-line, and Canadian ports suddenly achieved unprecedented importance in the
world-wide network of British controlled merchant shipping. On the day hostilities began, large groups of cargo-carrying ships began to gather in our ports for protection and guidance.
Small though the Royal Canadian Navy had been, it was a trained nucleus capable, without confusion or waste, of immediate expansion according to pre-arranged plans. The naval staff had to cope with greatly increased responsibilities and additional work. When the Admiralty wirelessed queries as to when the convoy system could be commenced, the reply from naval service headquarters at Ottawa was, "immediately."
Six days after a state of war had been declared between Canada and Germany, the first group of convoyed ships sailed from Canada. Officers and men of the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, professional seamen from the ranks of the merchant service and fishing fleets, who, in many instances, gave up lucrative positions to serve their country, were mobilized. So, too, was the personnel of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, officers and men of the twenty reserve headquarters throughout the dominion. Incidentally, the reserve headquarters have proven a steady and successful method of recruiting for the navy. It is at these centres that young men train in their spare time and prepare themselves for service afloat. In the naval service all men, from the lowest rating to the highest rank, are specialists and need an elementary knowledge of their craft before going afloat.
During those first days of war, four destroyers were moved to the east coast of Canada, and at the same time a fleet of auxiliary craft came into being as the navy took over vessels from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Department of Transport, Department of Mines and Resources, Department of Public Works, Department of Fisheries and private sources. Where practicable, the crews of the government vessels, on a voluntary basis, were kept intact and given naval status. All had to be outfitted and the crews trained for new duties including mine-sweeping, anti-submarine patrol and examination. In addition, fifteen vessels of the fishermen's reserve, with their crews, were called to active service.
An extensive naval expansion programme was put into effect.
On October 19, 1939, the destroyer H.M.S. Kcmpenfcldt was acquired and became H.M.C.S. Assiniboine, later to distinguish herself in the Caribbean.
We took over three liners of the "Prince" class, Prince David, Prince Robert and Prince Henry, and these are being converted into armed merchant cruisers.

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Power
An extensive shipbuilding programme was planned under which we are building sixty-four anti-submarine patrol vessels called corvettes, of which ten are for the British, and we are building eighteen mine-sweepers for our own account. These were all under contract early in the year and some have already been launched. One was launched two days ago and another is being launched in Montreal to-day. This programme includes the building of twenty more mine-sweepers over a three-year period. As of July twenty-five keels were laid for twenty-seven corvettes and seven mine-sweepers, in addition to the ten keels laid for British account. This programme has resulted in very great activity in Canadian shipyards, many of which are working at full capacity.
Arrangements have been completed for the building in England of two additional destroyers for our navy, and these are now under construction.
The destroyer recently lost, H.M.C.S. Fraser, has been replaced and will shortly be in commission. Including this recent acquisition there are to-day 113 vessels in active commission in the Royal Canadian Navy with a personnel of nearly 9,000 officers and men. In the very near future, with the addition of the vessels that I have mentioned as being under construction or contracted for, together with others which it is planned to acquire, an additional 100 vessels will be added to that force. This will present a remarkable contrast to the fifteen craft and 1,774 personnel with which we entered the war.
The ships in the service of the Royal Canadian Navy have had their full share of onerous and dangerous duties since the outbreak of war. Some of these ships have been assigned to duty on the Atlantic patrol, and they have carried out their important work in all seasons and in all sorts of weather with remarkable efficiency and conspicuous courage. Other ships have done duty in Caribbean waters. Still others have seen service across the Atlantic, notably in evacuation work from continental channel ports. Of these ships one destroyer, the Fraser, was lost in the performance of hazardous duties off Bordeaux, France, where she collided with a British ship. As a result of the collision, forty-five men of the Fraser were lost. That the toll was not greater must be attributed in large measure to the skill and gallantry of the officers and men of another Canadian destroyer, the Resti-gouche. In her work of rescue the Restigouche was handled with great skill and determination by her commander, and the ship has been singled out for praise by the British naval authorities.
I am able to announce-and I think it is the first time that the announcement has been made-that the same Canadian ship, the Restigouche again distinguished herself in rescuing the survivors from the Arandora Star, which was lost while carrying interned aliens. The Restigouche saved several members of the crew of the Arandora Star as well as about seven hundred of the internees. More than half of the total number rescued from the Arandora Star owe their lives to the coolness and gallantry of the officers and men of the Restigouche on this occasion.
The organization and control of convoys from an eastern Canadian port is one of the most important parts of our navy's duties. Since the war began, over two thousand ships have been dispatched from this port alone, and of tha number only six have been lost by enemy action while in convoy. The approximate deadweight tonnage carried in convoy has been 16 million tons, and the value of cargoes carried and protected reaches extremely important figures.
In addition to the safeguarding of the movement of goods, there has been the protection provided for the movement of troops from Canada and Newfoundland, not only across the Atlantic to the homeland but to other zones as well.
The naval dockyards have also been active. Conversions, repairs and construction have been carried out not only on our own ships but also on vessels of the Royal Navy, the French navy and the Dutch navy. Such services have been provided to capital ships, cruisers, armed merchant cruisers, destroyers and submarines. Provision has been made for the installation of defence equipment on fifty merchant ships, and also for the work of demagnetizing merchant ships against the menace of magnetic mines. We are also preparing to expand dockyard accommodation on both coasts and on the St. Lawrence river, for future requirements.
Canadian mine-sweepers go out every day in all sorts of wind and weather and sweep the channel that is to be used by ships during the next twenty-four hours. No more monotonous task can be imagined, unrelieved as yet by any sign of enemy action, but still these officers and men in their little ships carry' on day after day, to make the approaches to our harbours safe for the ships that carry empire trade across the seas.
One of the most important phases of naval work is that of wireless communication. As the only possible method of communicating with ships at sea, and the quickest and most reliable method for covering vast distances, naval wireless signalling has

Canada's War Effort-Mr. Power
achieved a remarkably high state of efficiency. There are three principal naval shore wireless stations in Canada. These stations are equipped with the most up-to-date apparatus and are the equal of any naval station in the world. They are fully manned and in constant operation for twenty-four hours a day and form vital links in the empire's communications. The volume of messages to be handled is so large that as many as three lines of communication are frequently being worked at the same time. One of the main disadvantages of wireless is the fact that anyone equipped with a suitable receiver can read it; and in order to provide the high security essential in war time, every message transmitted has to be cyphered. As an example of the huge amount of work involved, since the outbreak of war, a certain naval wireless transmission station has handled an average of 180,000 five-figure groups every month, or 6,000 groups every twenty-four hours. In order to cope with this volume of traffic, the cyphering and distributing staffs at this particular station consist of over fifty specially trained civil service clerks working night and day in eight-hour watches.
The cooperation required from the Royal Canadian Navy in the empire war effort includes transatlantic and transpacific traffic which has, since the outbreak of war, been exceedingly heavy. Organization was rapidly extended to take care of this heavy responsibility and has had valuable support from the personnel of the Department of Transport engaged in work of a similar nature. The volume shows signs of increasing substantially.
Ships are not the only defence of the principal and strategically important ports. An elaborate system of fortification and control has placed them in an extremely strong position against attack. Elaborate harbour and coastal defences involving large expenditures have been made at certain Canadian ports on both east and west coasts and this policy is being extended to other ports as well.
In addition to the work of Canadians serving on Canadian ships in the Royal Canadian Navy, I should here refer to the fact that officers and men of the Royal Canadian Navy are serving in many units of the Royal Navy and fresh drafts of Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve officers and ratings are being sent to England for training and service. Eight of these have been recommended for the quality of their service in the face of the enemy, and recently the names of four young officers of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve were cited in the
London Gazette for gallantry. Canadians were thrilled on Saturday last when the announcement appeared in the press of this country that Lieutenant Golby, a native of Victoria, had been awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for gallantry in the discharge of land operations on the continent.
I have given only a bare outline of the work of the Royal Canadian Navy since the outbreak of war. That work as I have already intimated, has grown greatly in the last ten months; it will of necessity be even more greatly expanded as time goes on. Indeed, so important is the place of the Royal Canadian Navy in the scheme of Canadian preparedness that, three weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced to the house that a Department of Naval Services under the direction of a minister had been created. This department now takes its place beside the Department of National Defence and the Department of National Defence for Air.
Brief though my statement on the Royal Canadian Navy has necessarily been, I hope that it has been sufficiently long to give to this house and to this country some idea of the Canadian navy's accomplishment and of our plans for its further development. Officers and men of the Royal Canadian Navy naturally look upon the Royal Navy as a pattern and model. Our Royal Canadian Navy personnel have shown themselves to be worthy of their prototype. The great tradition of one thousand years has inspired and encouraged our naval officers and men. I know that they will be worthy of this heritage; I believe that they will write a new and a glowing page in the record of Canada's contribution to the defence of freedom, justice, order and truth in this war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I might be allowed a word, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), who follows, is likely to speak for an hour. I was going to suggest that it might meet with the approval of the house if we now adjourned this review and until eleven o'clock were to take up one or two items on the order paper on which we might agree. We could resume the review in the morning.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
think that would be satisfactory, but I am going to suggest that the house adjourn. I have been here for nearly eight hours, and I certainly find this recital very tiring. It is altogether too long.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought my hon. friend was anxious to have a full statement. I believe he will be appreciative of it when he has a chance to read it over in detail.
Farm Loan Board


Richard Burpee Hanson: About
two-thirds of it is eye-wash.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend must be tired to-night or he would not speak in that way.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I read
the long statement myself, and I know eyewash when I see it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to oblige my hon. friend in the matter of adjourning. I see the hon. member for Dan-forth (Mr. Harris) here. Perhaps he might be prepared to take up order No. 11, which has to do with the Canadian National Railways. If he were prepared to do so, the bill based on the resolution might be introduced.


Joseph Henry Harris: We are ready,
but the Prime Minister must realize that other hon. members are also interested, and they did not anticipate that this would come on to-night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
Tuesday, July 30, 1940

(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
military SERVICE-VOLUNTARY ENLISTMENTS


Mr. CRETE:: At the present time can one enlist voluntarily (a) in the Canadian active service for service overseas, (b) in the permanent active militia for service in Canada, (c) in the non-permanent active militia for home defence?


James Layton Ralston: In the statement that I am going to make to the house I shall deal quite fully with the inquiries contained in this question. Perhaps the hon. member will allow it to be dropped.


Georges Parent: Dropped.
munitions AND SUPPLIES-CONTRACTS


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	What is the total value of the contracts let by the Department of Munitions and Supply and its predecessor purchasing bodies since war was declared to date, for (a) war material and supplies of all kinds, (b) construction contracts?
2.	What is the total value of the contracts let by the Department of Munitions and Supply and its predecessor purchasing bodies since war broke out to date, to persons or companies in the province of New Brunswick for (a) war materials and supplies of all kinds, (b) construction contracts?
3.	What are the names of the persons or companies in New Brunswick to whom contracts have been let by the Department of Munitions and Supply or its predecessor purchasing bodies since war was declared, what was the nature of the goods or services contracted for in each case, and what was the price of each contract?

Questions


Mr. HOWE:: I replied orally to this question on a former occasion, and the leader of the opposition said that he would consider the possibility of having it dropped.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister let it stand for a day or two? It must have escaped my mind; I forgot all about it.


Georges Parent: Stands.