[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization-Mr. Weir.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. G. TURGEON (Cariboo) presented the first report of the special committee on reconstruction and reestablishment, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved:: That the reports of the Canadian wheat board, tabled in the House of Commons for the crop
years 1939-40 and 1940-41 be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization and that authority be granted to print from day to day 500 copies in English and 200 copies in French of the minutes of proceedings and evidence to be taken by the said committee on such reports, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. COTE:: How many government employees are receiving, in addition to pensions or allowances granted for their services in the last war, salaries of (1) $2,000 to $2,999, (2) $3,000 to $3,999, (3) $4,000 to $4,999, (4) $5,000 or over, (a) in the federal civil service, (b) in government-owned companies ?


Louis Côté: I wish to withdraw this question, with the reservation that at a later date I may put a new question along more specific lines.
Question dropped.


WHEAT ACREAGE REDUCTION BONUS
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the persons to whom cheques were issued (a) for over $10,000, (b) for $5,000 to $10,000 on wheat acreage reduction bonus?
2.	How were the amounts made up?
3.	How much did each receive?


Mr. GARDINER:: We have been refusing this type of information to many companies and municipalities and to others who are desirous of knowing what cash is going into the hands of individuals. I do not think it is proper to publish the information that is asked for, and I would ask that the question be dropped.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: It may be all right to refuse it to companies, but is it to be refused to the House of Commons? Are we not to know where the public moneys are going?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think it is in the public interest, when amounts are being paid to a large number of individuals across a certain section of the country, to put all the information with regard to these matters into the hands of the public generally by having it placed on Hansard. I would suggest that the question be dropped.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I want to join in the protest made by the leader of the opposition. Too often it is said in this house that information cannot be given because it would not be in the public interest to give it. When it comes
Questions

to the payment of money under statutes enacted by parliament we should know the persons to whom that money is going. I object strenuously to this manner of dealing with questions of this kind, and I hope in this case the question will not be dropped.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the house is of opinion that questions should be asked and answered, which result in the publication of the names of 186,000 farmers across western Canada, I cannot, of course, object. This is a section of them and if you can publish this group of them you can publish them all. We have appeals made to us by implement companies, mortgage companies and others for lists of these farmers with the amounts that have been paid to them, and we have refused them in all cases. An indirect way to get the information would be to have the names and addresses and amounts published in the records of this house. I have no objection to doing it if the house thinks it fair to do that kind of thing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister's statement is no answer to the principle involved. It evades the issue. What do we care whether the implement manufacturers get their money? The people of Canada have a right to know who is getting $10,000 under the wheat acreage reduction plan.


Mr. CHURCH:: Where is the auditor
general?


Mr. HAZEN:: A return was filed in the house according to which two farmers in the west received over $10,000. If I remember correctly there were just fifty-six who received between $5,000 and $10,000. To furnish the names of those men would not take a great deal of time. Public money is being expended for this purpose, and I think we are entitled to the information.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no objection to giving the hon. member or any other hon. member of the house the names of those two men, or even the fifty-six. But should we establish the practice of putting on the records of the house the names of the whole 186,000? That is what it would amount to; for if the hon. member can get half a dozen he can get them all.
Question stands.


ASSISTANCE TO AUSTRALIA
Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	Was the Canadian high commissioner in Australia authorized to state that although Canada had a large force in the United Kingdom her immediate concern was the defence of the Pacific area and particularly Australia and that he had come to Australia to discover if there
[Mr. Coldwell.l
was anything which Canada could do for Australia; that Canada had sent troops to Hong Kong as part of the defence of Australia; but she (Canada) could do more; and if Australia desired any action by Canada, she (Australia) had only to say the word?
2.	Has there been any exchange of notes or correspondence of any kind between the government of Canada and the government of Australia upon the subject matter of the said statement of the Canadian high commissioner?
3.	Has the government of Australia either directly or indirectly asked for any kind of help from the Canadian government, and if so, what help and what sort of help was requested?
4.	Was there any suggestion made by the Australian government with a view to ascertaining from the Canadian government what its answer would, or might he, if a request for assistance were to be made by the Australian government ?
5.	Did any other agency make any such request, or suggestion, on behalf of or for the benefit of Australia?


Mr. MAYBANK:: It has been made to
appear to me that it is not advisable to answer some parts of this question. Therefore I am content that it be dropped.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon.
member may be willing that it be dropped, but I am not. I do not know just what my rights are in the matter. I hold in my hand a copy of the "Bulletin of International News," issued by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, on page 63 of which I find this statement from Australia under date of January 14:
The Canadian High Commissioner-[DOT]
Presumably General Odium.
-told the press in Melbourne that though Canada had a large force in the United Kingdom her immediate concern was the defence of the Pacific area, and particularly Australia. Canadians realized that Australia's danger was greater than their own, and he had come there to discover if there was anything which Canada could do, and to see that it was done. She had sent troops to Hong Kong as part of the defence of Australia, but she could do more, and if Australia wanted it she only had to say the word.
Was the high commissioner authorized by the government to make that statement? If not, was he disciplined for making it? I ask the question in the light of the announcement made by the Prime Minister yesterday. What is the position of Canada?


Ralph Maybank: I rise to a point of order -I am the one who started this. In the first place, I submit that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has no right at this moment to put the question he has been putting. Second, with reference to the question itself, I submit that before the question is put to the house I have the right to ask that it be dropped, or to drop it, which I did before he rose.

Questions as Orders jor Returns
I may say frankly that I dropped the question with a good deal of reluctance, but it is because of representations made to me that I do so. I cannot of course prevent the hon. gentleman from himself putting the question on the order paper, but so far as the question in my name is concerned, it is my right to ask that it be dropped.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I say to
my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and to the house that it was I who asked the hon. member if he felt it necessary to ask this question in view of the information I gave the house yesterday with reference to the government's intentions in the matter of assisting Australia at the present time. In the first place the question is not correctly worded; it seeks to convey information rather than to obtain it, and on that score it might easily have been ruled out of order. But apart from that, unless it can be shown that there is going to be something gained by entering into matters of controversy, which should not be considered matters of controversy at all, I would not think it is in the public interest that the question should be answered. I so informed the hon. member who asked the question, and I still hold that view.
As to whether or not General Odium made the representations indicated here I am unable to say.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Prime Minister can say whether he was authorized by the government to make them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
statement here has reference to some words that were reported in connection with one of the very first interviews General Odium gave in Australia. No doubt General Odium was expressing what is the desire of the Canadian people, namely that where we can assist, we are anxious to do all we possibly can, though it may not be in the immediate way that may be desired, but rather in doing our part in the general assistance that is being given. To that extent he would be representing an attitude as far as Canada is concerned which would be wholly correct. But undoubtedly the high commissioner was speaking on his own at the time he made the statement.


Thomas Langton Church: Then he should be recalled before he does any more mischief.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for
Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) claims he has the right to ask that the question be dropped before any answer is given. I refer to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 114, citation 355, which reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker Marcil ruled as follows on January 13, 1910: "In my opinion there are only two ways in which a question can be properly withdrawn when once it has been presented for answer in the house; that is, first by written notice by the member putting the question to the clerk of the house, stating that the question is withdrawn, or by the member in his place in the house informing the Speaker that he desired the question to be dropped or withdrawn."
The hon. member has so intimated to the house and to the Speaker, therefore the question is dropped.
Question dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	On what grounds was the minimum cash down payment on the purchase of furniture and household goods reduced from 33J per cent to 10 per cent?
2.	Was the retail trade throughout Canada consulted before the change was made?
3.	If so, is there statistical information available to show, (a) the number of retailers favouring the minimum cash down payment of 33J per cent; (b) the number of retailers favouring the minimum cash down payment of 10 per cent; (c) the number of retailers favouring the minimum cash down payment of more than 10 per cent but less than 33J per cent?
4.	Why was the interest on deferred payments raised from 6 per cent to 9 per cent?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Return tabled.



JAPANESE ROAD WORKERS

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: What pay and allowances, if any, are being given to Japanese road workers?



CANADIAN FORCES-PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What is the pay, sustenance allowances, and all other emoluments of officers and men of his majesty's three forces?
2.	What is paid also to officers and members of the women's army ?



CANADIAN FORCES-RAILWAY FARES AND MEALS ON TRAINS

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What rates or fares or tolls are charged soldiers of his majesty's forces on Canadian railways, also for meals on railway trains?
2.	Is any reduction being sought herein in these rates?



MOBILIZATION-NEW BRUNSWICK FARMERS AND FARM LABOURERS

Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How many farmers and farm labourers have been called up for military training under the National Resources Mobilization Act in New Brunswick?

Questions as Orders jor Returns
2.	What number of farmers in New Brunswick have secured one or more postponements in the hearing of their appeals against military service?
3.	How many of those called up have been placed in an inferior medical category?
4.	Has the government authorized local commissions to hear and determine requests for leave by farmers who desire to return to their land during the farm work season?
5.	Has the government appointed an agricultural representative on the board of review for New Brunswick? If so, who has been appointed ?



EXHIBITION MILITARY TRAIN

Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What date was the exhibition military train projected?
2.	At what date is it expected that the train will complete its travels?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the equipment, materials and supplies used in making up the exhibition?
4.	What has been the total cost for labour used in making up the train and conducting it to the different points in Canada?
5.	What has been the total cost of payments made to each railway?



SALVAGING OF USED LUBRICATING OIL

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	What attempts, if any, are being made to salvage and reclaim used lubricating oil?
2.	Has the oil controller jurisdiction over such questions?
3.	Has any consideration been given to prohibiting the burning or destruction of such oil?



ENLISTMENTS OF WOMEN

Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is the total number of women who have enlisted in each of the branches of the services open to them?



IMPORTS OF BANANAS

Mr. STOKES:: 1. How many cargoes or part cargoes of bananas have been imported into Canada during the last six months?
2.	How much space has been used for transportation of bananas on Canadian National steamships during the last six months?
3. Have any cargoes or part cargoes of bananas been dumped in Halifax or Saint John harbours on account of being over-ripe?
4.	If so, what quantities?



CANADIAN FORCES-PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	What are the daily rates of pay and allowances in the various services of (a) the army, (b) the navy, and (c) the air force?
2.	What are the separation allowances in the various services of (a) the army, (b) the navy, and (c) the air force?

3.	What are the dependents' allowances in the various services of (a) the army, (b) the navy, and (c) the air force?



PAYMENT OF SUBSIDY ON IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES FOR DOMESTIC USE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I should like to bring to the attention of the government the contents of a telegram which I received to-day from the Drumheller coal operators, in regard to the subsidy which is to be paid to the importers of United States coal for domestic use. The operators and producers are very much concerned-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Parent: Does the hon. gentleman consider this to be a question of urgency, which should be answered now?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, because the house is about to take recess for the Easter adjournment.


Georges Parent: If there is something about the question which requires to be answered before we reassemble I will permit the hon. member to ask it, but from what he has said up to the present this seems to be the kind of question that should be placed on the order paper.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think it is of great urgency, and I would ask the government why it is necessary to pay a subsidy on foreign coal imported for domestic use at this time.


Georges Parent: That is a question which should be placed on the order paper.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In his speech in Montreal a few days ago Mr. Donald Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, is reported in the press to have said:
If we are to make a realistic approach to total war, we must demand a complete inventory of our entire productive machinery.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Parent: I am afraid the form of
this question indicates that it should be placed upon the order paper.

War Appropriation



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: A day or so ago I raised a question in the house with regard to information on shipbuilding. Now I should like to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply if he saw the statement appearing in the Financial Post of March 23, in which it is stated that the information for which I asked, and which appeared in that publication was given by the officials of the Department of Munitions and Supply.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I have not seen that statement, but I shall make inquiries in the department, and if information is being given out I will see that it is stopped.



WAR APPROPRIATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 25, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide that sums not exceeding $135,000,000 be granted to his majesty for national defence and security-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Vien in the chair.
Mr. BLACKMORE:: Last night, just before we went into committee, I had intended to say a few words with respect to this resolution. Yesterday afternoon the leader of the opposition gave an interesting and rather challenging speech upon the subject of Canada's war effort; I should like to refer to one or two of the things he said.
In the first place the hon. gentleman raised the question, "Do the Canadian people realize the gravity of the war situation?" It seems to me that something needs to be said with respect to questions of this kind. It is my opinion that the people of Canada do realize how serious the war situation is, quite as fully as the members of this house do. I know, from my *own personal experience, of hundreds of people who have been trying, ever since war broke out, to find something they could do to help the war effort along. Invariably they have found themselves unable to discover anything they can do. Now I would ask the leader of the opposition this question:	Suppose the
people of Canada did know how serious the war situation was; what could they do? Many of them have no work. What can be done by a man fifty-five years of age, for example, who cannot obtain work in industry, who cannot get the capital with which to go into any kind
of private production and who, if he did go into private production, would be uncertain that he could sell his product at a remunerative price, and even uncertain that he could sell it at all? What can a man in that position do? There are tens of thousands of men in Canada over fifty-five years of age who are eager to do something to help the war along, but who are filled with a sense of frustration because they can find no outlet. If a man is unable to get work it is obvious he cannot contribute any more money than he is already contributing. What can he do? It is important at this time that the minister consider this question, so as to enable people to do more in connection with the war effort.
And now may I ask: What would the position of the leader of the opposition be? Time and again members of the official opposition rise in their places and rail against what is being done, but never once have I heard them offer a suggestion as to how the thing could be done better-not once. I ask the leader of the opposition, not in any spirit of criticism, to tell me what he conceives to be the cause of the deficiency in the war effort-granted that there is a deficiency in the war effort. Does he consider the cause to be a shortage of money? If the cause is a shortage of money, would the leader of the opposition, if he were in power, tax any more rigidly than the Minister of Finance is doing? I would ask the leader of the opposition, too, to tell the committee whether he would borrow any more money than the Minister of Finance is borrowing. And if he could not tax any more or borrow any more than the Minister of Finance is taxing and borrowing, how would he proceed to make Canada's war effort any more effective than it now is? Would he change the system under which we are labouring? The Minister of Finance has not chosen to do that to any great extent, although he is making progressive moves.
The leader of the opposition also spent some time on the question whether we should consider after-the-war conditions. It is my opinion, as one member of the house, that we could scarcely be occupied any more advantageously, either in the house or in the country, than in the discussion of after-the-war conditions. We have no right to assume we are going to lose the war; and even if we had reasonable assurance we were going to lose it we certainly should be prepared for any eventuality which would result from our winning it.
Let us suppose the war lasts six years or ten years, and we persist in trying to manage the affairs of this country in a dive-bomber age by ox-cart methods of finance and
War Appropriation

economy. Under such circumstances what will be the effect upon our war effort? In my judgment it cannot fail to be disastrous. Therefore it would appear to be very important that we discuss some new form of economic system-in the event of our finding such a form-which will enable us to function better. The longer the war lasts the worse will be the dislocation resulting from it, and the greater will be the need for planning now to meet the distressful conditions which are likely to rush upon us as soon as the war is over.
Some people seem to have the idea that every bit of time we spend in planning for after-the-war conditions is of necessity taken away from our work in connection with the war. This is utter nonsense; just as foolish as the assumption that the time we spend in discussions in this house necessarily detracts from our war effort. I believe the Prime Minister has indicated that in his opinion there was no likelihood that the time we would spend in discussing the plebiscite would in any way detract from our war effort. Such discussions are not going to lessen the number of bolts we make, the number of aeroplanes we make, the number of cars, tanks or any other supplies or materials we make. It is not going to lessen the number of men who join up, or the rapidity with which those men learn to fight. How in the world can it mar the war effort?
The time we spend in discussing some new economic system certainly cannot impair the effort with which we wage this war, so far as taking our time or energy or the use of material or money is concerned. I maintain that we certainly should be open and ready to discuss after-the-war conditions so that we may be prepared to go out and meet new situations when they come.
It is my feeling that we must change our order. I am not going to speak in detail on that point. We simply must change the system under which we labour. We must do it, first of all, to get maximum production. We must do it if we are to maintain the health of our people. We must do it if we are to maintain the morale of our people. We must do it if within six or seven years we are to avoid economic or financial collapse. Why not go out and meet these changes before they get to us?
May I draw the attention of hon. members to some conditions which exist to-day under the present system, after more than two years of war. I wish to refer to a passage in an editorial appearing in the Western Producer.

The periodical is commenting on the observations of Mr. Grant Dexter; in the editorial that writer's words are quoted in part. The editorial runs as follows:
But nowhere has Mr. Howe been given authority to organize total war production. The total of our output to-day therefore is the total of orders placed for our own fighting services and for allied governments. Mr. Howe, it appears, has sometimes taken chances.
And then, quoting Mr. Grant Dexter, it
continues:
It is an old story at Ottawa that the general staff hesitate to order more than is needed to meet the immediate requirements. Where the generals or admirals have asked for 100, he, Mr. Howe, has ordered 10,000. But in so doing he has been taking chances and no minister however courageous would go too far out on the limb.
Again, quoting the words of the Western
Producer:
May we ask: What are the general staff and even the minister afraid of? Is it Mr. Ilsley? Is the dead hand of treasury control having the same paralyzing effect here as in Britain?
I am going to ask the minister himself the question asked by the Western Producer: Is this uncertainty, this failure to use our war production capacity to the limit, this failure to do many other things which we ought to do-is this because of Mr. Ilsley? I believe my question has a direct bearing on the appropriation of 8135,000,000 now under consideration, because that is the amount of money to be voted to help pay for what has already been done. The matters we are now discussing are the result of what has already passed. If Mr. Ilsley is the cause of the uncertainty, then it seems to me that fact ought to be made known. And if Mr. Ilsley is in difficulty which he cannot overcome, I say he should take us into his confidence and at least to some extent tell us what his difficulties are, so that we may set about trying to find some way of overcoming them. Otherwise I fail to see how he can possibly be conducting the financial affairs of this country as he ought to be conducting them, in this third year of the war.
I should like now for a moment or two to refer to the Prime Minister's speech made within the last two or three days with respect to the mobilization of man-power. He said things which scare the ordinary person in Canada as regards the way in which he is going to mobilize man-power and woman-power. No one objects to a complete mobilization of man-power and woman-power, but there are many persons in Canada who greatly fear lest some women or some young men shall be

War Appropriation
mobilized and put into their jobs. In order to indicate that what I am saying is not entirely without foundation in fact, may I refer to a statement which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of March 25 under the heading "Mr. M.P." I think I will read this passage. I believe the people of the future would like to know that statements like this did appear in our newspapers as paid advertisements on March 25, 1942, when Canada was supposed to be engaged in an all-out war effort. The statement reads:
Thousands of Autoworkers are Jobless or Facing Unemployment.
What are we going to do about it?
You are assembled now in parliament to bring about the most completely effective allout war effort. Your job is to adopt a programme which will translate the words of Prime Minister Churchill: "Give us the tools and we will finish the job!" into terms that will smash the axis. As Canadian autoworkers we are trying our best to do this job which rests jointly on industry and labour.
But we have found that the job is not being done in the manner which is vital to victory over the axis. In fact, we are so appalled at the mismanagement and continuing blunders in the battle of production that we feel that they must be brought to your attention. We believe that if you are made aware of the facts, you will act as duly elected representatives of the people to see that the deplorable state of affairs existing for many months in the automotive industry is brought to a swift end. Otherwise we face disaster.
Understand-not just remember-Hong Kong and Singapore!
You like all of us, know what happened to Hong Kong and Singapore. We were told that Hong Kong was "well in hand." We were told that Singapore was "well in hand." We are being told that Australia is "well in hand."
But Australia may well go the way of these other bastions of democracy if we do not act quickly. You, Mr. M.P., and the Canadian people must see that it does not happen again. But there is a danger that it can tragically happen unless you learn the truth in time. The truth was hidden from the French people and the republic fell. That should be a lesson to us.
700 G.M. workers have been laid off in Oshawa.
1,500 Chrysler workers will be laid off in W indsor.
2,000 other Ontario automotive workers will be idle.
Idle men and idle machines do not make total war.
Seven hundred skilled autoworkers have been laid off in the General Motors plant at Oshawa and they will be jobless for several months while Australia calls for tools. Thousands of autoworkers in the same plant are working on an average only 30 hours a week producing military trucks which could be used to aid our allies in Russia and other paz-ts of the world when the impending spring offensive begins. Fifteen hundred Chrysler workers and
an estimated two thousand other autoworkers in Ontario face similar lay-offs for several months.
We ask why aren't they working 40, 50, 60 or as many hours weekly as their physical condition permits? We ask why the machines are not working 168 hours weekly producing the tools that Churchill has asked for in the name of the British, Australians, Russians, Chinese and all the peoples of the united nations?
We believe that once you know these facts you will ask the responsible officials of the various departments why these conditions continue to exist, stalling the war effort through idle machines and idle men.
I desist from reading for a minute or two to comment that it has been my impression, gathered from all the information I have gained from men who seem to 'be in a position to know concerning industry all over this dominion, that a condition similar to that here complained of exists everywhere in this country. Now, if a condition similar to what these men depict obtains throughout this dominion, how on earth can we say that we have an all-out war effort? As the Western Producer asks, whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the Minister of Finance? If it is not his fault, then whose is it? I go on with the statement:
Floor show automotive displays do not make total war.
We agree with Hon. C. D. Howe, Minister of Munitions and Supply, in his public statement last week, that Canada can supply all the military vehicles the united nations can use. We agree that it can be done but it is not being done. Why?
It has been my conviction that Canada could produce all the automotive vehicles that the united nations need. Yet in all probability we lost Hong Kong because of a shortage of such vehicles; with such vehicles we could perhaps have saved Singapore, and if there were in Australia at the present time a sufficient number of tanks and automotive vehicles, I think there would be no anxiety in the hearts of Australians as to their ability to throw off the Japanese attack. Yet the vehicles are not there. They were not in Singapore and they were not in Hong Kong. Here we are in this parliament ready to do anything the Minister of Finance asks, and yet we are unable to get the results we desire. I submit that this is one of the most astonishing situations ever faced by any group of legislators in the history of the world. If the minister had asked us for three billion dollars as a war appropriation, we would have granted it to him just as readily as we shall grant him two billion dollars. If he had asked for six billion dollars, we would have granted it, and it could have been granted. But he has asked for two billion dollars. Last year he asked
War Appropriation

for a certain amount of money and .we granted it to him. All we asked was that he use it in such a way as to bring about a total war effort for Canada. Why is it that we cannot get results in this house? I go on:
We agree with Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, Minister of Labour, that this war will not be won with typewriters.
Neither will it be won with the ftoor show displays in the automotive industry in which men are hastily put on military work on occasions when His Royal Highness, the Duke of Kent, the Governor General or Lieut.-General A. G. L. McNaugbton, commander of the Canadian forces overseas, visit these plants on tours of inspection. We are happy to have them visit our work shops to lend encouragement to the men on the machines but we would rather have them see an all-out war effort than an artificial pretence at one.
There is getting abroad throughout Canada, in every hamlet, in every street and in every tavern, the idea that the fine pictures we see representing Canada's all-out war effort, those fine radio programmes that we hear and which seem .to indicate a feverish degree of activity on the part of the workers, are largely artificial and created to produce a .particular effect. In other .words the Canadian people as a whole are being deceived on a tremendous scale, a scale unprecedented in the history of mankind. I go on:
Who allows such conditions to continue?
It is a shocking picture and we believe you and the Canadian people should be made aware of it. We believe that, knowing the facts, you will act to stop the imperilling of our war effort without any further delay.
We have tried to correct this situation for many months. We have studied the situation thoroughly-and who knows better the existing conditions than autoworkers in these plants?- and made suggestions to no avail. We are still waiting for a conference to discuss this situation with the Department of Munitions and Supply and Mr. J. H. Berry, controller of the automotive industry.
We don't claim to know all there is to know about the problem but we believe it is time that common sense was exercised and industry and labour sat down together to pool their ideas. No one group in the nation is the repository of the brains and brawn that will guarantee a total w'ar effort. They have realized that such conferences are imperative in Great Britain, Australia and the United States if the united nations are to win the war. Who is standing in the way of such labour management conferences in Canada? We have a right to know. You have a right to know.
I think no comment is necessary on that passage. I am going to read another one:
"Let bitterness and discontent get into the hearts of my workers, and, by God, we've lost the war."
That was the statement made by Hon. Ernest Bevin, Britain's Minister of Labour, who is charged with the responsibility of obtaining

maximum production. The same is true of any of the nations where free men are working to drive the nazi menace from the earth. But it is not helpful to their morale to be piddling around at war work. It is not helpful to their morale to be working part time on army trucks when they have been told that every minute, every hour, every day counts.
It is not helpful to their morale after helping to put the victory loan drive over the top to be working short time. It is not helpful to their morale to be thrown on the streets without being eligible for unemployment insurance because they have not worked the maximum 180 days. They want to know what is going to be done about it, Mr. M.P.
I had intended to speak of conditions in Britain, but I find I shall not have time. But I do say that people are going to lose confidence completely in members of parliament. Before I close I wish to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) the other night, but meanwhile I will finish reading this advertisement. It goes on:
How can members of parliament guarantee total war?
That is the question I ask and every hon. member wants to ask and wants answered. It goes on:
If parliament is to represent the will of the people as it should, you can act to remedy this situation without delay. It is your responsibility to ask those who carry out your will why these conditions we have described only in part continue to exist. You can see that they are stopped. You can see that labour-management conferences are called to end this bottleneck in democracy's arsenal. And we will do our part.
Ontario Locals of the
United Automobile Workers of America C.I.O.
Affiliated to the Canadian Congress of Labour Oshawa St. Catharines Windsor Brantford Merrittou
As I said a while ago, this merely indicates a condition prevailing in virtually every industry in the Dominion of Canada, whether it be engaged in producing food, shelter, clothing, or munitions of war. That is a serious statement, but I am positive that if all the facts were brought to light they would establish the truth of what I have said. The mere fact, as the leader of the opposition, I think it was, pointed out yesterday, that we had a national registration in the fall of 1940, which apparently has not so far been used either to determine the extent of our manpower or to put that man-power to work, is I believe one of the greatest condemnations conceivable of this government. And then to think that, without having used the national registration, we should now be contemplating another national registration, and that the Prime Minister should have issued a statement about mobilizing all our man-power

War Appropriation
when he has not taken steps to use the manpower we do know about-the whole thing is so grotesque that it strikes one almost speechless.
I am going to suggest that the government should immediately begin to cooperate with the labouring men; that it should call a round-table council in which the representatives of the men, the representatives of industry and representatives of the government shall get together and make known the actual conditions which exist in any and every industry in the country. I would hesitate to state on the floor of the house at this time some of the things which I have had brought to my attention respecting the conditions of unemployment and inactivity which exist in a good many of our plants. It is such that it simply makes one sick to think of it.
I am going to put once more to the leader of the opposition this question: If he and his party were in power in Canada to-day what would they do to change these conditions?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would put the men to work.


John Horne Blackmore: How would you do it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Give me a chance and I will show you.


John Horne Blackmore: The present Prime Minister of Canada used to talk in exactly the same way when he was in opposition, and the night after his election his glorious outburst of enthusiastic promises and resolves was enough to raise us up into a condition of ecstasy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have his words right here; I carry them with me.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, I am going to get a copy of them; I want to frame them. But the fact that the Prime Minister made such glowing promises and such confident forecasts at that time, and then made such a dismal failure of his whole effort, suggests that perhaps the leader of the opposition might not know how to improve matters any better than the leader of the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh no, no.


John Horne Blackmore: I want to be shown. I want some indication as to -how he would manage differently. I believe the people of Canada have heard talk enough about what their leaders are going to do without hearing how they are going to do it.
I am going to lay this principle down to see whether the leader of the opposition and 44561-105
the leader of the government agree with it: Will the leader of the opposition agree that what is physically possible can be made financially possible?


Charles Edward Johnston: Get an answer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: An academic question.


John Horne Blackmore: If we can all agree such can be done, then we shall be ready to go forward. I say it can be done. I do not wish to obtrude upon the house my ideas as to how things can be better managed, but at least I have some ideas as to how conditions can be improved. My contention is that the government has no ideas as to how to manage better and has no intention of making any fundamental changes.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Would you also ask, if it was spiritually possible?


John Horne Blackmore: I do not know that it is necessary to go into the spiritual realm. I always feel safer in the physical.


Thomas Miller Bell: So do a good many other people.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. If the leader of the opposition cannot show me how he would govern the country better, he really ought to go about finding out how.
The Prime Minister in one of his speeches, if I recall correctly-he has made so many that I cannot remember them all-has stated *that what is physically possible would be made financially possible. But afterwards in one of his characteristic evasions he explained it all away, just as he did his undertaking in 1935 to issue currency and credit in terms of public need. When he got into -power he showed that he had an altogether different idea from the commonly accepted meaning of the expression.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did the hon. member really believe that the Prime Minister was going to do anything like that?


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. gentleman is not imputing motives, is he?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I never believed it and I do not believe it now.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not saying that I would believe it, but I would hate to disbelieve it. The point I am making is that the Prime Minister in 1935 used an expression which was commonly being used throughout the country, and as a result of his using it he deceived tens of thousands of people into voting for him, believing as they did that he would do what he said he was going to do.
REVISED edition
War Appropriation

Then about a year or a year and a half after he had got into power he said in the house that all he had ever intended to do in that respect was exactly what Canada had been doing for the previous twenty years. To regard currency and credit in terms of public need as meaning the amount of credit that people would borrow and the amount of currency that was necessary to back the borrowings is so far away from what currency and credit in terms of public need really means that it is shameful to use the expression to describe the process. Our present system is based on the idea that the money a nation can have is only the amount of money which people will borrow. What the farmers will borrow to raise hogs, what the woollen manufacturers will borrow to manufacture cloth, what the wholesalers will borrow in order to distribute, et cetera-that is supposed to be public need. In an age of plenty, the amount of money which producers will and can borrow for production falls altogether short of public need.
It is right there, in that respect, that the change in monetary management has to take place. The governments and the people who are going to manage the countries of the future must know that money, from this time forward, must be issued not only as debt-money, for production, but also as debt-free money, for consumption. The minute that fact is acknowledged we shall begin to understand how a new order can be set up.
I should like the leader of the opposition to tell us by and by, after he has thought it over, whether he actually thinks that what is physically possible can be also financially oossible. If he actually does, we shall have a Oasis on which to work.
Before I close, I would observe that the amount of money which a nation can have depends on the goods and services, producing and consuming power of the nation, and only on that; and that the money shall be issued not only for production but for consumption, not only as debt money but as debt-free money. Once that is granted, then we shall begin to see how it is that what is physically possible can be made financially possible.
If the Minister of Finance were managing a new system based on that new conception, with the skill, energy and intelligence with which he is administering the present system, he would perform miracles in Canada- miracles of production. He would not have to be offended by advertisements such as the one I have read. He would not have to come here and hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) say that we had gone as far as we possibly could in giving the farmers a

good price, that we have taken every dollar out of the treasury which we can possibly spare. He would realize that the amount we can give to the farmers depends upon our power to produce lumber, coal, butter, milk and cream, fruit and vegetables and other commodities; upon the doctors ready to look after the people, upon the dentists, and others who serve. He would understand that Canada's production of goods and services is what determines the amount which she can pay for wheat and other primary products; not the amount of money the minister can borrow from banks or from any other source, or the amount which he can tax from the people. He would know then how to make what is physically possible financially possible.


Thomas Langton Church: The desire has been
expressed by my leader that these bills should pass to-day and I have no intention of holding up their passage, but I want to mention a few matters which hon. members have not had an opportunity of discussing during this session. There are some questions which we have a right to discuss and1 with regard to which we have not been given any information since the war started, of adopting measures for the better protection of the soldiers who serve us overseas or in the three forces, questions such as high cost of living bonus, better pay, national insurance, free railway fares, and leave. In the first place, the House of Commons has completely lost control over expenditures. Where is the auditor general while all this is going on? The last budget which the minister presented was for $1,300,000,000 and now he wants another overdraft of $135,000,000, making for the last year, $1,435,000,000. I have a great deal of sympathy for the minister. He has sat here day in and day out and has devoted himself to his duties and the opposition as a whole has given the government good, independent support. True, there has been criticism, but there has not been enough, our friends back home tell us. The Conservative party secured very nearly half the vote in the last election and we have constituents to represent, and to do our duty and perform our function efficiently as an opposition in a great peril like this war.
Parliament fought for over a hundred years to get control over expenditures in England. There is not one word in the main or other estimates, I would point out to the minister, in regard to matters relating to the war, the price ceiling, grain and so on, and it is difficult to ascertain what the exact state of affairs on our budget for the war really is. I suggest that the public accounts committee should meet and go into these matters. For next year the government is war budgeting for

War Appropriation
$2,200,000,000, which is an increase over last year of about 50 per cent. I do not intend to speak now for more than about fifteen minutes in connection with all these bills, but I suggest that in the recess something should be done to give to the House of Commons that control which it should have over the budget, whether it be in connection with the war or for civilian purposes. Such control is exercised in the old country. There, there is a committee on national expenditures meeting nearly all year, which goes over every dollar of expenditures and every voucher, and coordinates all war effort. We have nothing of that sort. I believe it would be a good thing for us to follow their example. In the British House of Commons certain modern rules are followed which make for expeditious dispatch of business. I support all the rulings of His Honour the respected Speaker, and I support your rulings too, Mr. Chairman. I always pay tribute to the chair and you, sir, also, but I would urge that in the recess the government might take into consideration certain new rules which I shall suggest. I will send copies to the leaders. They can compare the British rules with ours. I think that our standing orders should be amended in accordance with the paragraphs I am going to read.
In a book on parliamentary procedure, 1930, published by G. F. M. Campion, Second Clerk Assistant of the British House Commons-he is now clerk and has been knighted-I read the following:
Not later than three o'clock the question hour begins. This is a more important item of business than any yet described. It is expected to provide lively moments and seems to be of unfailing interest to members and the public. It is modern and affords a useful method of supervising the administration of the government. Its effectiveness is generally recognized. Questions 'turn a searchlight upon every corner of the public service.' (Lowell, i. 332.) Their chief object is 'the explanation to the public of the meaning of political events', and 'they are often arranged by the government itself, so as to give them an opportunity of making announcements in a somewhat informal way.' (Redlieh, ii. 241 and 242). They are 'serviceable as obviating the necessity in many instances of more extended debate and of motions for papers.' (Todd, 1982, ii. 85). And finally, 'Questions afford to the private member under modern conditions almost his only opportunity.' (Marriott, i. 571).
I suggest that our standing order 1, relating to procedure in unprovided cases, should provide that the customs of the British house shall govern. In my opinion, although there is some doubt whether amendment is necessary, this should be considered by the government and by the officers of the house and the three parties.
44561-105i
I wish to speak about two or three other matters relating to the soldier question. We are now at the forty-fifth day of the session. The hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Blackmore) said that a debate on the functions of money and the basis of credit is not wasted. He has the right to urge it, but it is a purely domestic question. I contend that the war is primary and should take precedence till it is won. I have been here since the session started, and I have never had an opportunity of mentioning the five or six soldier matters to which I wish to refer but which I will not discuss. As I said last night after 6 o'clock, primary matters should have first consideration in war time and domestic matters wait over. What is the good of talking about changes in our economic system if the war is not won? Life then will not be worth living; there will be no such thing as the price of wheat or the price of anything; everyone will be a slave. We have been here forty-five days and it is almost impossible to get in a few words on behalf of those who are fighting for us. These domestic questions have taken all the time- the plebiscite, the price of wheat, and other local matters.
We are going to have another registry. How many registrations have we had? In 1938, 1939 and 1940 I proposed a national registration of man-power, industrial power, food power and economic power; also a survey of every large and small industry. I urged that about thirty times but it was not adopted. Now we have about six different counts or registers all over again; first the census-and where is all that information to-day? It is not tabulated in such a way as to be of use in the war. Then we had a costly national registration on a huge scale, not worth much so far. My proposal was for a real selective national register two years before the war for security and war and defence purposes, because I saw the war coming and urged this. Now we have another proposed registration of man-power and matters like that by the new Minister of Labour, all over again, which will end in overlapping and doubt and more muddle. I do not believe the new registration to be taken by the Minister of Labour will help our war effort one iota. It is just a duplication and waste of money, because they have all that information already, but it is not tabulated in such a way as to be of use, so a third count is now on in this third war year. Why are all these different people interfering with business and industry and labour so that no man can conduct his own affairs with all these counts so costly and useless? Now they propose to exempt farmers and their sons and help altogether; yet we have never known how many there are available, and we are about the only country in the
War Appropriation

world in which agricultural workers are entirely exempted from military service. How can we win the war when 70 per cent of our population are exempt? In the last war many farmers' sons in Ontario did not vant exemption, and they are not asking for it now. The government has information through those registrations as to the number of farmers' sons who have left the farms and gone to the cities and taken jobs in war and munitions industry, some at $10 or $15 a day with overtime, while the soldiers are fighting for SI .30 a day. Is that fair? Is that the way to beat Hitler? It is not, with these wholesale exemptions of numerous classes. Man-power overseas alone will win the war, not home defence.
This new survey of the Minister of Labour will be a muddle and a sad mistake and a waste of time and will cause endless delays. It is a mistake to exempt farmers. The government have listened to the clamour and agitation of a number of hon. members to do so. There is no scarcity of wheat and grain; in fact there is a large surplus in the world, over 1,500,000,000 bushels, a drug at present on the world's markets. When we have this overproduction why put more men on the land to let them escape military duty? City men are no good on the land. What use would the leader of the opposition or myself or the leader of the house be to-day on the farm? I doubt if we could ride a horse now without falling off. What good would that achieve for farm production or city men as a rule? The thing is ridiculous.
I am asking for better protection for soldiers' dependents, and I ask the two parties to my left for their support. They are asking for $1.41 as a parity price or one dollar for wheat; the soldier is working for $1.30 a day, twenty-four hours a day overseas. Some of them are suffering untold privation on land and sea and in the air and will lose life itself, and they are getting 11 cents a day less than the price asked for a bushel of wheat. I have urged this matter in this house until I am sick of urging it. Some of the ministers, like myself, did not go to the last war. Some of us could not go; I am not here to criticize anyone; I want to be fair, but I was keenly disappointed at the lack of consideration which the Minister of Finance and other hon. gentlemen opposite gave to an application by the soldiers' dependents in this country for a cost-of-living bonus. They have to pay the same prices for groceries and fuel as others do, and I say it was a very hard-hearted answer that was given them by the Minister of Finance. He followed me in the debate on March 4, I think, and replied, opposing

this bonus, that as for paying the poor women at home a cost-of-living bonus, it could not be done. Here we are appropriating these billions of dollars, yet we have not a few cents for the dependents of the soldiers fighting for us and serving overseas. I could take the minister into homes in my own constituency and all over the Toronto district where the dependents cannot live on the pay, with several children, and the soldier's wife has to go out to work or washing in many cases in order to buy a ton of coal or help maintain the home fires. Such a condition is a disgrace, and history will criticize us and condemn this parliament for wasting forty-five days discussing purely domestic questions like a plebiscite and other matters, while conditions of the kind exist. I protest against it. I am sick and tired of it with war matters in the background. We can make no headway here on primary, but only on secondary matters; we might just as well go home, because the executive rules. The executive passed 26,000 orders in council, and goodness knows what the deficits will be next year when we have such a huge one for the end of this year, March 31.
I stood in front of the Chateau Laurier the other day and watched able-bodied uniformed men in the pay of the government, some officers in cars, some of whom have never been in this war or the last, and they have able-bodied young soldiers driving them round the city.
Another question I have raised is with regard to a national system of soldiers' insurance. On every soldier the cost would be little. No reply has been given concerning that. If you ask the government about it they simply say that it is a matter of policy and that any announcement will be made in due course. We have been told that three or four times, the past two years in succession.
The question has been raised of free transportation for soldiers. I travel in only one province, though before I was a member at one time I travelled quite a bit. But when I see some of the luxurious cars occupied by those engaged in sports and for conventions and theatre and Hollywood1 people, and then see the cars occupied by the soldiers who are going over to fight this war for us, I protest, and I ask for a change by the railways and better accommodation for the aid parliament gives them. I do not think the present system in regard to soldiers' fares and meals on trains is fair. Here we are asked to vote a postmortem, as it were, because we cannot strike off one cent of the $135 million or the other votes.
Another question is the housing problem. In 1934 and 1935 the construction trade was

War Appropriation
almost down and out. In January, 1935, I moved for a committee on housing. One was appointed a little later on, and on the basis of the report of that committee the new and present government, in 1936 and 1937, did good work, bringing about the spending of some $72,000,000 to date in connection with small housing construction. May 1 is almost here again; civilians and soldiers alike are being turned out of their houses, and I would ask that the old housing administration's policy of the last four years be continued at least until a year after the war.
Some time ago, just after the present Minister of National Defence took office, I offered a suggestion which I want to renew to-d'ay. I greatly sympathize with anyone who has to carry in that department the burdens of government in these war days; but I believe in British Columbia, in the maritimes, in the St. Lawrence ports and elsewhere, in cooperation with school boards, provinces and municipalities, an attempt should be made to teach every man, woman and child to handle a rifle. That was done in Norway and1 Finland, and those people put up a great home battle. British Columbia will not be able to do so well, I am afraid. In Finland and Norway they had miniature ranges, where the people were taught to shoot, and as a result great numbers of invading Germans were destroyed. It is true that we have no army rifles to spare at the moment, but we could provide miniature rifles and ranges and give instruction to all the people in these vulnerable named1 areas.
Before the Easter adjournment I think the government would be well advised to give us further information with regard to shipping losses in the Atlantic. I am only going to mention the matter; I do not want to discuss it. The losses in men and tonnage have been appalling from the lack of bases in Eire. We are at times losing more ships than we are able to turn out. Shipping should have first priority, not only in Canada but in all the united allied nations, and I think something should be done in this connection. The same thing applies in the Pacific. I am sorry we cannot give more help to Australia, and I cannot help feeling that in some ways we did not do our duty toward that country before war started or at the imperial conference of 1937 and after it. We should have joined in an empire shipbuilding policy, such as was proposed in 1937, a grant to the Singapore base and adopted the Jellicoe report. I give the government credit; they have done well in many ways, but my point is that we have done only about one-third of what we should do and we have not yet done enough for a total war effort. I believe also that we should recognize General de Gaulle, who has taken action in
the approaches to the St. Lawrence at St. Pierre and Miquelon, to keep enemy submarines, lurking there to destroy our ships, away from our cargo and troop ships. Then I would abolish the censorship of the press; and, if the Minister of Labour is going to take over the duties in regard to industry which were announced the other day, there would be no further necessity for the Department of National War Services. It would only be duplication; the unemployment insurance department and the three war departments could do some of it.
I disagree with the theory that the farm is our first line of defence. The first line of defence of Canada in man-power, and our only defence, is overseas; and if that falls all our home defence will not amount to anything. The defence of Canada is not and1 will not be decided in Vancouver, Halifax, Saint John, Quebec or Montreal; it is being decided overseas and in the battle of the Atlantic, the Pacific, Africa and the far east; and if that line of defence fails, the enemy will be here in Canada in no time and home defence will not amount to much. Why, even if we had a million men we could not do anything in the Pacific, as Mr. Churchill has said, because Japan has command of the whole Pacific ocean, north and south, and her ships can roam like a circus wherever they please, for 15.000 miles among the Pacific islands. How can we stop her? We were offered three or four destroyers and cruisers by the British government in 1937 and urged by Jellicoe to get more, but because of our pacifist sentiments we did not accept the offer to rearm before it was too late, since we depended solely on America's aid in the Pacific.
I think it was a mistake for Admiral Jones and Canada's navy heads, to make the statement they did make in this city to press men the day before yesterday. As head of an important branch of our naval service, that so-called silent arm of the services, he summoned the press and gave them an interview. Surely that is not in the tradition of the silent service. I believe it was a mistake to make that information available to Japan and Germany, who have their agents all over Canada and know our plans. Such talk will hurt us. This incident reminds me of the situation which arose between the two admirals in Halifax not long ago. Under the statute of Westminster the British fleet cannot come closer to our shores than the three-mile limit; they cannot get into Halifax or Victoria, and I think that is one of the greatest mistakes we ever made, because we owe our protection to the British fleet. I predicted in 1937 and 1938, if war came, we faced the possibility of the invasion of the St. Lawrence then.
War Appropriation

I should like to refer to what is going on in connection with competitive industry in this country. It will be noticed that the amount covered by this resolution has to do with a number of civilian departments which apparently had overdrawn their appropriation in the $135 million. A list of these departments is shown at page 1556 of Hansard, in the breakdown given there, and among them is the Department of External Affairs. Before the war we spent a great deal of money through this department to establish high commissioners and legations all over the world, and I think that was another great mistake because it divided Britain's representation status. We had at our disposal our representatives in these places, our trade commissioners, and! it was a most mischievous policy to follow, fatal in war and of little value in peace. The war has cleared some of them up.
In conclusion, may I say that "never were there so many who knew so little about so much"; and I am referring to the speech by Mr. Gordon in which he told the people of Canada, on behalf of the government, what they should expect and the abolition of all competitive business. All these announcements in the newspapers and speeches over the radio show that Mr. Gordon is acting as a sounding board for the government. Why, even the House of Commons has not been consulted about these changes in our economic system although in session, nor told a thing about it. Our friends to my left have been talking about our economic system and our domestic matters for forty-six days this session, but it was the old competitive system that built up this country in the days of Macdonald and Laurier when everyone owned a small property. It was that system of thrift, with the right fundamentally to possess private property, that made this country and the dominions rich and prosperous. That is the fundamental basis and principle of all sound finance and commerce the empire over. I am not one of those who want to live in the past. I want to rewrite it to meet modern conditions and bring it up to date, because we are entering upon a new world. I have always been a friend of labour consistently, but I would say that the right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man, and the state has no right to abolish it, but only to regulate its use.
People are wondering what this House of Commons is for, and what minister of the crown is responsible to parliament for all the ins and outs of this wartime prices and trade board and all their controllers and legion of officials. Is all competitive industry to die and wither away, as Mr. Gordon says, over our heads? Is

everybody to become an employee of the government, under national ownership, with every worker on a farm to receive $15 a week? The small business man might just as well close up and go out of business; the retail trade of Toronto might just as well quit because no independent private business man can function and make a living. I do not believe in that system, with all the artificial barriers, burdens and restraints put on him. At the beginning of the war, and up to 1941 the old policy was maintained, "no commitments; parliament will decide," but now that has gone to the archives, following all the announcements that have been made by these various people, and bureaucratic czars over the head of parliament. The public will agree to any regulation so long as they know it is helping the war effort, but a great many of these things have no relation to the war at all. In those cases we should have something to say, I believe.
I am free to admit that so far as such necessities of life as food, clothing, fuel and many other domestic things are concerned, some regulation may be quite necessary, and the public will agree to it if necessary and are glad to comply for the sake of the war. But that is not the case in connection with many other commodities, and the rationalization and streamlining, zoning policy made nationally in everything, with bonuses and subsidies as well will lead to untold abuses and no one knows at what cost.
No doubt war production should have priority, but there are very few walks of life to-day which are not supervised or directed by some department of state at Ottawa. Canada is fighting this war with Britain as her leader for two real objects- to keep Britain, the dominions and our allies free, and to see that Canada and Britain may enjoy prosperity. If Germany were to win we would lose our freedom; they would grind us as slaves to the earth. If Germany wins, still more bureaucrats wall be here, and our freedom will wither away and life will not be worth living. This new belated plan of controlling everything, this heterogeneous device with respect to man-power threatens our economic and commercial and trade freedom. It will not half of it, help the winning of the war or help one iota to beat Hitler, or assist in bringing about a total war effort It will only cause, like the new registration, more muddle, confusion, waste, duplication of services, coma, doubt, inertia, vacuum and expense, and in the end national bankruptcy. There will no doubt be a complicated duplication and multiplication

War Appropriation
of numerous new boards to ruin retail and small business and our industries, and in the end cause unemployment.
The new plan of exemptions eliminates about 70 per cent of the population from military service altogether. It will lead to a muddle in man-power, hurt our army, navy and air force, and cause confusion in trade and industry. Industry does not yet know what it is or where it will lead to. Is the war policy of the government to be that the government is to control and administer every walk of life and almost every article or commodity of trade and commerce, and all competitive business? If so, it will lead this country to disaster and, in my opinion, sooner or later, national bankruptcy. It will not help the war effort and they will try to continue it after the war on international grounds. In England an act has been passed to restore former trade practices as before the war. One should be passed here.
New departments are being created all along the line. May I point out, too, that I am sick and tired of all these orders in council by officials and registrars in the making, who have never had to deal in business with masses of men, or to shoulder any responsibility, or even to take any risks or serve in a competitive calling, but are merely theorists. They tell us of brave new worlds to conquer and to come; and if we were to follow them we would invite and bring nearer in Canada decay, ruin, stagnation, economic slavery, ruined enterprises both large and small, closed factories, and no work for our people. It will all end in doom for all competitive business, with a mighty host and a large standing army of inspectors, examiners, dreamers, supervisors and registrars, regulators, clerks, stenographers, cardfiling officials and stamp clerks. It would be a mere nepotist army, also, the way these boards have selected all their people. Many of these new departments have more than one of the same family on their payrolls. The fact that we are at war and are in desperate need is no good reason why some of these matters should be adopted but not be discussed. We should be less ready, as a House of Commons, to tolerate any method which is not meant to win the war. When we know that seventy-five per cent of them do not help at all in winning the war, then we ought to object to them, and insist that when parliament is meeting this is the place to announce them.
The system which has been introduced supplants courageous leadership and courageous business men, most of whom by a small
start got a good small or large business together. But these new departments by dilatory methods and aim are going round in a circle, and the adoption of cumbersome routine, will fundamentally destroy Canada in time and not help win the war. It is likely, however, that the new condition will want to continue in business after the war is over. Those new boards are going to find some excuse to continue after the war, but in England they are checked by the act passed to restore pre-war trade practices to aid trade.
For three or four centuries Britain has proved that free men and free enterprise would lead, the world over, and this made her not only the mart of all the world but the leader in trade and commerce. Now we are asked by dreamers, theorists and officials to surrender it all; we are asked to Surrender it for new plans and new schemes impossible of fulfilment. I can say to the minister and to some of his deputies that a good deal of this has been introduced by theorists who never had any dealings in any Canadian competitive business. They were imbued with new-found, socialist ideas, or whatever they were. They do not understand cause and effect of those theories on retail and wholesale business or on any business, and will hurt labour and its best national interests. It is a design which will ruin our system which made British and empire trade. The press and members of parliament to-day have come to the point where they should do something to combat this condition and insist on parliamentary control over it or a discussion here. I will admit that much has been done by some of these boards to keep down some well-needed prices. That procedure may have been all right. But to put a ceiling over all prices by subsidies for some, not others, and to abolish competition, something upon which the two older political parties have based their whole history, and upon which the economic trade and commercial history of this country is based, and to destroy it over our heads is not a proper procedure. The older parties in Canada have always encouraged private independent business; surely they would be sorry to see it go. If it passes away, then I say we shall be in just as bad a position as Germany-a nation run by bureaucrats, something we are fighting in this war for freedom of everything and to make our country have proper security for its people and work for our people under a new deal worth living for; for everyone.


Mr. GILLIS:: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for the floor since yesterday afternoon and, while I have no desire to hold up the progress of the resolution, I should like to
War Appropriation

speak at this time. Had hon. members to my right carried out the wishes of the Minister of Finance in dealing with this measure to-day, so far as I am concerned I would have foregone the right to say anything. Nevertheless there are some matters which I believe should be discussed, and in dealing with them I shall be brief, abrupt and to the point. Incidentally may I say that sitting here as I do five days of the week it irritates me to hear someone who ordinarily spends two days in the house to get himself on record, and the rest of the time in Toronto, talk about wasting time.
With respect to the question of selective service, we have stated many times in the house that there is a good deal of merit in that method of organizing industry, in view of the setting in which we find ourselves today. But we have also expressed the view that if that system is to be effective, and if it is to do the job it aims to do, those who are to be regimented under it must have some say in the control set-up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They
should not be chattels.


Clarence Gillis: That is right. If the government is desirous of making effective their selective service system, the thing they should do first and foremost is to make the recognition of collective bargaining obligatory on the part of the operators. If that is not done I see a stormy road ahead for those who are charged with the responsibility of organizing industry and man-power on a selective basis.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a threat.


Clarence Gillis: I merely express that opinion. I will make no criticism of the system proposed until such time as we have seen it tried out. But I do insist that what I have suggested should be carried out. So far there has been no mention of any representative of those who will be regimented under the controls being set up.
I should like briefly to bring the coal situation to the attention of the government. Earlier in the afternoon the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) read a telegram which stated that United States coal imported into Canada for domestic purposes is being subsidized. I understand the duty has been taken off. I do not know whether the statement contained in the telegram is correct, but if it is, there is something radically wrong with our fuel control. I know that in Nova Scotia mines are closing. I believe this is a matter of public concern at the present time. I received a telegram this morning stating that a mine operated in Inverness by the provincial government, which employed some 450 
men, is now idle, and that a new opening they were making has been abandoned because of cost.


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member said I spent three days a week in the house. I am here four days, and I come as often as I can. The hon. member has not stated the facts, and I ask him to be gentleman enough to retract what he has said-because he is a gentleman for whom I have high regard.


The CHAIRMAN:: I think the hon. member should withdraw the remarks which are offensive to the hon. member for Broadview.


Clarence Gillis: I did not make those remarks. I mentioned no names, and I named no hon. member.


Thomas Vien: That is worse, because it applies to all hon. gentlemen who come from Toronto.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member had better take it back; that is the shortest way.


Thomas Vien: I think the hon. member should withdraw his remark.


Clarence Gillis: If it offends anyone, I am prepared to withdraw it. Nevertheless it is true.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman must not attach such a limitation to his withdrawal.


Clarence Gillis: I withdraw it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think we might as well have this cleared up. The hon. member cannot get away with that; I have tried to do it myself and he cannot do it. This is a reflection upon every hon. member from Toronto, and he must withdraw it.


Clarence Gillis: I have withdrawn it.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member will please withdraw his last remark, "nevertheless it is true."


Clarence Gillis: I did withdraw it. As I was saying when this other matter arose, the coal industry is in need of more efficient planning. It must look strange to the Canadian people to see the government subsidizing imported coal while our own mines are idle. I am going to mention a number of matters at this time because the Minister of Finance is in the chamber. While these matters may refer particularly to the Department of Pensions and National Health and the Department of Munitions and Supply, they involve additional expenditure and therefore must be approved by the treasury board.

War Appropriation
I would call the attention of the minister to the basic training being given cadets in our schools. These are our future soldiers. Under the present system there is a duplication of work and a waste of time and money. Cadets are trained for the three services, the navy, the army and the air force. The initial or basic training consists of some two hundred hours, and it is the same for all forces. But at present the different cadets are being handled separately, which necessitates more instructors. One instructor could do the work now being done by three. Then the matter of uniform comes into question. The most attractive uniform attracts the most cadets; they all want to get into the air force. This is the problem created for those who are handling the cadets. The boys in our high schools who are taking this basic training will be the soldiers of to-morrow. If they get this training under proper supervision the need for it on the parade ground will be largely eliminated. In addition they receive sixteen hours of specialized training to fit them for whatever unit they may want to join after leaving the cadet corps. This is all very useful work, but an analysis should be made in order to eliminate any defects that might exist.
Another matter I should like to bring to the minister's attention is in connection with the air force cadets. This corps is organized on a charitable basis. The work is necessary and could be productive of much good. At the present time committees in the different communities are obliged to raise money by appeals to public-spirited citizens and the work is financed in this way. Teachers who receive honorary appointments as officers in the corps are obliged to buy their own uniforms and so forth. Many of them cannot afford to do this. They would like to do something but they are placed in an awkward position because they cannot afford this expenditure. I think money should be appropriated for this purpose and the work should be directed by the Department of National Defence. I call this to the attention of the minister because if any change is proposed the matter will be brought before the treasury board which will say whether or not an expenditure is justified.
I have received a number of complaints from men in the armed forces who are desirous of adopting children. If a child is adopted subsequent to enlistment, as the regulations now stand no pay and allowances can be granted. Many institutions across Canada are trying to find homes for unfortunate children and their work is carried on on a charitable basis. Many men in the armed forces have
adopted children but they cannot get any allowance, and more would1 adopt them if allowances were available. The present regulations are retarding a necessary endeavour and depriving children of homes. Many persons who would like to have children in their homes are blocked by the regulations. I mention this so the minister may give it some consideration.
I think the gasoline regulations discriminate against clergymen. Drugless healers and others are permitted a mileage of 15,000, but clergymen get only half this amount. In the community from which I come the clergyman is as necessary as the doctor. He has many calls to make at all hours of the day; he covers a large territory; he is on call day and night. Some consideration should be given to him. At least our regulations should conform to those in the United States; clergymen in Canada should receive the same consideration as is given to clergymen in that country.
I should like to say a word or two about wartime housing. Before coming to Ottawa for this session the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and I met the city council of Sydney. There is a serious housing shortage in that city. Perhaps 1,000 more men are employed in the steel plant to-day than were employed prior to the war. A plate mill has recently been opened which will employ from 400 to 600 men. During the summer months hundreds of men come in and out of this port. An air field has been established there and this has brought another group of men to the city. The officials are at their wit's end to provide wartime housing. They told us that their requirements are at least 500 additional houses. I understand a report was made to the government. The city council urged that we tiy to do something about this, that we bring it to the attention of the government for consideration.
Another matter about which I have corresponded with the government has to do with the facilities for shipping at this port. Perhaps 2,000 ships used this port last year and there are no wharfage facilities available. If a ship comes in slightly damaged there is no way to get its cargo out. Those who are endeavouring to regulate traffic in and out of the port have a serious problem on their hands. I urge that some consideration be given to providing facilities for commercial shipping. This is not for naval purposes; it is for the purpose of taking care of the growing flood' of traffic in and out of this port occasioned by the war.

War Appropriation

I should like to direct the attention of the minister to the plight of the retail gasoline dealer. We all realize that the use of gasoline for domestic purposes should be reduced as much as possible, but if the regulations are effective it will mean that many retail gasoline dealers will be put out of business. The more effective the regulations are, the greater the number of retail gasoline dealers who will be put out of business. Many of them have an investment in this business; a good many of them run a repair shop in connection with the station, but gasoline is the main attraction. Their costs have gone up from 20 to 30 per cent since the outbreak of war, and now that they are being legislated completely out of business they at least have the right to know whether the government can utilize their plants. If not, some compensation should be granted to them for the loss they are sustaining. The government is practically taking over their business of selling gasoline, and the retail gasoline dealers should be compensated on the basis of replacement value. I suggest that that question be given consideration. The regulations are unjust to the average retail dealer because in addition to all the restrictions put upon his business the oil controller has permitted wholesalers, for example, who were purchasing 500 gallons of gasoline a week from the local dealers to put in their own tanks. Owners of commercial vehicles can also put in their own tanks. The retail dealer is being legislated out of the picture. He is being treated unjustly in comparison with the big oil companies which have been getting a two-cent increase on their sales since the outbreak of war, while the retail dealer got absolutely nothing. His business has shrunk about 50 per cent, while his costs have gone up. He is liable for cost-of-living bonus, must pay increased costs in other directions due to the war, and is receiving no consideration. I rise for the purpose of bringing this to the attention of the Minister of Finance, because in the final analysis all these things must pass through the treasury board.
I suggest also that the Minister of Pensions and National Health give consideration to extending the allowance to adopted children so that children who have been adopted subsequent to the soldier's enlistment can be taken care of. The regulations do not cover that now.
1 am sorry, Mr. Chairman, to have taken up the time of the committee, and I would not have done so had you received the cooperation of the committee in the manner suggested by the minister.
[Mr. Gillis.J


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The other night the Minister of Munitions and Supply, speaking over the radio on the rubber question, said that the rubber situation was critical. Has the Minister of National Defence checked over the specifications for rubber requirements used by his department, with a view to eliminating any excess rubber that may be used in certain articles? I understand that most of the specifications call for superaging rubber, while for many of these articles standard rubber would be satisfactory and its use would save many thousands of pounds of rubber.


Mr. RALSTON:: A study has been made of that matter already and is continuing. There are several methods under consideration by which the use of rubber can be curtailed and possibly a lower quality used, so that there will be less use of the higher grade of rubber of which my hon. friend speaks.
Mr. FRASER, (Peterborough West): There has been some criticism of the use made in Canada by the Department of National Defence of automobiles, trucks and other vehicles. The complaint is that they are being used for non-essential purposes. Some of them are driven along the streets with nobody in them but the driver, and sometimes they run half a dozen times to the same place in one day. There has been that criticism not only in Ottawa but elsewhere, and I wondered if there was going to be any check-up.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps my hon. friend was in on the conference I held last night on that very subject.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad to hear there has been a conference. I have heard the same complaint in Fredericton, where this practice has been observed. It would save a lot of money if the minister put the clamps on.


James Layton Ralston: There was an article in the Kingston Whig-Standard some time ago which caused me considerable concern and regarding which I took what was thought to be drastic and vigorous action. The matter is being pursued.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In a report that was made on March 17 by the Minister of National War Services it was stated that ten million pairs of woollen socks had been ordered. Why should such a large quantity as ten million socks be ordered for , the army?


Mr. MARTIN:: The Minister of National War Services is out of the chamber.

War Appropriation


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
know, but can the Minister of National Defence tell us why that number would be ordered? There are ten thousand branches of the Red Cross right across the country, each of which knit many dozen pairs of socks a week. Ten million pairs of socks in addition to those knitted by the Red Cross seems to be an enormous number.


James Layton Ralston: I really cannot believe that the minister's statement was understood aright; or perhaps my colleague had some mis-information.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have his statement here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was a public statement.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It says ten million pairs of socks, and underneath that it says that woollen gloves are being issued at the rate of 100,000 pairs a month.


James Layton Ralston: I will find out about it.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I ask the Minister of Finance how much of this war appropriation and of the other war appropriation already dealt with is to be allotted to agriculture?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The total allotted to agriculture out of the war appropriation is $32,786,000 for the whole of the present year. It is impossible to say what part of this $135,000,000 enters into that $32,786,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Some of it is used to pay for subventions.


Gordon Graydon: May I say to the
Minister of National Defence in regard to the money to be appropriated under this resolution that many people both in the house and outside have suggested that a rehabilitation fund be set up for the armed forces which would be available for their use after the war. I realize that there may be reasons, although they are not very clear to me, why the armed forces should not be receiving higher pay at the moment. But I suggest in all sincerity that nothing could do more to improve the morale of the men in the armed forces of Canada than for the government to set aside a savings fund, a rehabilitation fund, if you will, in which the armed forces would have a real stake after their fighting days are over. I have always been strongly in favour of such a fund. I think one other member has already drawn it to the attention of the house. It seems to
me that in our national selective service arrangements we are faced with two problems which are very difficult of solution. First we are up against the lack of parity-we have used the word parity in many debates on agriculture, and lack of parity seems to me to present one of the greatest difficulties in connection with national selective service, as I think the minister will agree. Here you have on the one side, agriculture, which is a wartime industry, and as the months go by I feel that agriculture will be recognized as an essential wartime industry even more than it has ever been before. I am not going to make a special plea on behalf of the farmer to-day except to mention that the farmer is definitely operating under a lack of parity of return as compared with other wartime industries.
In addition to that, the armed forces are working under a similar disability. If we are to put into effect a definite national war-time selective service in Canada, it behooves the government and parliament, from the point of view of financial and economic returns, to treat our farmers and the men in the armed forces on a basis of equality of remuneration with other war-time activities. I hope that the committee and the ministers in charge will take into serious consideration the question of setting aside for our soldiers, airmen and sailors some kind of rehabilitation fund so that in addition to the pay they receive, and the allowances they are given by virtue of service in the forces, they will have each month or year, as the case may be, set aside for them, something in the way of a savings fund in order that they may have a substantial stake at the end of the war. That is important in the interests of morale at the present time and of the welfare of the men at the close of the war. The men, I think, will find it easier to rehabilitate themselves and to resume their normal places in our civilian life if they are given something to start with instead of coming back not fully provided for. I make that suggestion seriously. I think it is one of the most important points which the government can deal with at the moment, and I couple with it the question of agriculture which I brought up a moment ago.


James Layton Ralston: I am not quite sure what the hon. gentleman refers to. He speaks of a savings fund. As he knows, pay is deferred now and is paid when the men return. In addition to that, orders in council were passed last October with regard to rehabilitation and providing for one month's allowance, for compensation really in lieu of unemployment insurance, providing for assistance in connection with interrupted education, providing for
War Appropriation

vocational training and for assistance while awaiting return to employment, and providing for out-of-work assistance and for other benefits. These things have already been done. I should think, as my hon. friend has anticipated, that the matters to which he refers are properly matters which might be brought before the committee on reconstruction and rehabilitation appointed yesterday.
Mr. G'RAYDON:	All members, I believe,
are fully aware of the steps which have been taken, and they are certainly steps in the right direction. My main objection is that they do not go far enough. They do not provide a really large enough fund against the time when the men are discharged, because one cannot do much with one month's pay and with a few odds and ends of that sort. I should like to see the men in our armed forces come back to their normal activities in Canada without being penalized financially or economically by reason of the fact that they have served overseas or in Canada in the forces.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: That is the objective.


Gordon Graydon: I am glad to hear the
minister say that, and I hope he will keep that objective in mind and increase the savings fund which I suggest should be set up, because, even with what has been done, we are not approaching parity in dealing with our men at home and with the men in the armed forces generally.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the hon. gentleman is referring to is the discrepancy between those who go to fight and those who stay to engage in war work. That is the point, and it does seem to me that there is a substantial disparity between the $1.30 a day that is paid to our men, with what is given to their dependents, and what is paid in the way of wages to men in the factories. They do not begin to compare. I do not think that is a fair deal to the man who is risking his life. What the hon. member suggests is that the government consider setting aside by appropriation a credit in the nature of additional pay-call it that if you will-which will be paid to the man after he is discharged, with a view to reestablishing him on his own. I will not say more about it now, but that is the theory underlying the suggestion. I know there is difficulty about it, and I am not going to enlarge upon it at the moment, but that is the theory which I hope the government will take into consideration.
One word to the Minister of Finance. On page 1698 of Hansard, when he gave the table of totals amounting to $1,435,000,000, there is

a total of $1,407,000,000 chargeable to war expenditures and $24,030,000 odd chargeable to asset accounts. He may have explained that to me on a previous occasion, but I cannot recall just what that means.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is made up in this way: Active loans and investments, Canadian National Railways: (a) purchase of equipment, $1,030,000; (b) working capital, $18,000,000; and advance to commodity companies in the Department of Munitions and Supply, $5,000,000, making a total of $24,030,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, but was it necessary to advance $18,000,000 to the Canadian National Railways when their earnings were the 'highest in history?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to have an explanation of that. They have I do not know how many millions in the bank to-day. I have not the report here, but I thought they were in a state of affluence; yet they are working on capital borrowed from the government. That seems to me to be a most astounding situation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not astounding at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, at first blush, I will say it is astounding.


James Layton Ralston: Blush again.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I do blush. That is only a manner of speaking; but that is how it strikes me, an ordinary layman who is not on the inside. I do think that if ever there was a time when the Canadian National Railways should go on their own, it is now. They are doing the greatest business in the history of the country. If they cannot go on their own now, with all their earnings-I am not speaking about buying back securities, because that is another matter; I am speaking of working capital- what are we to expect when the post-war period arrives?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The larger the volume of business, the more working capital is required.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many millions have they to their credit in the banks? Much more than $24,000,000 I will bet.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They may not have as much when they repay, before the 31st of this month, interest on government loans, but they are still a long way from the poorhouse to-day.


James Layton Ralston: May I say one word first with regard to the matter of pay. Nobody is more anxious than I am about the apparent

War Appropriation
discrepancy when one speaks of $1.30 a day and compares that with wages paid in industry, but there are more compensating factors to be taken into consideration. Those factors have been brought out from time to time at various conferences which have been held throughout the country. Men in trades, receiving the wages to which my hon. friend refers, generally receive promotion before very long and get tradesmen's pay. It has been figured-without the actual documents before me I would not want to give the exact figures -that there is not anywhere near the discrepancy that might be imagined. In some cases they come pretty well up when dependents' allowance is counted in as well as the tradesmen's pay received. Some time I will give the committee a statement in regard to that, not in any defensive spirit, but with the idea of showing that the facts show a considerably different situation in comparing pay due the armed services with that received by those in civilian employment.


Gordon Graydon: That does not take into consideration the danger, of course.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, you cannot measure that.


James Layton Ralston: I sometimes get a little irritated when people talk about a man doing equally valuable war service. I say there is no service that compares in equality with the service of a man who enlists and risks his life.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Absolutely. You cannot measure it in dollars and cents.


James Layton Ralston: When people advise a young man that he is doing just as important and valuable work at home, I say it cannot rank with the service given by the soldier.
Might I turn from that to a very plebian subject, the ten million pairs of socks. A member of the house who is a good deal better at mathematics than I am and who is in the clothing business points out to me that with a force of 500,000 men-and of course there are more than that when you think of those who went in and out again, and including all three services and reserve units as well-at eight pairs per man per year and assuming everyone had served for two and a half years, that does not seem out of the way at all. However, I will inquire further into the matter.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I wish to make two brief observations. The first relates to a number of letters I am receiving from people who use cars in their business and who are not classified
for gasoline rations in a class that permits them to continue in business. I will describe one instance that is more or less typical.
I know a man who deals in automotive supplies and travels from garage to garage all over western Ontario. He bought a big old-fashioned car and uses it as a truck with shelves in the back seat to carry his goods. He writes telling me that he will be forced to give up his business, in which he has been engaged for some twenty years, because the amount of gasoline allowed him is not sufficient to enable him to carry on. I know the government do not want to drive small business men out of business; the Minister of Finance needs the revenue. If thousands of small business men like the one I mention are forced out of business, that will be detrimental to the revenue. I think the differentiation between a car such as this used in business, practically a truck, and a private car, should be looked into very carefully.
Another matter about which I am greatly concerned is the direction of the road from south of the Peace river to connect with the Alaska highway at Fort St. John. I have been in that area; I am not perhaps as familiar with it as those who live there, but I made a careful survey by photograph and otherwise and I think I know the situation. I know that the government wants to do what it can to expedite travel north of the Peace river in the direction of the Alaska highway. My observation was that that country might possibly be invaded. There is a great deal of prairie; the mountains are not so wide at the north end of British Columbia; and while I hope no invasion takes place, it is imperative that this country be in a position to transport numbers of troops rapidly to defend1 it against invasion. The other day we had a statement tabled here, not of the direction the road is to take from Edmonton to Fort St. John, but of several directions that it could take. In my opinion every consideration but speed should be disregarded as far as the direction the road should take in war time is concerned.
It is some 267 miles from Edmonton by rail to the railway junction point south of the river at McLennan. There the railway branches, one branch going directly north or northwest and crossing the Peace river at the town of Peace River, some fifty miles northwest of McLennan. This branch of the railway then continues west on the north side of the Peace river for some sixty-four miles to Hines Creek. That is the terminus on the north side of the river. Last fall-hon. members from Alberta will be able to tell the time better than I-the Alberta government, very rightly in my
War Appropriation

opinion, subscribed money to project the highway west of Hines Creek in the direction of the British Columbia boundary. The British Columbia government-and the British Columbia members will know better than I, particularly the hon. member for Cariboo-projected their highway eastward towards the Alberta border with the intention that the two highways would meet. That road is constructed to a considerable extent. On the north side of the Peace, one river has to be bridged, not a large river as we consider rivers here, and very small in comparison with the Peace river. Both in northern British Columbia and northern Alberta, they have been working to have that road completed. It is not completed. I am convinced that this government should advance whatever is required to complete, as an essential military project, that highway from Hines Creek to Rose Prairie, which is some twelve miles north of Port St. John, because the only bridge over the Peace river is that at the town of Peace River. That is a huge bridge, longer I think than this across the Ottawa river here. I believe it is something around 1,800 feet or more in length. Why there is any delay in completing the road west of Hines Creek I cannot understand. In my judgment its completion is absolutely imperative as a military necessity.
There is another roadway, as the Prime Minister pointed out, a much longer one, running west of McLennan to Rycroft, where it turns immediately to the left and runs away to the south approximately fifty miles, then northwest to Dawson Creek. When it reaches Dawson Creek it is a matter of fifty miles more or less to Port St. John, but between those two points this huge river has to be crossed by ferry, and shortly, when the ice breaks and the spring freshets come, it will be some time before a boat could cross that river. Once the ice is gone and the floes have disappeared, they could cross on a pontoon bridge, if one were constructed. There is not one there now, or rather there has not been one up to the present time. So, from the point of view of a military project the government should waste no further time in attempting to develop the roadway, and I believe also the railway, west from its terminus at Hines Creek to Rose Prairie, which will be on the road from Fort St. John to Alaska.
I appreciate tlhe opportunity of making these few observations, because I am interested in these two matters and particularly, if I may say so, in the defence of that vast country in the Pacific northwest, and our ability to get to it rapidly in case that defence becomes necessary.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: This item, as I understand it, has to do with expenditures for the .present year.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of National Defence one matter based on sessional paper No. 154. In a committee where we seem to be talking all the time in terms of millions and billions, it may seem picayune to bring up a matter concerning only several thousand dollars, but I should like to point out that the average .man on the street, particularly in a small community, does not deal with millions of dollars. He deals with the few thousand dollars spent in his locality, and he forms his impression as to how we are administering public funds from what he sees in his immediate vicinity. Personally I always feel sad when what seems like a glaring example of poor management tends to destroy the public confidence of a coimmunity, especially a com-munty such as the one from .which I come, where enlistments have been high and support for the war has been very strong.
I am referring now to the Weyburn barracks. I am not going to take time to do more than point out the highlights of the matter to the minister. The first battalion of the South Saskatchewan regiment, stationed at Weyburn, was mobilized immediately on the outbreak of war. In order to secure a barracks the government rented the International Harvester building, -which was a very good building, and spent some $7,229.65 in equipping it; paid $560 a month rent; kept it in repair from time to time, spending on one occasion $1,773.72 and on another $1,196.94 for repairs. The building gave excellent service. The first battalion of the South Saskatchewan regiment trained there -until a few months before it left for overseas, and another regiment also trained there. The barracks was closed for a time, and then the second battalion of the South Saskatchewan regiment was stationed' there for training.
Last fall some officer was sent into the district, and he intimated that the government were not prepared to continue -paying $560 a month rent for a -barracks which was used only fro-m time to time, and that it was -intended to close, the barracks. My information, from those imho are in a position to know, is that the general manager of the International Harvester company put it up to the government in this way. He said, "We do not expect you to pay this rent. We are prepared to let you leave your equipment there; let the building stand as it is and we will charge nothing at all, even for the storage of the equipment. We are not likely to use the building in these

War Appropriation
times, and when you want it again you can take it over." The reply of the officer was, "Well, those are not my orders. We must proceed to take out all the equipment and fixtures we put in, and place the building back in the shape in which we found it in 1939." That was done, at a cost of some $1,840.70, with the result that the building is now back in the shape in which it was before and is not available as a barracks should the occasion arise to use it as such. In all, we have spent on that building $39,209.82.


James Layton Ralston: Including the rent?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, including maintenance, repairs and rent, and of course I point out that a large part of that total is rent, amounting to $14,560; but that still leaves $25,000 which has been spent on maintenance and repair. I am not objecting to that at all. What I am pointing out is that here was one of the finest barracks in western Canada. It is not just a matter of closing it; it is a matter of spending nearly $2,000 to take out all the fixtures, which in all probability will have to be put back again. Should certain contingencies materialize on either coast; should the second battalion of the South Saskatchewan regiment have to be mobilized, that barracks will have to be used again, because it is the only place available. We are talking about building training centres for the trainees. Here was one of the finest barracks, capable of accommodating anywhere from eight hundred to a thousand men.
I ask the committee to consider the impression on the public mind. Here is a barracks on which we, the public, have spent money. Perhaps there is no need to use it at the moment; but why spend $2,000 to take out plumbing fixtures, heating equipment, equipment for showers and so on, and probably have to spend several thousand dollars more putting them all back some time later? It seems to me this was a case of red tape actually interfering in what would have been an ordinary, common sense business transaction of accepting the offer of the International Harvester company to let the building stand idle, to waive the rent and storage charges, so that in the event of the building being required the arrangement could have been picked up again right where it was dropped.


James Layton Ralston: The criticism which my hon. friend puts forward depends, of course, for its validity on that conversation of which he speaks between the officer and the president of the company.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The general manager.


James Layton Ralston: Of course I know nothing whatever about that. What my hon. friend says is that the general manager offered to give for nothing a building for which he had been charging $500 a month. That may be quite so. I am going to find out about it, of course; certainly I shall look into it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is what I want the minister to do.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wish to congratulate the Minister of National Defence upon his statement that there was no service which ranked as high as that of the man who offered his life for his country. I think we are quite in agreement with that, but I do not believe that is sufficient. It is all right to offer platitudes and praise to the men of the fighting forces, but I think that must be supplemented- with something a little more concrete. I do not think anything would please the soldiers more than to be given a little better financial consideration.
That recalls to my mind a question which I have brought to the attention of the Minister of National Defence since war broke out; that is, the matter of the treatment given those in the army, as compared with the treatment given those in the other services. I recall when I left to come to Ottawa for this session, standing in the station at Calgary and seeing a colonial train pull out ahead of us. There were quite a number of soldiers standing there, and when that colonial train had pulled out of the station I went to the policeman at the door and asked whether the soldiers were going on that train. He said they were. I said, "Well, that seems queer. What is the matter with these air force fellows, and these navy men? Do they not go on the same train?" His reply was, "No, none of them are going on that train." I thought what a tragic situation that was, that because some of those men happened to be in the army they were packed off on a colonial train, while others, members of the air force and the navy

and I am not complaining about their treatment-were allowed to go tourist. I do not think that is conducive to good feeling.


James Layton Ralston: I admit at once to my hon. friend that that condition did exist; but I must say it has been cured, and that the provision for travelling accommodation is exactly the same for parity of ranks in all three services at the present time.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am extremely pleased to hear that. I brought this question up when war first broke out. I have gone through trains, and have passed
War Appropriation

from the standards with which officers are accommodated-the very best of accommodation-and on through to the tourist class, where the air force and the navy received excellent accommodation. Then, right on through on the same train, I would go into the day coach and find soldiers sleeping on their coats, with their lunches under their arms. That is not good, and we cannot expect to maintain the morale of our forces under those conditions. I am more than pleased to hear now from the Minister of National Defence that that condition has been changed.


James Layton Ralston: Some time ago.


Charles Edward Johnston: It could not have been very long ago because it was when I was coming.to Ottawa to attend this session that I saw it.


James Layton Ralston: Then I say to my hon. friend that it was absolutely contrary to regulations, if that was the case. I have the information that it was changed during the November session. If my hon. friend would be good enough to tell me what train it was, I would be glad to inquire into the matter.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not remember what train but, as I say, it was when I left to come here for the session.


James Layton Ralston: There are times-and they are not infrequent just now, on account of the tremendous traffic on the railways-when the proper kind of rolling stock is not available. But if my hon. friend says there was one train in which men in the army were found in the colonist cars, and men of the air force in tourist cars, I say to him that that was not according to regulation, and I would be glad to look into the facts. I would do that, if the hon. member would tell me what train it was.


Charles Edward Johnston: I can understand the minister's answer that where rolling stock is scarce, such a condition might arise. But I do not think there should be any hesitancy about putting some of the air force men, navy men and army men together. All the fighting forces should be treated the same, and the sooner we come to that, the better for everybody.


Mr. JACKMAN:: I used to ride in a colonist car, myself.


Charles Edward Johnston: Probably you should have been there; I would not argue that point.


Thomas Vien: Order. That is most irregular.


Charles Edward Johnston: There is another point I should like to bring to the attention of the committee. One of the greatest problems with which we are faced is that of production. Of all the things which will contribute most to our war effort, certainly production stands at the top. In the last couple of years we have seen what happens when our forces are not properly equipped. There is absolutely no question about it that we are not producing anywhere near what we should be producing. I have no doubt all hon. members received a copy of the Financial Post this morning. In that issue it is stated that we are turning out about 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the amount of production we could turn out. Not long ago the Prime Minister said that we are turning out about 44 per cent. I believe the figure of 30 per cent gives a fair estimate of our production at the present time. It is not good for the morale of our people to see manufacturing industries which are idle. We have an illustration right here in Ottawa, one which has not yet been corrected. I refer to the laying off of 500 men by the Ottawa Car and Aircraft. To my mind that is next to criminal. There is another situation in Oshawa where it has been estimated that 700 men have been laid off. Another 1,500 men are going to be laid off by the Chrysler works. Another 2,000 are to be laid off in other automotive industries. There is no question in the world that such a condition should not prevail.
I was interested in the meeting called the other day and attended by automotive workers who came from Oshawa and Windsor to interview ministers in the government. I believe they spoke to the Minister of Munitions and Supply and the Minister of Labour. Those men suggested that the ministers should go into the streets of Oshawa and Windsor, and listen to the comments made by the workmen, and by people generally. I hear those comments every time I come to Ottawa on the train, and I do not believe I would be exaggerating if I were to say that the people of Canada are fast reaching the belief that there is no concerted war effort, and that the government has no definitely laid plan.
The men who came to Ottawa the other day were as sincere a group of workers as one would find anywhere. Their desire was not that of embarrassing the government, but rather to assist labour and industry to organize so as to bring about greater production. That was their only purpose, and surely it was a most commendable procedure for those men, who came here at their own expense.

War Appropriation
I was particularly interested in the condition in regard to tool and die-making in Oshawa. It is my understanding that one of the greatest lags in industry is caused through lack of proper dies and/ tooling equipment. The General Motors plant has laid off over 700 workers, and the excuse given by the minister is that the men were laid off because the plant was tooling up for a new order. But while that was taking place, a considerable number of experienced tool and die-makers were out of work in Oshawa. I understand a small fraction of those men were working full time, and some were receiving overtime. Others were working only five or six hours a day. To my mind that condition suggests a lack of coordination and organization. I believe the men /who came to Ottawa the other day left with the government a very good suggestion. Whether it will be worked upon, remains to be seen.
They pointed out that one of the great difficulties in production centred round the speedy production of dies and tools, and they made the suggestion that tool and die workers should be organized into a pool. This pool would be supervised by the government, by the workers through their trade unions, and by industry. The result would be that when there was a job of tooling up and die-making for certain contracts, the government could keep those tool and die-makers busy all the time. Under proper supervision and organization blueprints could be sent to those men, and from those blueprints, even if it were necessary to work twenty-four hours a day, the required tools and dies could be made.
I cannot understand why the government does not awaken more readily to the seriousness of the situation. One of the ministers has pointed out that one of the greatest difficulties has -been the production of tools and dies, thereby causing a lay-off of from 700 to 1,500 to 2,000 men. That is a tremendous waste of man-hours. It is a tremendous waste of time which we can never regain. I am waiting patiently to see what the government will do.
I was exceedingly surprised and disappointed at the answer given to these men by the Minister of Labour. They wanted something concrete to take back to the men at Oshawa. They were asking for some suggestions from the government in regard to the solution of their difficulties, and the Minister of Labour said to them in effect: "I do not think you fellows should come to the government with your difficulties; you should iron them out yourselves." To me that was shocking. The only possible way these men have of ironing out any difficulties with the company is to go on strike. It is illegal to do that unless they comply with certain government regulations.
If they do comply with those regulations, then they are likely to be starved to death before the situation is solved. This is what happened in Kirkland Lake. Personally, I do not think that was the way in which this situation should have been handled. These men are desirous of cooperating with the government, and I do not believe we shall get anywhere in solving this production problem until there is complete coordination between the government and labour. There is to be set up before very long a war expenditures committee.


An hon. MEMBER:: When?


Charles Edward Johnston: I hope before very long. I understand that that committee did good work last year, but I do not know how much they accomplished.


Paul Joseph James Martin: How could they have done good work if they accomplished nothing?


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not say that they did not accomplish anything, nor did I say that they did not do anything. The hon. member was probably a member of that committee and he knows more about it than I.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was not.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am assuming that they worked very seriously and did good work under their term of reference. But despite all the work they did, despite all the energy they expended, we still have this appalling situation where around three to four thousand men have been laid off in these production plants. I contend that the reference to this committee should be widened and this production question should be turned over to it for investigation and report to the house.
There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the government. I attempted to do this on the orders of the day, but Mr. Speaker ruled that the question should be placed on the order paper. This situation to which I intend to refer is likely to cause severe trouble before very long. The situation in Drumheller, the Alberta coal mining area, is becoming so serious that it may interfere with our war effort before very long. The telegram which I attempted to read is as follows:
F. G. Neate,
Deputy Coal Administrator,
Wartime Prices and Trade Board,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Drumheller coal operators view with great alarm your statement, as reported in the press, made at Hamilton on March 19, in which you said that importers of American coal for domestic use are to be subsidized, particularly coming at a time when the mines in this district are having to close for lack of orders. Cannot
War Appropriation

some arrangements be made whereby coal can be taken from Alberta mines, to take care of some of the demands before the question of paying subsidy to foreign coal is undertaken.
Drumheller Coal Operators Ltd.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I received the same
telegram. I have been at the Drumheller coal mines, and I endorse the hon. member's plea for the coal mines at Drumheller.


Charles Edward Johnston: I thank the hon. member, but again I say that sympathy is not going to get us anywhere. Some action must be taken.	.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They have good coal
there; I burn it at home.


Charles Edward Johnston: They have good coal, and they are in position at the present time to take care of a large share of the domestic market. It is quite likely that these mines will be forced to close, and one reason for this is the fact that foreign domestic coal is coming in. There is a tremendous supply of coal in Nova Scotia and Alberta, and yet this foreign coal is being subsidized and is competing with our own mines. The result will be that these mines will have to close down. They had to close down last year and the men got other jobs. Some of them are going to enlist in the army; some of them are going to go to other places to get jobs in industry. They must live; but as a result when these men are urgently required they will have gone to other places.	.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No subsidy paid by the wartime prices and trade board will alter the competitive position of domestic and foreign coal.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not
understand the technical details; but I would suggest that if, instead of paying this subsidy on the foreign coal, it were paid on our own coal, it would make a tremendous difference. The price could be lowered to that extent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a large question to go into, and I am not prepared to do so just now. I do not want the impression to go abroad that we are subsidizing foreign coal so that it can undersell domestic coal. That is not the case. If subsidies are being paid-I do not know whether they are or not-they are paid only to the extent necessary to enable those selling foreign coal in this market to keep it under the price ceiling. That is all.


Charles Edward Johnston: I cannot
see why we cannot increase the subsidy to the same extent on our own coal.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a matter of policy.


Charles Edward Johnston: I would
say to the minister that where policy interferes with the prosecution of the war, then it is high

time that policy is changed. I do not think a mere matter of policy, whether it be to employ these miners or to reorganize production or any other matter, should stand in the way of the proper prosecution of this war. Merely to say that it is a matter of policy is not sufficient. I believe that is one of the reasons why the people are becoming so dissatisfied with this war effort. Some little time ago I attended a theatre-


Mr. FAIR:: Was that on a Wednesday
night?


Charles Edward Johnston: That was
on a Wednesday night; the house was not sitting. I saw one of these propaganda pictures put out and paid for by the government, showing the huge production we were having in Canada in connection with our defence weapons. In two or three places you could hear the audience hissing. I say that that is a clear indication that the people are recognizing, and rightly so, that this stuff is nothing more or less than rank lies.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is very strong
language.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is
strong language, and I intended it should be strong, because I, for one, do not believe this stuff. We hear of what happened when the Duke of Kent visited these plants. I think that is an outrageous shame.


Mr. ISNOR:: At what parts did they hiss?


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not just recall. When the Duke of Kent visited Oshawa, that plant was engaged in producing commercial cars, but for the duke's visit army trucks were put on and the commercial trucks standing in the corner were covered with tarpaulins. Nothing can dampen the morale of the people more quickly than that when they become aware of it. Such a thing should not be permitted for a moment. If the Oshawa plant were working 365 days a year, I would say, broadcast that fact all over the country and let the people know it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Come to Windsor and see the Ford plant.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not think the plants in Windsor are any better than the others.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You do not know what you are talking about.


Charles Edward Johnston: My hon. friend had better speak to some of the workers down there. How does it happen that 1,500 people at the Chrysler plant in Windsor are being laid off?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who said that?

War Appropriation


Charles Edward Johnston: It says that Tight here in the advertisement and it was a .submission by the men who came here yesterday. Does my hon. friend say they were wrong?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one suggested that
yesterday at all.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is their statement in this advertisement put out .by them. Does my hon. friend say they are not right?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say that.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is the statement right or wrong?


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are talking a lot of nonsense.


Charles Edward Johnston: You do not know what you are talking about, and further, when you go back to your constituents-


Thomas Vien: Order. Hon. gentlemen should address the chair, and should not .say that another hon. member is talking nonsense.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me suggest through you, Mr. Chairman, that when the hon. member for Essex East goes back to his constituency, the workers in these plants in his district will call him to a meeting and tell him what to do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Put him on the spot.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, he will Be on the spot.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member will recall that I was at that meeting yesterday and that I supported the presentation to the ministers *by the workers representing my city. What my criticism was a moment ago was that the .hon. gentleman should be fair in stating the [DOT]case.


Charles Edward Johnston: If my hon. friend wants to ask a question, all right, but if he wants to make a speech he can do it afterwards.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it not true that I was .at that meeting and supported the men's presentation?


Charles Edward Johnston: Would you ask the hon. member to sit down, Mr. Chairman? I have the floor and I am not prepared to let him take my time. If he wants to speak after the dinner recess, he can go ahead then. It is true the hon. member was there and spoke in support of the men, but now he says that this statement in the .advertisement which these men put in the .paper is not right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I did not. Will the hon. member permit me a moment?


Charles Edward Johnston: You can get up after the dinner recess.


Thomas Vien: Order. If the hon. member rises to correct a statement purporting to have been made by himself, he can do so.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not think he was correcting any statement that he had made, Mr. Chairman. He has just said that he was at the meeting and supported the men, and I agreed with him.


Thomas Vien: I understand that the hon. gentleman who has the floor stated that the hon. member for Essex East said that the advertisement was not correct.


Charles Edward Johnston: No, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid you have it a little bit wrong.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I speak for one
moment, Mr. Chairman?


Charles Edward Johnston: Have I the floor, Mr. Chairman, or has my hon. friend?


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member for Bow River did not refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Essex East, then he has the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But he did refer to my observation, Mr. Chairman. What I said was this, that the advertisement which contained the representations of the workers of Oshawa and Windsor was correct, but then I said that the hon. member was not quoting correctly from it. .


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member is changing his story entirely. First of all, when I was speaking of the representations made by the men to the government, the hon. member interjected and said that was nonsense. I pointed out to him where he was in error, and he objected to that. Then, when I read from this advertisement he implied at least that I was not reading it correctly. Now he says it is correct. Why? Because I said that when he goes back home and meets the people who made these representations they will call him to account.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman, I understand, said that this advertisement was correct but that the hon. member who has the floor was not reading it correctly.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then I ask the hon. member, through you, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw that remark because I did quote
War Appropriation

correctly from that advertisement. I will read it again and then ask you to see that the hon. member withdraws his statement.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member was reading correctly from the advertisement, the remark should be withdrawn.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. gentleman was reading correctly from the advertisement, I certainly withdraw, but he was not reading correctly.


Charles Edward Johnston: I insist that the hon. gentleman withdraw that remark.


Thomas Vien: I did not quite catch it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will read the advertisement again, and then I will ask you, Mr. Chairman, to have the hon. member withdraw his remark when I have proven that I was reading correctly from the advertisement.


Thomas Vien: I have to accept the statement of the hon. gentleman that he was reading correctly from the advertisement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, to save the time of the country I withdraw all I said.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am glad that the hon. gentleman admits that I was right.
I shall finish in just a moment. In my opinion, when the war expenditure committee is set up, the reference to the committee should be widened to include an inquiry into war production, in order to ascertain whether our industries are functioning properly in cooperation with the workers and the government. War production is the one question that gives me the greatest concern. I am not so much concerned with what the Minister of National Defence does with that production after he gets it. What I am concerned about is to see that we get it, and plenty of it, and get it in time.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 19, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Thomas Vien: Bill No. 19, section 1, short title. Shall the section carry?


John Ritchie MacNicol: We do not have copies of the bill.


Thomas Vien: I understand that according to the practice these bills are not generally distributed. The phraseology is that usually found in money bills.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is it just the resolution?


Thomas Vien: It is the bill for $135,000,000, in terms of the resolution.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The bill is in the words of the main appropriation act. There are five sections. This is a supplementary appropriation of $135,000,000, and the wording is exactly the same as that of the bill for the $1,300,000,000, which was passed. There is no occasion for holding up this bill. It is purely a formal matter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Georges Parent: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, March 26, 1942.
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Sir Lyman P. Duff, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Friday, March 27, at 6 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Vien in the chair.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Resolved, that $3,530,840, being the amount of each of the several items voted as set forth in the further supplementary estimates, 1941-42, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to his majesty for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1942.
He said: These are further supplementary estimates for the current year.

Interim Supply


Angus MacInnis: I am not going to speak at any length on this, but I am sorry the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) is not in the house because I was going to ask a question, which need not necessarily be dealt with to-night. The Unemployment Insurance Act makes provision for the registration of persons out of work, and I believe that provision should be used for the purpose of keeping both members of parliament and the country advised from time to time, much in the same way as is done under the British act, regarding the number of unemployed in the country. We have never had any satisfactory statistics in Canada in connection with unemployment, but inasmuch as, under the Unemployment Insurance Act, all unemployed have to register at government offices, we should know from week to week or from month to month how many people are actually unemployed and what the unemployment situation is. If some member of the government would draw this matter to the attention of the Minister of Labour, I should be glad to let it go at that.


Mr. STIRLING:: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that you are putting the supplementary estimates through en bloc or are you calling them item by item?


Thomas Vien: We are taking en bloc $3,530,840, which is the total amount of the several items for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1942, as per further supplementary estimates that have been tabled.


Grote Stirling: Therefore you are not calling them item by item.


Thomas Vien: No-that is, with the consent of the house.


Grote Stirling: May I raise a question with regard to the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) had, I know, intended to ask some questions and make a statement thereon, but in his unavoidable absence perhaps the minister would be good enough to make a statement to the committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Prince Edward Island
car ferry is operated as a separate operation. Years ago it was included in the accounts of the Canadian National Railways, but some three or four years ago the car ferry was separated from the operation of the railway and a deficit item placed in the estimates. Evidently the amount placed in the estimates was a fairly close approximation to the deficit, and only a small additional amount is required.
The ferry is operated at a loss; and the greater the traffic, the greater the loss, in that additional trips cause increased expense.
As hon. members know, there were two ferries on the run, but unfortunately one was lost some months ago en route to Prince Edward Island from Saint John, where the boat had been overhauled. The boat sank in deep water. For a time it was thought it could be salvaged, but all the salvage operators have now examined the situation and decided that the boat could not be salvaged; consequently it was abandoned to the underwriters.
The position is that to keep up our war programme of shipbuilding and to rebuild the car ferry is impossible. The ways of one of our shipyards would have to be occupied for some fifteen months, and provision made to build special equipment. I suppose the building of that car ferry would interfere with the building of three or four standard 10,000 ton freighters. With the need for shipping so urgent, it is felt that the remaining ferry should perform the service until the war situation eases. In the meantime the one ferry is carrying on successfully. The operation has been normal this winter-I think there were one or two interruptions- but records show that there has never been a winter that there have not been interruptions for some twenty-four to thirty-six hours. I think the situation is one that can be allowed to continue until the war permits the replacement of that boat.


Grote Stirling: Does the minister anticipate that this one ferry will be able to take care of the spring and summer traffic, which, of course, will be much greater than in the winter? A considerable amount of agricultural produce comes across by that ferry, does it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The business has always been
taken care of by one ferry. It is only in very busy seasons, perhaps in August when the tourist traffic is heavy, that the two ferries are used. One is usually a standby for the other. The present ferry was the only means of communication with the island for a great many years, and it is felt that the one ferry should be able to handle the traffic this summer, because we expect there will be very little tourist traffic on account of the shortage of gasoline and rubber. A second ferry service to the island which operates during the summer months, has been greatly improved in the last two years. That service, from Woods island to Pictou, should relieve the strain considerably on the big ferry.


James Layton Ralston: My colleague has not
referred to two matters which I regard as very important in connection with this ferry.
Interim Supply

He, of course, is the acting Minister of Transport. I have had some direct correspondence with both the minister and the Canadian National Railways. The president advised me some little time ago that after a good deal of examination they had found on the west coast a boat called the City of Sacramento which might possibly be available as a standby. I had been urging that if a new ferry could not be built, some boat be obtained in order to make absolutely sure that there would be no break-down in the service should anything happen to the present boat. The president of the railways realized the desirability of that situation being buttressed if at all possible, both because of the needs of the citizens of Prince Edward Island and the fact that there are two air training establishments on the island. The result is that at the present time there is going on an extensive examination with regard to obtain' ing the City of Sacramento, not only as to the terms on which she can be obtained, but also her fitness for use as a standby boat. She is not a car ferry, but she would provide desirable accommodation for a fill-in service.
While that examination has been going on, another project has come up, of transferring a car ferry from lake Michigan. The points about the use of that ferry were, first, whether or not she could get through the St. Lawrence canal locks, and it is found; that she cannot without having to be cut in two and put together again, as was done during the last war. The difficulty there is that in putting 'her together we would have to preempt for some little time a dock down the river, but it seems that situation is not insurmountable. The other point that has to be examined is whether the docks at cape Tormentine and Borden can be adapted1 to the boat or the boat to the docks. An examination is going on as to these two points. I have in my hand a letter from tlhe president of the company giving me the latest word, and the matter is being dealt with actively. I know that everything possible is being done to supplement the present service of the Price Edward Island with a standby or fill-in service by obtaining another boat.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In my judgment the past service was not very satisfactory. I have been to the island many times, and I cannot say I ever found the service wh'at I would call 100 per cent. In the first place it was difficult to get a car on the boat, and once you got it on, it was just as difficult to get it off. I am not sure whether it was the new boat or the old one that was lost-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The new boat.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, even as to the new one, I often intended to protest here about the difficulty one experienced in getting a motor car on and off the boat. The last time I went across that strait I scratched my car and jammed it a bit because of the narrow boat space. I hope, when the time comes that the government can build a new boat, they will build it large enough that people can come and go to the island without so mudh difficulty as in the past. If there were real accommodation for visitors to reach the island, instead of an arbitrary figure of 50,000 cars crossing in the season to that very beautiful island-nothing like it anywhere in America-it might be an arbitrary figure of 100,000, which would be a very good thing for business on the island. So I would say to the minister that when he comes to build a boat he should build it so that automobile traffic can be loaded and unloaded easily. I have seen lately in the Charlottetown Guardian reports of meetings of boards of trade and city councils-and I am not sure that the matter did not come up in the legislature-detailing the difficulties with which they are now faced. One boat will have very great difficulty in giving adequate service to those producing farm products on that island. Personally I have a very warm feeling for Prince Edward Island, because of its great beauty. There are no stones on the highways; there is beautiful rolling landscape everywhere. This country owes a lot to Prince Edward Island, and nothing should be left undone that might help give those people better transportation facilities than they have to-day.


Douglas King Hazen: A few weeks ago I wrote the Postmaster General about a matter of censorship concerning the city of Saint John. I have not a copy of that letter before me, but as I recollect them the facts were that a gentleman in Saint John had been corresponding with someone in the city of Boston. He came to the conclusion that there was a great deal of delay in the delivery of his letters, so to test the matter he wrote two letters at the same time, one of which was mailed in Saint John and the other taken to Montreal and mailed from there, both to the same address. The letter mailed from Montreal reached the addressee in Boston within a day or two; the letter mailed from Saint John did not reach Boston until about two weeks later.
I wonder whether the Postmaster General could give any explanation as to this very great delay.


Mr. MULOCK:: I shall have an inquiry made, and shall be glad to give the hon. member an answer to-morrow. I have no information at the moment, but I shall endeavour to get it as quickly as possible.

Interim Supply


George Russell Boucher: Could the Postmaster
General give us any information as to the postal situation in Westboro? That suburban area has been extensively built up within the last three years, and a year ago last Christmas an unsatisfactory state of affairs existed in regard to postal delivery. During the past year some steps were taken to improve the situation, but they were grossly inadequate and quite unsatisfactory. That area is virtually an extension of the city of Ottawa. There is a mail service along the main streets, but no service further on. Many of the residents of that community have to walk a mile or two miles for their mail, and have to wait an hour or two before getting it. Sometimes they have to wait as long as three days for their mail. I believe it is the policy of the government not to extend the mail service any more than is absolutely necessary in these days, but actually this would be simply an extension of an already existing service. The municipal authorities of that area have gone to the extent of makin-g provision for clearing the streets, numbering the houses, renaming the streets and everything else in order to get this service, and the situation is getting more serious all the time.
Let me give an example. Recently a constituent of mine who was working in Shawini-gan Falls received a letter from the Department of National Defence asking him to report for military training. The letter had been expected, and calls had been made at the post office every day for it. It took seven days to arrive from Toronto and be delivered to the recipient, which left him only nine days in which to make his arrangements to answer the summons. I quote this as one isolated instance, but it is only one of many. I say that an area like Westboro, the home of so many business people and civil servants who require efficient mail service, should not have-to put up with this deplorable situation. So I would ask the Postmaster General to reconsider the matter, which I have already discussed with him, and to which he gave a favourable heaiing. I feel it my bounden duty to continue urging him until his pleasant reception, and the pleasant smile he is now giving me, are crystallized into the desired action in that community.


Clarence Gillis: On two occasions during the session of 1941 the Minister of Munitions and Supply stated in the house that the airmail and passenger service would be extended to the Sydney area in Nova Scotia. At that time the minister said this was one section of the country that would benefit perhaps to a greater extent than any other section by the extension of these services. I was led
to believe that this extension would be inaugurated by August of last year, and I should like the minister to inform the committee now if this matter is still under consideration, and what are the prospects.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, they say hope deferred maketh the heart glad, and I am glad to tell my hon. friend that the service will commence on April 1, only five days away. It will be on a trial basis, to test out the service. Mail will be carried from April 1, I assume at the ordinary postal rates, and the regular airmail and passenger service will commence May 1.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the Minister of Pensions and National Health explain item 435, "nutrition service"?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. The 1942-43 regular estimates contain an item, under the heading "Nutrition Service", to provide for-
Carrying on educational work for the purpose of assisting the public to maintain the nutritional requirements of the home under existing circumstances by advice as to advantageous purchasing, preferable choice of foods on account of cost and food value, and proper methods of preparation; to make available expert opinion for the information bureau of the Department of National War Services; to visit, inspect, and confer with the managements of cafeteria in industries; to check nutritional values of foods planned for workers, and to suggest improvements where indicated.
In October, 1941, the treasury board authorized the establishment of this division for the above purpose, and the sum of $10,000 has been provided from the war appropriation subject to reimbursement when the supplementary estimates for 1941-42 are available. Details of the expenditure during the current year are as follows:
Telephones, telegraphs and postage.. $ 100
Equipment	 100
Salaries, temporary	 6,000
Materials and supplies	 300
Transportation and travelling expenses	 3,500
The personnel now employed in this division consists of the following:
Director of Nutrition Service
Dr. L. D\ Pett	 $4,080
Asst. Director of Nutrition Service
Miss M. W. Harlow-	 3,120
Field supervisors
Miss J. M. Skene	 1,560
Miss N. Hinton	 1,560
Miss A. M. Jessop	 1,560
Stenographer, grade 2 Miss M. H. Kiggins	 1,080
These are all details in connection with the vote.
Interim Supply Bill


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does this vote look after the new legislation with . respect to vitamins in different foods?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, not necessarily. It may in the future, but not so far. The regulations in regard to Canada approved flour and bread go into force, respectively, on April 1 and April 15. A period of six months will be allowed for experimental purposes before there is any prosecution under those provisions. These regulations are the most modern and scientific in the whole world. They are not mandatory in their present form. It is expected, however, that a standard bread will be adopted almost universally within a few months.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If all these estimates are passed now, shall we be permitted to speak with respect to these matters when the regular estimates are before the committee?


Thomas Vien: We are not discussing the main estimates, but rather we are discussing further supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1942. The main estimates have not yet been touched.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When the main estimates are under consideration shall we be permitted to discuss these items?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


George Russell Boucher: What provision is made for the staff of the House of Commons during the Easter recess as to work, pay and so on?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The staff is being paid during the recess.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

James Lorimer Ilsley: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $38,803,172.40, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, as set forth in the estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1943, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to his majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1943.


Grote Stirling: We are quite prepared to facilitate the passage of this interim portion of the estimates, with the understanding, of course, that we shall not be precluded in any way from discussing them, item by item, when they come up in the estimates.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is the understanding, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.
fMr. Ian Mackenzie.]


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Vien in the chair.
Mr. ILSLEY moved:: 1.	Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1942, the sum of $3,530,840 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
2.	Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1943, the sum of $38,803,172.40 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 43, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1942; and
Bill No. 44, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1943.
Motion agreed to, bills read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that a sum not exceeding $500,009,090 be granted to his majesty towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending the thirty-first day of March, 1943, for the purposes and subject to the terms, conditions and limitations set out in the resolution to provide that sums not exceeding $2,000,000,000 be granted to his majesty, which resolution was referred to the committee of the whole on the 17th of March, 1942: and being one-fourth of the said amount of $2,000,000,000.
Grote Stirling: I understand that this is the fourth of the measures referred to last night by the Minister of Finance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.

War Appropriation


Grote Stirling: The minister stated that he was desirous of getting these through because the end of the fiscal year will come during the Easter recess.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Grote Stirling: I think the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) concurred in the minister's suggestion on the understanding that we shall not be precluded from the fullest discussion when the main bill is before us.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; that is correct.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I want to take this opportunity of saying a few words on this resolution. I realize that opportunities will be given after the Easter recess to discuss the appropriation, of which this forms a part, and I should hope that at that time we may have the debate so well organized that it will not necessitate all the ministers remaining here during the whole discussion, and that we may be able to deal with our problems department by department and perhaps facilitate business in that way. I wish to say a few words on the matter which was brought before us yesterday and which forms part of the programme for the year for which this appropriation is being made. In further explanation, I would say that I do not expect to be here to-morrow, and I crave the indulgence of the house to permit me to say what I have to say at this time.
The war has necessitated many drastic measures being introduced into the house, but 1 suppose that nothing more drastic has been suggested to the country than the recent outline for the mobilization of man-power. We realize that this war must be a total war if we are going to win it, and again I should like to say as emphatically as I can that a total war involves much more than the mobilization of human labour power. Without the mobilization of our resources upon the same basis and at the same time we shall not get an enthusiastic all-out war effort in Canada. Moreover, we are fighting for the democratic way of life, and the proposals made in this house the day before yesterday were of such a nature that they involve the setting aside, at least for a considerable time, of many of the ordinary procedures of democracy.
I hope the determination that we have seen here from time to time to defend individual enterprise in the midst of this war will not be continued to the detriment of our war effort. Hon. members probably saw' in the Ottawa Journal this evening a description of the manner in which a great
monopoly in the United States, the Standard Oil company of New Jersey, represented in this country by Imperial Oil Limited, handled a secret process for the making of synthetic rubber. That process was handed over to Germany and everything was done up to yesterday to prevent the use of the patents, even in connection with the war effort of the United States. I want to say that that kind of attitude brings home to us as forcibly as it could be brought home the danger of allowing great monopolies to control, in peace and in war, the vital resources of the countries in which we live. I have noticed that some of the people connected with these organizations, and some hon. gentlemen in this house, have stated again and again that we must preserve individual enterprise in our war effort. It has been amazing to me to hear some people from their places here demand that we shall not interfere more than necessary with private business, that we shall continue the individual enterprise system, and then demand mobilization on a compulsory basis of the labour power of our men and women. In this great crisis we are not objecting to the compulsory mobilization of labour power, but we say that if we are to have equality of sacrifice, there must be a mobilization of our industrial and economic resources upon the same basis and at the same time.
I wish to object to the manner in which the sweeping proposals were introduced into this house. Orders in council of the most sweeping nature, already finally approved by the government, have been placed before this house while it has been sitting. During the war we have found that immediately before the house assembled on one or two occasions, and while the house was sitting on other occasions, policies of the most mndamental nature have been placed before the house in the form of orders in council, without any opportunity being given to parliament to discuss the various phases of the proposals being made.
I am not arguing that in the midst of war it is always advisable to introduce, in a manner permitting of long discussion, new policies which may interfere with business or with people. But I do say that when it is necessary to introduce policies suddenly by order in council a certain period should be set aside immediately so that this house may discuss their implications. It may not be proper and it may not be easy to make any changes in those policies, but in almost every instance the government is empowered to make regulations to carry out
War Appropriation

the policy and at least we should have an opportunity of discussing the policies before the regulations are made.
As I said, this is a matter which affects the lives of all Canadian people more than anything else we have done. In my opinion, it is too important a matter to be the subject of a mere governmental decree. We should have had a bill which we could have discussed section by section. I think this matter might have been introduced in such a way as to make unnecessary a very long discussion. To some extent I understand why certain measures of this description are introduced in the way they are. We have had some rather long discussions on some things that perhaps did not require such lengthy debate.
I am going to throw out a suggestion which hon. members may think over. We have admired the manner in which during this great war crisis the British parliament has justified itself as an institution. Its rules differ materially from our own. Perhaps the time has come when this house should set up a committee to study the rules followed in the British House of Commons and see if we could not adapt some of those rules to our own needs. In that way we might have a different type of discussion, just as free but not as prolonged as the discussions that have occurred during this war period. I said a few moments ago that there are many ways in which prolonged discussion might be obviated, but I think a measure of this description should be given all the consideration we can give it, and at once.
I notice from the public press that the head of one of the great labour organizations in this country has stated that labour will give every cooperation to the government in carrying out this policy, but he regretted that the labour movement had not been consulted on this policy before it was introduced into this house. In my opinion, the representatives of the people's organizations should have been taken into the confidence of the government and the whole question thoroughly discussed with the labour organizations, the farmer organizations, the legion and other organizations vitally interested in the mobilization of labour. In any event, whether or not these organizations were called into consultation, surely there was no reason why parliament should be ignored in the manner in which parliament was and has been ignored on so many occasions during this war. I have followed the speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) over a number of years both before and since coming into this house, and if there is one man in the public life of

this country who has talked about the supremacy of parliament and the need1 for parliament to decide, it is the Prime Minister himself. Yet again and again policies of vital importance are adopted by order in council without parliament being consulted at all, and we have the latest example in the measure to which I have just referred.
I want to protest, too, against the manner in which this measure has been introduced into the house at this late hour just before the Easter recess. The government orders on to-day's order paper, although we have managed to dispose of some of them this afternoon and this evening, are still pretty well filled with important measures or have been right up to to-night. Consequently members have refrained from entering on a discussion of this measure. Yet this policy has long been under consideration by the government. I remember reading a speech made by the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) in Montreal as long ago as last December in which a measure such as this was clearly foreshadowed. I looked over a summary of the minister's speech yesterday and found that the orders in council which have been passed bringing into effect this new policy were also clearly foreshadowed: and almost accurately outlined by the minister when 'he spoke in Montreal as far back as last December. Therefore this policy has been under consideration by the government for some time, and there was no reason, to my mind, why the organizations I have mentioned should not have been called into consultation before the policy was decided upon, and certainly no reason why some discussion of it should not have taken place in this 'house.
Why the haste now, when we have not yet provided employment for some of our workers who are at present unemployed? The hon-. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) this afternoon read into the record an advertisement which appeared in the local press from an automobile workers' organization pointing out that there were many technical men in that organization who are unemployed to-day. There are some hundreds more unemployed at Kirkland Lake, many others at Kitchener, and there are men working short time, I am told, in a number of industries throughout the country. While it may be essential to organize our men and our women, we should first have utilized fully the labour power and the machinery that we have already available before a measure of this sort is adopted by order in council.
I know that the total war effort which must be waged in order to bring us to victory involves some sort of intelligent selective

War Appropriation
service, but an intelligent selective service not only for men and. women but for industries as well, and I want not only on my own behalf but on behalf of those associated with me, to protest in the strongest possible manner against the way in which these important proposals have been introduced at this time.
I do not wish to go into the problem at great length. There are some features of the legislation that are interesting, and not only interesting but worthy of commendation. I would commend the attempt to provide labour for the farm. But in saying that, I am not sure about the justice or rightness of taking one particular class out from under the selective service system. I am not sure that it is either wise or proper; it may cause grave antagonisms between groups. Agricultural labour has to be provided, and the condition of the farmer to-day is such that he cannot compete with industry for labour. His prices are too low and wages too high in relation to his prices, although not too high in relation to the cost of living and the cost of other things. But the young farmer, the farmer's son, by this legislation is kept on the farm, and no matter how low his standard of living may be, he is prohibited from seeking work in any other industry unless he obtains permission. So not only have you frozen farm labour on the farm at a comparatively low wage level, with farmer's prices at least in the prairie provinces too low to enable them even to operate, let alone pay a decent and reasonable wage, but you have said to the young men engaged in that industry: You must remain where you are unless you agree to enlist voluntarily in the armed forces. One of the criticisms I would make of the proposals is that in my opinion they doom the farmer to the sort of peasantry in which he has lived for a considerable time, and doom the farm labourer to a sort of peonage as compared with other forms of labour in this country.
In the working out of these selective service measures, who will control the operation of the policy? That, I think, is a vital question. I notice that a director and an assistant director have been appointed. I do not know either of these gentlemen, but I presume they are worth-while citizens of this country and probably very able men in their own spheres. But one is an engineer and company director, and the other is a stockbroker. The two people who will head this selective service system are, first, a company engineer, and second, a stockbroker. Where are the representatives of the people who are going to be regimented? Where are the representatives
of labour? Where are the representatives of the farmer? Where are the representatives of the common people?
I say to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) to-night that while I think he has done a remarkable job in many respects in organizing, nevertheless I have been alarmed at the trend in his department to the control of all our activities by powerful business men or by dollar-a-year men who are close to big business and big-business organizations. Our people are becoming suspicious of this sort of thing.
This is another mistake which the government has made in selecting men-no matter how good personally they may be-who have the wrong sort of association to command the right sort of confidence and support all across the country. The same is true of the manner in which it is proposed to grant the appeals. We have to-day national service appeal boards throughout the country. I am not going into the boards separately to-night, but in my opinion, from personal observation, some of the boards that have been set up have not commanded the confidence of democratically-minded people, and such boards are not the type that should be entrusted with this new power. If they were set up originally to select men who may be suitable for military training and to decide those who should get training or those who should be exempted, that does not qualify them for deciding whether a man is suitable for a certain type of industry or not. We require a new form of board, and the government should look over the personnel of the boards set up and endeavour to give a much wider sort of representation on those boards than we have had up to the present time.
We have, of course, the national advisory board, and the Prime Minister told us that provision would be made for the representation of women's organizations and other bodies upon such a board. That is all to the good, but so far the national labour relations board has not been functioning as it should have done. Then again, the selection of those who will be chosen for various types of work is left to officers to be located in the various cities, and unless these officers are selected with the greatest care we shall find that there will be a great deal of discontent with regard to them. I suggest to the government that before this mobilization goes into effect, on every board there should be adequate representation of the people's organizations, such as the labour and farmer organizations, the legion, if you will, and other organizations which represent great masses of the people of Canada.
War Appropriation

Another thing that struck me about this measure is the fact that if a young man has been turned down on account of physical unfitness, he may get medical aid and hospitalization so that he may be taken into the army. If it is necessary to give hospitalization and medical aid to bring up to efficiency a man going into the army, ought it not to be equally wise to give the same medical treatment and hospitalization to men and women so that they may be rendered efficient in industry as well? I should like to see the government provide medical aid and treatment for those who fall below the proper physical level both in industry and in the armed forces-men and women. Let me say in connection with this problem that the orders in council do provide for the payment of transportation to women if they are going to take work in industry. I suggest that we should have a comprehensive plan so that when men and women are moved from one place to another, where their labour is required for war purposes, we should look after the transportation problem so far as they are concerned and make some family allowance if they are compelled to be away from home. That, may I add, is being done in Great Britain where they move people around from place to place for the purpose of industry.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is done under the
unemployment act.


Thomas Miller Bell: No, under a special
scheme under the ministry of labour, I understand.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I meant to say under the ministry of labour.


Thomas Miller Bell: This is, indeed, a drastic mobilization of human power. On more than one occasion the Prime Minister has told us that the government intended to use ' the power now in its hands, under the National Resources Mobilization Act, to mobilize industry and wealth; but in spite of all that may be said, the fact is that industry and wealth are not yet mobilized to the extent to which it is proposed now to mobilize human power. In whose interests is this labour power being organized? In the interests of the country? Yes; but at the same time, under the present economic set-up, we are mobilizing labour for the National Steel Car Company, for General Motors, for Chrysler and for Ford. I say that we ought to mobilize these corporations on the same basis and on the same terms; then we should have something approaching equality of sacrifice. We have not that equality to-day, no matter what ministers may say.

I suppose all members of this house must have observed, from the balance sheets these days, how prosperous some of these companies are. They must have noticed the very expensive advertising these companies are undertaking. All members, I know, a few days ago received a very expensively framed copy of an advertisement that had been published during the recent victory loan campaign. I have not written to thank General Motors for the nice picture to hang in my office; I feel I ought to write and thank the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), because that advertising will be charged up to profits-excess profits-and eight-five per cent of the cost of that framed picture and that type of advertising will, in fact, be paid by the people of Canada, because the government of Canada will not collect the excess profits tax on money which is spent in that manner.


James Lorimer Ilsley: A limitation was placed on the amount of that kind of contributed advertising.


Thomas Miller Bell: I will not ask the minister to tell me what the limitation is because that would probably not be easy. It would vary from company to company.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, no. It was in the Department of National Revenue, but my recollection is that only ten per cent of the normal advertising expenditure was permitted to a company for contributed advertising.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is contributed advertising?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was a contributed
advertisement.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am not talking about contributed advertising; I am talking about the reprints. I do not know whether the minister had a framed picture that most of us received. That is not contributed advertising. I was speaking, not about the advertising contributed1 by these companies for the victory loan, but other sorts, such as the rather beautiful framed copy of an advertisement that we received, and the pictures we received a short time ago from the Chrysler company, and some other material that we have been receiving which were not contributed advertising but the normal advertising of the companies. I suggest to the minister that it would be well to look into the advertising that is being done at the present time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is subject to control by the Department of National Revenue; they may disallow if they see fit.

War Appropriation


Thomas Miller Bell: I hope they will look into some of the advertising and disallow a good deal of it.
We have not yet begun to mobilize wealth and industry. If we are to have equality of sacrifice, that must be brought about without delay. If we are to have an enthusiastic war effort it must be achieved without further delay.
I do not intend to delay the discussion any longer, but I want to emphasize with all the force I can, first, that the method of introducing policies of this kind is undemocratic. It is unfortunate. It does not give members of this house an opportunity to do what they are sent here to do. Secondly, if we are going to mobilize the human power of this nation, it must be mobilized under the supervision of the people themselves, supervised by representatives that they themselves choose. To-day in Canada we have organizations which choose representatives of the people for the people, other than this House of Commons. I refer, of course, to the great nation-wide labour and farmer organizations. When we have done that, as my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said this afternoon, we should guarantee to the men who are mobilized and engaged in these industries the right to bargain collectively through organizations of their own choice.
When we were in Great Britain I asked Mr. Bevin, the British Minister of Labour, as to the status of collective bargaining in Great Britain. He replied, "Oh, well, to-day that has become a part of our constitution." When I asked him the further question as to whether in government-owned plants or government partly owned and controlled plants normal labour organization was permitted he said, "Well, our great naval dockyards are, of course, government-owned; our civilian workers are organized in the union of their choice." Then with a smile he added, "And I am a national secretary of that union."
If we are to have a satisfactory and enthusiastic war effort, we have to safeguard the rights of the common people to .determine through their organizations their own activities and their own way of life to a larger extent than we have in past days. Indeed, we have to go further than that; there must be some joint management of industry between the present management and labour. Only in that way can we get an all-out, complete and enthusiastic war effort.
So, then, in making this appropriation, one-quarter of the $2,000,000,000 estimate for this coming year, I want to impress upon the
government that we shall not get the all-out effort required to win this war unless we and the other democratic nations can organize ourselves completely and efficiently. The totalitarian powers have done that; they have done it in a manner which we detest. I am one who believes that under our democratic institutions we can organize our countries as efficiently as, and much more enthusiastically than the totalitarian powers can ever do if we only take the people into our confidence and show them that we are prepared to give them a square deal. Equality of sacrifice demands that the people's organizations shall have a voice in all the war activities of this nation, and that the great industrial concerns of this country shall be mobilized, selected, conscripted if you will, in the same manner and upon the same terms and at the same time as we mobilize human labour.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I
would not be true to the character of my representation in this house or to my convictions in this matter if I did not rise at once to support in the main the observations of the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Coldwell). I believe that among hon. members on all sides, of the house there is a growing conviction that if we are to make our prosecution of this war what we all want it to be in a world in flames, there must not be on the part of any group in this country any suspicion of the loyalty and good faith of other groups in the country. I represent a constituency largely engaged in the automobile industry, which is at the present time, as to the Ford plant namely, and to only a relatively less extent at the Chrysler plant in Windsor, engaged in a total way in the production of military vehicles of all kinds that are being used to wage this war. I think that, generally speaking, labour has a legitimate complaint about its representation on important boards that are being set up. There has not been thus far, because this measure was introduced before any opportunity for discussion in parliament was presented, any real opportunity for members of this house to discuss the proposals for the mobilization of man-power announced the other day by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Labour has complained, and the responsible type of labour leadership has complained, that it was not represented on important boards. It is not too late now for the administration to include on boards of selection, boards that will deal with postponements and exemptions, not only the representatives of industry-they should be there-but, as well, representatives of labour and of the farming community as well as of the legion
16S0
War Appropriation

and other such organizations. The time has come when there should be on the part of labour and of industry less suspicion of one another than there has been in the past. I have heard it said by various people in this house; I have heard it in the corridors; I have heard some of my own people whom I represent say, "Oh, we cannot trust these men." If in this country we have reached the point where labour is not to be trusted, that is a terrible indictment of the nationhood of this country. I do not believe that. As I said a moment ago, I represent a constituency *which contains a huge proportion of labouring men. I know them. I come from that group myself and, indeed, I believe practically every member of this house in some way or another owes his inheritance to people of that kind. At the present time my own father is engaged in a factory making munitions of war. Am I to say that I do not trust him? And he is no different from the thousands of men who are engaged in the war factories of this country.
So I say, with all the sincerity and all the force of which I am capable, that the time has come when we should recognize that if there is a partnership in industry-and we have talked about that for years-we should make it a real partnership. Let us give labour full representation on these boards. Let us also give the farming community full representation. I am sure we shall not find that, as a result, any of the so-called radical groups will take advantage of the situation. We can trust the labouring people of this country; and by trusting them we shall help develop the sort of labour leadership, the kind of responsibility in leadership, which so many people in Canada find lacking in connection with labour in this country at the present time.
I fully agree with what the hon. member has just said with regard to the right of collective bargaining. The government of this country recognizes that right, so we are not asking for something that is new. Collective bargaining is a technique that is older than any member of this house, and it has kept the industrial peace of more countries than one could count on one's ten fingers. The preservation of the industrial peace of England has been maintained largely because the British government and industry and labour in Britain have fostered the development of a tradition under which not only employees but employers themselves would not for a moment think of resorting to any other technique. Recently, in my own city of Windsor we had a committee to carry on the victory loan campaign. On that committee were found not only representatives of industry but also representatives of labour

and of the farming community; and in that campaign the labouring people, fourteen thousand of them in one plant alone, invested their money just as willingly as did the management of those plants. So, if they can be trusted in a victory loan campaign, surely we can trust them in these other endeavours.
I say these things because I think we on this side of the house who represent the traditions of Liberalism should not hesitate, when the opportunity is presented as it is to-night, to properly enunciate our principles. I agree in the main with what has been just said; and I am satisfied that if this house gave a similar concurrence, if there were an attitude of trust on the part of labour toward industry and on the part of industry toward labour, we would not have the suspicion and the lack of unity which still exist in the industrial world.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to add only a few words to what has been said already. I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and with a great deal of what he said I am in hearty accord. For many years I have been very closely associated with labour, and I believe that I know a good deal about the labour problem. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar spoke of present conditions, and of what should be done now. I want to add to that something about what should take place when the war is over. To-day a committee met for the first time to deal with the question of rehabilitation after the war. I am not going to speak of that matter now, but I hope the work of that committee will bring about many of the results to which reference has been made already this evening. Certainly, after the war no such unemployment as has existed heretofore should be permitted. That matter may not come under this resolution, but much has been said about the organization of industry, and I am one of those who believe that industry should be organized so that, after the war, unemployment will be a thing of the past.
Since I have been very closely associated with working men for more than a quarter of a century, naturally their hopes and desires have always been foremost in my mind. Many industries, I know, have within their own organizations what they call sick benefit or medical assistance plans, whereby any of their employees who become sick or incapacitated receive assistance. That is not government assistance, however, and I am convinced that the time has come for the government to consider adopting the methods prevailing in the old country, under which.

War Appropriation
all working men in all plants, not only in those having their own organizations, shall receive sick benefits and medical assistance. I would say that was the second thing that should be provided after the war.
Furthermore, as I look back over the last ten years and recall the number of cases that have come to my attention of workmen losing their homes through no fault of their own, I hope that sort of thing will not prevail after the wrar either. Men who for years saved out of their humble wages and salaries acquired homes, perhaps not fully paid for, and then during the depression, which was not the result of any fault of theirs, they lost those homes. That is a situation which must not be allowed to prevail after the war.
I agree with what was said by the two previous speakers, that the time has come when we all-for I believe every member of this house is just as much interested as I am

must see to it that the conditions which obtained in the past shall not prevail again, and that our working men may receive that to which they are entitled. I hope, as has beqn suggested, that some modus operandi will be worked out under which these most desirable aims may be realized.


James Layton Ralston: May I add just a word, to deal with what has been said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). There seems to be some misapprehension with regard to the mobilization plan, particularly with reference to its application to labour and the part labour will play in connection with the administration of it. May I point out to my hon. friends, to the house and to the country that this system of national selective service is being operated by the Department of Labour, which is presided over by a man who is as well known in labour circles as any man in Canada, and who, indeed, has made his reputation in connection with labour. I do not feel at this stage that anyone should have any apprehension that labour will not be wholly, fairly and properly represented in connection with the administration of this measure.
May I say this, that having in mind my position and responsibility, someone might have suggested that it might have been administered by the Department of National Defence, simply because of the fact that in respect of the men needed for the army we have a heavy interest in it. That was not done. It might have been administered by the Department of National War Services, but that was not done. It was placed with the
Department of Labour, and I believe that all labour men in this country will realize that that was a recognition of the fact that they are very much a partner in this war, and that their rights and their responsibilities would be respected by this government.
May I add, as my colleague the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) has pointed out to me, that many of the functions of the Department of National War Services were transferred to the Department of Labour in order that this national selective service system might be worked out with the full appreciation and full cooperation of labour.
Then, mention has been made of boards. I do not know what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had in mind. The only boards we know of are, in the first place, the employment offices which will be operated throughout the country-and operated by the Department of Labour, under the Minister of Labour. They will be operated by men who understand the problems of labour and who have been acting in connection with it. Then, if there are advisory committees throughout the country, those advisory committees most assuredly will have on them representatives of labour. I am sure the house and the country, and particularly our friends who represent labour, can be assured that they will have the fullest representation in connection with anything which has to do with the administration of this legislation. With that assurance I feel the house will be satisfied. I should not want the wrong impression to go out from the debate which has taken place to-night, or from the speeches which have been made, that labour has been overlooked. It seems to me that labour at least is recognized fully in connection with the administration, and will be recognized in connection with the organization and set-up which will be put into effect throughout this country.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) very well stated the case for the group he leads in the house. I was much interested in, and deeply appreciated the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). I am now prompted to rise for a few moments 'because of the statement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston).
May I point out that having been a worker myself, and having been associated with the trades union movement for a considerable number of years, I know the attitude of the average working man to-day to the national selective service programme as proposed by
War Appropriation

the government. There is a suspicion on their part, and that suspicion is well founded. It is based on the attitude of those who, we know, at the present time are in charge of organizing the national selective service of the working people of this country.
The 'hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has stated that to date we know an engineer has been appointed, as representative of the companies. Another gentleman is one whose qualifications no one doubts, but whose environment and background are not reassuring. They are to take care of the problems of the people who are to be regimented. Many, many times I have heard it said1 in the house that the government recognizes the rights of labour and favours collective bargaining. We can judge that statement only on the basis of the government's approach to that problem in the past. I want to say this, that it is anything but reassuring.
Only 15 per cent of the workers in this country are organized. Eighty-five per cent of them are unorganized, because of their opposition to organization. Very recently we have had a demonstration of just about what the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) will do with respect to the enforcement of the rights of workers who organize. Kirkland Lake is a blot on his administration. It will take a long time to remove from that department the stigma of what happened there. I shall not go into it in detail, because the story is well known. They obeyed the wishes of the government and the laws of the land. They endeavoured to lay down their organization, with the result that, according to the last information I had, a thousand of them were without jobs and without relief. Nothing -has been done about it, so far as I know.
Another thing I should like to call to the attention of the house is -this: Many, many times, from many platforms and over the radio I have heard the statement made that one of the first things -which would1 come in Canada or any democratic country, in the event of totalitarian nations winning the war, would be the loss of trades unions. I want someone to explain to me what is the difference in the mentality of a person who destroys a trades union, and one who will not allow it to be born. In 'my opinion, there is no difference at all.
Furthermore, an active campaign has been carried on by industrialists in Canada, since the outbreak of the war, to offset the formation of any kind of legitimate trades unions functioning in this country. I am ashamed of such tactics. In the press from time to time and in the house hon. members have risen in their places to point out the relationship
[Mr. Gillis.3
between this country and our good neighbour to the south. It has been said that if we are going to get through this struggle successfully, Canada and that good neighbour must have a common understanding, and no differences of opinion. We are in this fight, all the way-both Canada and the United States. But at the same time big business directorates interlock between this country and the United States. Nothing is done about that. It is said that it is legitimate business, and it passes. Manufacturers' associations can organize on both sides of the boundary line, and lay down international organization rules. But just as soon as a representative of labour comes from the United States to Canada and endeavours to employ the experience he has gained over many years in a similar field in the United States, when he sets foot on Canadian soil he is accused at once of being a foreigner. It is said that he is a foreign agitator, and the press of Canada from one end of the country to the other goes to great lengths to build up the idea that a "foreign agitator is in Sudbury creating a disturbance."
Only just recently the Canadian offices of the mine, mill and smelter workers' union, with headquarters in the United States, were destroyed. This was a respectable group associated with that organization, a group which was endeavouring only to give the Canadian worker the benefit of their experience. The men were prepared to organize to carry out an all-out war effort. But one of these men, who is accused of being a foreign agitator, was beaten up and placed in a hospital. There were screaming headlines in a large section of the press.
I call this to the attention of the Minister of National Defence, because he has a serious job to do, and we want to help him.


Mr. CRERAR:: In regard to the destruction of the offices and the beating up of certain labour leaders in Sudbury, may I ask the hon. member why a charge was not laid? They were invited to lay a charge with the police, but no charge was laid. If my hon. friend does not know it, there is a very strong suspicion, whether it is well founded or not, that the whole breaking up of the office was a bit of a racket to gain sympathy.


Clarence Gillis: I can answer that. There is no mystery about it, so far as I was concerned, because I have gone through that kind of stuff. That job was planned. There was not any use in or any necessity of laying charges and for this reason: Do not make any mistake about it that the men who are organizing those unions are the men who will finally drag some of the people to-day out of the

mess into which they have got themselves. That is why they do not lay charges. The men who did that job were paid to do it by the company which makes a fairly good1 profit in that section.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Has my hon. friend any proof of that?


Clarence Gillis: I have that information from the people.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: A story is not proof.


Clarence Gillis: My story is just as good as the story told by the company. The minister has only their side of it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not defending the company for a moment, but these people allege that they were attacked and they said they could recognize their attackers. If so, why did they not lay a charge of assault?


Clarence Gillis: Every man who committed that assault was checked into the mine although he was not in it, and he had a perfect alibi before the assault was committed. That has been done quite often. I have seen it done myself under certain circumstances. What is the use of a union which has not very much money to start with going to the courts against International Nickel and having a case tried by people who know where they stand? It would be a waste of money.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The union would not need money to prosecute. The crown attorney of the district would prosecute.


Clarence Gillis: You go to a magistrate and try to take out papers and you will see. The first thing he wants is some money and a guarantee of more. There is something wrong with the leadership of any trades union that gets hooked up with the courts of the country. I am merely pointing out that you cannot stand up in the House of Commons and tell the working people of this country that their interests are well protected. They have been listening to that for twenty years. Why is there so much opposition in this country to the formation of trades unions?
Great Britain's war effort has been lauded, but I want to tell the house that there would have been no war effort in Great Britain were it not for the 5,000,000 trades unionists led by Bevin. He is the only man in England who could mobilize industry. He had demonstrated in the past that they could trust him, and they were willing to relinquish many of their rights on the understanding that they would get them back when the war was over. They knew they had one of their own with them. They would not take that from
War Appropriation
General Motors or International Nickel. These men are perhaps honest in protecting their own organizations, and they are going to try to have a continuation of the system that has been good to them. I think it is being demonstrated that the organizations which could not plan the peace-time requirements of this country without having a million people on relief are certainly not capable of planning an all-out war effort and carrying it through.
We are glad to get the most production, but you will have to do something about it. You cannot have a continuation of Kirkland Lake and General Motors. We cannot have our mining industry partly shut down at a time when the fuel controller is hollering for coal. We want to help out with this job, but we want to be recognized as a partner in it, not as a poor relation. These people are saying, "We are willing to use you while there is a crisis, but we are not willing to give you the same rights that we have ourselves." The headquarters of International Nickel are in the United States and they are not considered as foreign agitators. We have no objection to them; we are merely asking for the same rights.
Who is going to organize this selective service proposition? Is it to be done under order in council 2685? Is the government going to recognize the right of the workers of this country to bargain? This thing is becoming a joke. If this thing is only a gesture, there is no use in wasting any time on it; but if this national selective service is to be a success, it will be necessary to get all possible help in order to put it over. The miners' unions in the east will be ready to work with you. I say that any industry operator who retards collective bargaining, who refuses to take in the men round the table with him, is throwing away one of the greatest assets he has. If General Motors is going to operate this thing; if you deny the workers the right to sit in at these councils and help out with this war effort, it will not be a success.
Yesterday I met twenty men from the automotive industry. These men were workers; they were not officials or salaried men. But they were alarmed at the lack of production in their industry. They had sent a committee here to Ottawa to find out what could be done to step up production and to make the industry work. They were here to offer their services. If you do not want them to work with you, that is all right, but I say that the first requirement is to have these men sit in with the boss. If a boss is afraid to meet his employees, then there is something wrong with his business. If the worker is going to be a

War Appropriation

partner, then he should1 sit round the conference table to study these problems. If we are going to beat Mr. Hitler and the Japs, there must be some understanding on that basis. If you are going to have a sixteen-hour day, I am prepared to accept it on the understanding that when the real job is done, the bosses and the government and labour will sit round the conference table to rearrange this whole thing and avoid a repetition of what is occurring now.	*
Our people have gone through a lot of misery. Only 15 per cent of the workers of this country have been permitted to organize. That is not good enough. Things like this stick in the crops of the people. If they have suspicion, it is well founded. The industries of this country have thrown away one of the best assets they had.
I am sorry I have had to say what I did, but it was prompted by what the Minister of National Defence said. I have no doubt that he is honest in his opinion, but he has been living in an environment different from the one in which I have been living. I have been for thirty years with these men. I have attended trades unions meetings and councils; I have listened to these men, and I understand what is going on. If you take a man from one of these trades unions and put him on a board to regulate any industry, the workers will have confidence in him. They will know that he knows their problems and you will avoid a lot of headaches. You will receive one hundred per cent cooperation. But if you send a stockbroker from Montreal or Toronto down to sit in with a bunch of coal miners and discuss their problems, he will not get very far. He does not talk their language, and they do not talk his.


Mr. G. E. WOOD (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate, but I am prompted to do so by what has been said in some of the speeches here to-night. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) claims that he has been living in a different atmosphere from that in which those who administer some of the laws of Canada live. When I hear labour exponents argue their case I often wonder who is really the labouring man. Labour includes a large proportion of the population of this dominion, and there are certain elements in this country who seem to think that they have a divine right, that they can enjoy all the rights of society without undertaking any of its obligations.
If we are going to have an all-out war effort, it is necessary and essential that we should all contribute according to our ability,

that we should give the very best that is in us and not always be looking to find fault with what the other fellow is doing. We should see that we do our own job and do it right.
I have not armed myself to-night with figures beyond those I have charged my memory with, taken from news items, but I should like to take a few moments to reply to some of the things which have been said. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) waxed eloquent over the contribution of labour and criticized the shortcomings of the financiers. Mr. Speaker, I am not a financier. I live among about the same class of people as those represented by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, the common people who are in the great majority, and, after all, an expression from a representative of the common people should have its weight. I am going to give my view as I see it from the point of view of the ordinary, honest-to-goodness farmer who labours, I think, just as much as any organized labour man that I know of. I think, too, that we should appreciate those in this country who work in an executive capacity. It is foolish to suppose that because these men wear white collars they are not working men. I know a lot of people in the city in my constituency who are sitting up nights over the financial problem of seeing that those men who work from eight to five shall have some place to sell their labour.	These people deserve some
recognition, especially in our war effort, and I am prepared, too, to pay a high tribute to industry for the wonderful contribution it has made to our war effort.
The Monetary Times in the month of January published a record of the business done in 1942 by firms with seats on the Montreal and Toronto stock exchanges and showed that although these firms had to do a great deal more business than they did during the preceding year, their dividends amounted to only five million dollars more than the year before. In spite of doing almost double the volume of business, a large part of their profits were taken away from them by the excess profits tax legislation and corporation taxes brought down in the early part of this war. Therefore these firms are more or less tax-collecting agencies for the government. It is wise to let them have a reasonable profit because 85 per cent of the profit made by corporations is collected for the war effort of this country. I know it is not popular to defend finance, but it is more easy for me to do so because I am not a financier myself. I try to look upon the question from the common-sense point of view that there should be harmony

War Appropriation
and a proper relationship between the industrial man, the labour man, the farmer, and the executive who are all working together in this all-out war effort that we have to make. I think it is hardly becoming to champion one particular class of our people as if they possessed all the virtues, although I have a great deal of sympathy with labour.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are all labour.


George Ernest Wood: That is true, and we should try to keep a proper perspective.
My Social Credit friends in the far corner of the house are exponents of a new order in finance. They make a special attack on our existing financial institutions. I am a practical man, Mr. Speaker, and have to look at things from results as I see them in a practical way, and so I shall not attempt to go into their monetary theory. But let me point out this to my Social Credit friends. I see by the Financial Post to-day that the net profit of the chartered banks last year was about $13,500,000. The net profit of the banks would be what it would probably cost the nation for the banks to be the bookkeepers of the nation, and in spite of what hon. gentlemen said about our financial institutions being parasites, and so forth, $13,500,000 represents only one-quarter of one per cent of our total national wealth if we accept the figure of $6,000,000,000 as the estimated national wealth of the whole country. Suppose the social credit theory were put into practice and we had what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar advocates-tax-free money. You would have to pay for the cost of doing that business. At the present time the interest charged remunerates the banks and allows them to pay their staffs. The interest charge is their profit motive. So the net profit of the banks represents only what it costs the public for the banks to be the bookkeepers of the nation. I thought it was time that somebody should rise in his place in this house and turn over the leaf so that we could see the other side of the picture. I am not here to defend the banks or any financial institutions whatsoever. I am just trying to use the ordinary common sense the Lord has seen fit to give me and to vision this thing from the point of view of a practical man.
Our Social Credit friends in the far corner of this house also dwell on the new order there is going to be after the war. But I say to them, do not be carried away by any false hopes, for I do not think this new order will ever take away the struggle from life, and I think it is well to keep that in mind. It is all very well to find fault with some of the things we have with us to-day under our present system, but very often, you know, it is
difficult to put something better in their place. I would also give this word of warning to the same hon. gentlemen, that when you have this new order, you will still find the same elements among us complaining about it, because no matter what kind of new order is brought into being, there will always be those who will make the best of it and finally find their way to the top, and then we shall have the same element we have to-day wanting another new order. But why do we need to argue about the new order while the war is on? Why not postpone that discussion and see if we cannot make a job of winning the war against the most vile and vicious enemy that ever befouled this earth? That is what I have been thinking, and I have been waiting for some man more able than I to discuss these matters. Perhaps they were too modest, and with me it may be a case of "fools rush in where angels fear to tread." Nevertheless that happens to be my nature. I generally champion the cause of the underdog, and I believe that when you have a friend who needs protection it is better to do it behind his back than before his face.
While the banks and industry have not been making excessive profits, labour, I believe, is getting as fair a share of the wealth of this country to-day as any class. If there is any preference, it is the labouring class that gets the preference, as compared with the farmer and industry. This war has been carried on upon the basis of a 3 per cent war. The last war was a 5J per cent war; therefore even finance is taking its cut this time. That is something which ought to be considered. Furthermore, while we have been at war for two and a half years, there is no evidence, so far as I can see, that one man in the dominion has become a millionaire or one firm has made millions in consequence of the war. We have taken the glamour of profiteering out of the war, and I am also prepared to say that a great deal of the opposition to the government-why do we not do this, and why do we not do that?-is due to the fact that a certain element of society in the sountry are disappointed that they cannot get their hands in up to the elbow and make themselves millionaires. A great deal of the criticism of the efforts of the administration could, I believe, be traced to that very reason. I regret that I did not come here a little better prepared to contribute to the debate, but I could not sit here any longer and allow some of the things that we have heard to go unchallenged.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South referred to the Kirkland Lake strike. Perhaps he is more familiar with organized labour
War Appropriation

than I am, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that his view of the strike is not shared generally in the part of Ontario from which I come. I may be wrong, but I think that when the men who have enjoyed the distinction of having from 20 to 25 per cent more for their labour than the labour men in the rest of the country, assert themselves at this time in the manner in which they have done, they do not do organized labour any good, nor do they enhance themselves in the estimation of the Canadian people. The hon. member can argue all he likes, but I suggest to him that the less said on this subject, the better. Let it die down, and the next time these men attempt to organize, let them see to it that they do not repeat the mistakes which they have made in the past. Let it go by the board; that would be my advice.


Clarence Gillis: May I ask the hon. member a question?


George Ernest Wood: If I can answer it, it does not hurt to ask.


Clarence Gillis: With regard to the Kirkland Lake situation, he says that the men made a mistake. Does he think that any section of the people of this country who obey the instructions of the government, following every legal avenue provided by the government, taking a referendum and getting an affirmative vote, are doing wrong? They carried out literally the laws laid down by the government.


Georges Parent: Order.


George Ernest Wood: I do not think I am
expected to answer that question yes or no. That is impossible, and I do not think I will attempt it. The question relates to a highly technical matter. Let me say to the hon. gentleman that it is results that count, and these men are out of work to-day. Ask them if they had to do it over again what they would do. Let the hon. gentleman get their answer first.


Clarence Gillis: They would tell you that they are still good citizens and will obey the laws of the country.


George Ernest Wood: I do not claim to be an authority on these questions, but I am giving the hon. member the benefit of the views of the people with whom I come in contact. Sometimes, living as I do next to nature, among the quiet, placid country folk, I take a great deal of pleasure in going among that satisfied community in the evenings, where people get together in the country stores. These people are called by the rude name of IMr. Wood.]	I
nail-keg orators; but some hon. members here, who try to philosophize us into a new order, would do well to go into some of the old pioneer sections and get the philosophy of life of the people there, talk the language they talk, and learn what their views are. I venture to say that such hon. members would come back into the house better informed. I am prompted to say what I am saying now because I have gathered a considerable amount of the information which I am giving to-night as a result of my associations with these people. As I say, I can talk their language and they can talk mine as well.
I regret having taken up so much time, but I could not sit here quietly without coming to the defence of people who apparently have no one to speak for them. Not that I am interested in the industrialists of the country, but I would remind the house that we need all phases of the economic order if we are to make this a happy and comfortable place to live in. After all, happiness is what we are all after. I would suggest another bit of philosophy to my friends. They may argue as long as they like about finances, they may talk as much as they like about the dollar; but happiness is a homemade product and it cannot be made out of dollars and cents.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: May I answer the charge which the hon. gentleman has made, that criticisms of the government's efforts can be traced to those who have not been able to get their hands up to the elbow into the pool of profits. Apparently he understands the language and mentality of those who think their main object in life is to get their noses into the trough at the expense of their fellowmen who are contributing to the welfare of the nation by their sweat and toil. I want him to know now that we in this part of the house at least, in our efforts to represent labour, will have nothing to do with that sort of thing.
I make this criticism of the government's action. I say to them: You have mobilized labour, but you have left industry and finance unmobilized. The people of Canada wanted complete mobilization of the country in total war; you have brought down orders in council, and the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) confirms it-mobilizing man-power, the labour of the country. But there has been nothing so far as we can see to show that you intend to have the factories continue operating. This war will likely be won or lost on the production lines of industry.

War Appropriation
It is equipment that we need. Labour in Canada is showing itself willing to lbe mobilized if you will produce the machines, but nothing is done to see that the factories are kept operating. General Motors can close down, or the aeroplane plants can close down production or slow down, and the shipbuilding yards can slow down, but there is nothing in the way of mobilizing industry so tlhat parliament and the government of the country can demand that plants keep working day and night.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Will my hon. friend explain how we could mobilize industry?


George Hugh Castleden: See that the plants of the country are working day and night.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Are they not?


George Hugh Castleden: Many of them are not.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Where?


George Hugh Castleden: One in Ottawa. Oshawa was closing down, and a thousand men in Kirkland Lake are doing nothing. I do not know why they should be digging for gold anyway; they would be better employed producing tanks and aeroplanes.
This government claims that it has representatives of labour operating the mobilization work. I say that men who left labour and organized labour and have been in the pay of the government for years do not properly represent labour. What needs to be done first of all, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has said, is to get labour organized and then let labour and farm organizations select their own men to represent them on the board, not for a government which has prevented labour from organizing for forty years to go out and select those whom it probably knows from their position will carry out the will of their masters. A partnership between labour and industry as it is operated to-day is like a partnership between the cat and the canary; the canary ends inside the cat. What we need to solve this problem of labour is to have on these advisory boards men selected by labour to act as labour's representatives in directing policy. Labour must be a part owner of industry, just as the people of Canada feel that the natural resources of this country are the birthright of the Canadian people.
Labour will be more efficient when it is organized. There are fewer strikes when labour is organized. Organized labour is satisfied labour, because they know that if they have not their rights they have at least the machinery with which they can work in a democratic way for those rights. What has happened in Kirkland Lake in the past few
months is a disgrace to a country or a government which claims that in any way it has the interests of labour at heart.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 45, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 17, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding $2,000,000,000 for the year ending March 31, 1943, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Vien in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: I anticipate that there will
be some debate on this. To keep the record straight, I should say that at some early stage I shall have to move or have one of my colleagues move to reduce this amount from $2,000,000,000 to $1,500,000,000 because of the fact that a bill has just been passed voting one-quarter of the amount by way of interim supply. But I do not think I need do that to-night; it may be that I should not do that until the $500,000,000 bill has passed parliament as a whole. But just in case anyone wonders why we are voting $500,000,000 and then $2,000,000,000, we are not. This $2,000,000,000 is subject to reduction by the $500,000,000.
It is on this particular measure and at this stage that the defence ministers make their statements and we try to lay the basis for an orderly discussion of the war effort of the government. I see no reason why we should not start right in. The Minister of National Defence is prepared to start now and give some information regarding his department.


Grote Stirling: It would appear to me that there must be a correct time at which to make the modification in relation to the $500,000,000. I do not know whether that should be at this stage in committee or on the bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It will be in committee, I think. I will get information about that. I think that can be attended to to-morrow.


James Layton Ralston: I do not propose to make any statement in the sense of the statements which have been made in previous years in connec-
War Appropriation

tion with the army activities. I rather felt that they were not regarded as being particularly helpful and that hon. members would prefer to elicit information by way of question and answer. I am, however, prepared to give any information possible and to make a statement on any particular subject which may come up. It has seemed that, in a prepared statement, there has been so much that one has spoken about in which hon. members were not particularly interested, and that one was taking the time of the committee needlessly. Having regard to the fact that the Prime Minister made a statement in regard to army policy along with the policy respecting defence generally in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, also that I made a statement on February 10, and that we have had since then the secret session in which hon. members will recall that quite exhaustive statements were made, I do not propose to traverse the activities of the department by way of opening because, as I say, it would be waste of time.
I propose now to give to the committee for the purpose of the record a break-down of the figures which my colleague the Minister of Finance gave as being the amount included for the army in the total set out in this resolution. I also propose to deal with one or two matters that have come up in debate
Definition
1.	Canadian formations and functions, presently
overseas, including increments to same....
2.	Canadian formations and functions to be sent
overseas during the fiscal year 1942-43...
3.	Coast defence, special detachments, guards for
vulnerable points and other operational functions in Canada	
4.	National Defence headquarters and district
services, including depots	
5.	Training and reinforcement functions in
Canada, active army and National Resources Mobilization Act	
6.	Reserve army, C.O.T.Cs. and reserve units of
veterans guard of Canada	
7.	Miscellaneous army activities in Canada,
including C.W.A.C	
.8. Revotes of funds already committed	
9. Training equipment not provided elsewhere..
and, as I have said, with any other matters the committee desires. Perhaps the committee might indicate if there are any particular subjects on which they would desire statements to be made; that is, apart from the statements which may be made in the form of answers to questions.
May I say just one more word by way of explanation. I am making this statement tonight because I find that an unavoidable appointment will keep me away when the house opens to-morrow. I hope to be back here by four o'clock, or very soon after; and if it should be the wish of the committee, I would arrange that one of my colleagues, the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), or the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), should be here to go on with some subject in their departments, if this order is reached before I return to the house.


Grote Stirling: May I ask if in this statement the minister is going to make any reference to the two new divisions to which the Prime Minister referred?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, I was going to refer briefly to that matter. In the first place, the break-down of the $997,000,000, together with the functions or definitions and the amounts relating to them, is as follows:
Non-recurring	Recurring	Total cost 1942-43$ 51,145,019	$443,601,164	$494,746,18353,027,811	82,346,427	135,374,23842,182,503	123,913,428	166,095,9311,424,079	40,272,364	41,696,44314,346,859	60,401,555	74,748,4149,991,442	20,163,133	30,154,5751,813,507 43,600,000	8,175,709 595,000	9,989,216 43,600,000 595,000$217,531,220	$779,468,780	$997,000,000


George Russell Boucher: Would the minister mind explaining the difference between recurring and non-recurring items?


James Layton Ralston: Generally speaking, nonrecurring are capital expenditures; recurring, to use a colloquialism, might be called operating expenses. That does not perhaps apply 
to departmental expenditures generally, but it indicates the rough division between the two terms.
On January 26, I think it was, the Prime Minister indicated what our programme was for 1942-43. I dealt with the same matter also at some length, so I shall not take time

War Appropriation
to go over that again except to remind the committee, so that we may get a running start, that we have the first, second and third infantry divisions overseas, together with the fifth armoured division, and an army tank brigade. We have the fourth division in Canada. These are all active units. The proposal is, and the programme for this year is, to convert the fourth infantry division into an armoured division and to mobilize an army tank brigade, which will be in addition to the army tank brigade which is now overseas. The expectation is to dispatch the fourth armoured division and the army tank brigade which is to be mobilized, together with a considerable number of corps and army troops, overseas during this year, so that if the programme is carried out, our overseas representation will be five divisions, two of which will be armoured divisions and three of which will be infantry divisions, together with two army tank brigades.
Those are the formations. In addition, there will be a very substantial number of army troops, and corps troops, that is to say, on lines of communication. The committee will realize that, as I have said before, the number of men in the division itself, that is to say, what we regard as the division proper, is augmented and has to be augmented and supplemented very considerably by men on lines of communication, for working with the corps and for working with the army.
We emerge, then, with two corps. It was stated by the Prime Minister that one of the two corps would consist of three infantry divisions and the other corps of two armoured divisions. That may or may not be the composition of those corps. We want to have them perfectly flexible, and it may be that the composition of the corps will change from time to time, depending upon whether or not it may be desirable to use an armoured division with an infantry division, or an armoured division with two infantry divisions, or otherwise as the case may be. Those two corps will compose the Canadian army, which will have an army headquarters and will be a complete organization, what I described before as a hard-hitting, fast-moving fighting force ready to take on any job which may present itself. That does not mean by any means that this army has to fight as a unit. I have said before, and I repeat, that those with whom we are associated understand full well
__and I know this personally because I have
made it clear to them myself-that the Canadian army and the Canadian troops are, the Prime Minister said the other day, for the purpose of serving the common cause to the very best advantage, that they are prepared to serve in whatever theatre and in whatever way may be considered best, having regard to the task which has to be done.
That is our overseas programme. That will require, as I anticipate, something like 100,000 men by the end of the ensuing fiscal year. Of those, roughly 25,000 will be for new units, that is to say, for those additional corps and army units, and something like 75,000 for reinforcements.


Mr. GREEN:: Those are all for overseas?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, or intended for
overseas.


Grote Stirling: That would add up to nearly 200,000?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, it would add up to nearly 200,000. But of course the house will understand that when reinforcements are needed and go over, it means that they will be taking the place of some men now there, so you do not add together all the proposed reinforcements and all the men you have over there.


Howard Charles Green: I did not get that clearly. Did the minister say there would be a total of 175,000 go overseas this year?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. I have in mind that the army will have something like 175,000, but it all depends upon casualties, as my hon. friend knows.


Howard Charles Green: Did you mean that there were 175,000 to be raised for overseas this year?


James Layton Ralston: No. I said 100,000, of which 25,000, roughly, were for new units, and 75,000 for reinforcements. That is our programme.


Grote Stirling: Will they be ready by the end of the year?


James Layton Ralston: I would think so, yes- earlier than that. That is our programme for overseas, as we see it at the present time. I intimated, in addition, that we had certain plans in Canada. Certain special dispositions had been made, due to the worsening of the situation following Pearl Harbour. These dispositions had been made particularly on the east and west coasts.
I need hardly say one of the most important items of those dispositions was the formation of anti-aircraft batteries-that is, so far as the army is concerned. That has been followed up. Along with that, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, has gone the formation of about a dozen new infantry battalions, and a certain number of additional artillery batteries and other arms of the service.
In addition to that, there has been authorization for an organization of reserve brigade groups. That is to say, reserve
War Appropriation

battalions across Canada have been authorized in each district to form into reserve brigades, and permanent staffs have been provided for those brigades, in order that they may have training, and be in a position to assist in connection with the defence of Canada, should the need arise.
In addition to that, there have been arrangements made for the organization of men in training centres into a special formation for use in emergency conditions.
All those are, of course, in addition to the fourth division, which is now in Canada; in addition to the three brigade groups of the sixth division, which is in Canada; and in addition to the coast defence artillery units, and their supplementary services, which are on both coasts.
That would have been quite a comprehensive programme. Then, in addition to that- it was not in the Prime Minister's announcement-I should point out to the committee that we have authorized the completion of the sixth division as a self-contained formation, by providing divisional troops and divisional headquarters which, along with the three brigade groups of the sixth division, which have been mobilized for some time, will form a complete sixth division.


Howard Charles Green: Does that include artillery?


James Layton Ralston: Artillery, engineers and all units of other services. The commanding officer of the sixth division will be, I expect, named very shortly.
Then, as the Prime Minister said, we have authorized the mobilization of the seventh division. That is to say, it will be the mobilization of a complete seventh division, which means the infantry battalions, plus all services-artillery, engineers, signals, army service corps, medical corps, and so on-a complete division.
That division will be mobilized and composed of units which are already in being by forming them into brigades, and putting alongside them in brigade groups the various services required. Headquarters will be provided as well.
Following that will be the 'mobilization of -he eighth division, which will also be formed,
I anticipate, from units which have already been mobilized-or some which have been mobilized very recently, and probably with the addition of some to be mobilized. Hon. members will understand that that does not mean that the formation of the seventh and eighth divisions simply means the conversion into divisions of battalions which up to this time have been individual battalions. That will be so, but battalions will have to be 
organized to take the place of those battalions which will go into these two divisions. That is to say, we are adding to our strength in Canada to the extent of these divisions.


Mr. WHITE:: Will they both be active divisions?


James Layton Ralston: They will be active home defence divisions, and they will be composed of men, largely, who will be called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act.


George Stanley White: Will they be active force units?


James Layton Ralston: They will be active force, in the sense that they will be full-time units.


George Stanley White: Hut they will be reserve force units?


James Layton Ralston: They will be active; they will be home defence forces on active service.


Grote Stirling: But not attested.


James Layton Ralston: No, not attested. They will be home defence forces on active service.


George Stanley White: Do you call them active forces?


James Layton Ralston: I am calling them that. Each of these units will have some in them who are attested. A very large proportion will be men who have been called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act.


Howard Charles Green: That is true of the sixth division also.


James Layton Ralston: The sixth division was very much less. I would1 say probably 20 per cent, or less, are under the National Resources Mobilization Act at the present time.


George Stanley White: Is it the intention to take any of the present second battalions, and make them a part of the seventh and eighth divisions?


James Layton Ralston: Some of the second battalions may be taken and made part of the divisions, and some of them may be mobilized to take the place of the battalions which have been made part of the divisions.
1 can say to my hon. friend that after the operation has been completed and the two divisions have been formed, and units have been formed to take their place, I would anticipate that so far as infantry is concerned there will be practically no units which will not have a representative either overseas or mobilized in Canada. That will mean that second battalions will have to be formed for units which will be mobilized.

War Appropriation


Grote Stirling: Will that not mean that the reserve to which the minister has referred as the second defence string will be largely depleted?


James Layton Ralston: No; the units mobilized will then form reserve battalions.


Grote Stirling: New ones?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. Second battalions will be formed; that is the general programme.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Will reserve battery units be mobilized?


James Layton Ralston: I anticipate that the first infantry units will all be mobilized. I cannot be sure, without counting up with regard to the other units. But, answering the hon. member for Yale, do not let anyone think there will not be plenty of second battalions still in existence. I am answering the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough, too. Probably there are eighty or ninety second battalions still in existence.
That is the programme, very roughly, for the year. In that connection I do not believe I have anything more to say at this time. The committee will have an opportunity to get such information as I can give it, subject to this, that I do not feel I can give the proposed disposition of these new divisions, except to indicate what was said by the Prime Minister, namely, that they will be used as mobile reserves for the east and west coasts at the present time. That will mean that when the mobilization is complete there will be, until the fourth division goes overseas, the fourth division, the sixth division, the seventh division, the eighth division, plus the coast defence battalions on each coast, of which there are quite a number. That is in addition to the coast defence artillery.


Douglas King Hazen: How long will it take to
complete the mobilization of these two divisions?


James Layton Ralston: I think the mobilization
of the seventh division will be completed within a comparatively short time, and the eighth division will be completed perhaps sooner than my hon. friend expects.


George Stanley White: How soon will the names of
the units be announced?


James Layton Ralston: I have them under my
hand for the seventh division, but I sun not in position to announce them at the moment. I may say to my hon. friend that it is not because I have no desire to give them, but simply because it is felt that these should not be given out publicly. I refer to the list of so-called "Order of Battle" from which a man can find out that his particular unit has been
44S61-108
called up. This "Order of Battle" has not been given out, and perhaps hon. members will note that it is not being given in the Canada Gazette. If my hon. friend wants to know about any particular unit, I can give him the information.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain
about the reserve army? Figures have been given from time to time showing that there are about 140,000 men in the reserve army, and a return brought down in this house shows that about 62,000 of these are men who were called up for thirty days' training under the National Resources Mobilization Act and then returned to their homes after completing their training. The only connection they have with the army is that their names appear on the nominal rolls of the reserve units to which they have been posted. In other words, they have not been taking any training with the reserve units at all and are really no longer in the army; yet they are always shown as part of the reserve army. This would appear to make the strength of that reserve army quite a lot larger than it really should be. It really amounts to a paper strength. Furthermore, there was a return No. 1241 brought down on March 23 which includes a copy of a letter from the acting deputy minister for the army to the under-secretary of state, which contains this paragraph:
No information is available concerning the number of enlistments among personnel who were called for 30 days' training and who have not yet been recalled for further training.
In other words, of these 62,000 men we do not know how many have enlisted for active service. They may be in the active army, the navy or the air force; they certainly are no longer in the reserve army. I think these points should be cleared up by the minister.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is perfectly right when he says that when men enlist in the active forces, they are not available as part of the reserve army.


Howard Charles Green: But they still appear as part.


James Layton Ralston: I heard what my hon.
friend said. I understand about that. To that extent I think the figures are incorrect, but it does not mean that we have lost those men. It means that they have become more useful than if they W'ere still in the reserve army-


Howard Charles Green: I maintain-


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon, friend just
permit me to finish the sentence? It means, of course, that they are being counted in the reserve army and in the active army too. I

War Appropriation

think my hon. friend is perfectly right in his criticism. I know of no way that that could be corrected except to take a percentage.
My hon. friend is not quite correct in his reference to paper strength. These men have had thirty days of intensive training. Knowing what I do of the training of the reserve army, I would think that really qualifies them to be members of the reserve army. I quite understand that they do not go to the armouries, but they are there and available for the reserve army and therefore I think they might properly be counted. My hon. friend is only repeating what he said in the house the other day. He referred to the reserve army and much to my surprise indicated that he thought the reserve army should be called up compulsorily for training.


Howard Charles Green: I said if they could not be obtained in any other way.


James Layton Ralston: That is how I would have expected my hon. friend to put it, rather than the way I put it. It is the easiest thing in the world for the Department of National Defence to make a requisition to the Department of National War Services for them to ask so many men to report for training. The reserve army is a citizen's army, organized and mobilized for the primary purpose of defending the homes of the people who are in them and their communities.


Howard Charles Green: Then these 60,000 should not be counted in the reserve army.


James Layton Ralston: I say that that is not the idea of the reserve army. It is pointed out by my officers that the suggestion which my hon. friend makes that they should be called up for compulsory service is a complete negation of our whole idea of the reserve army. But I say to him that if it is necessary in this time of stress to call on our citizens compulsorily to defend their communities, then it will have to be done. But I do feel that we ought to give these citizens a proper opportunity to enlist in that reserve army and to do their share with respect to the defence of their homes and the communities in which they live. The reserve army essentially is one which lives and thrives on the patriotic fervour and self-denial of the men who are in it, men who are willing to give up something for the sake of assisting in the defence of their country; men who are willing to stay after hours; men who are willing to take extra classes; men who are willing to make the best use of little equipment perhaps; men who are willing to wait for their turn on a
iMr. Ralston.]
piece of equipment in order that they may fit themselves. I feel just as strongly as my hon. friend, perhaps a little stronger, with regard to calling men up compulsorily, but I do feel that we should not do that until we have made dead sure that the citizens in these communities understand what their responsibilities are and have had an opportunity to fulfil them.
It is obvious that the citizens are not coming into the ranks of the reserve army as we would like them to. There are only two ways to get them, voluntarily or by calling them up. There is a place for the reserve army in our organization. Men below 19 years of age or from 35 to 50 years are taken into the reserve army. Recognition is given to the fact that these are men who probably are not in a position, because of age, family responsibility, or business responsibilities, to take their part in the active army. We have just decided to do one thing more in this respect, that is to lower the age limit from 35 to 30 years in the case of married men. We are doing this in the hope that we will get more men into the reserve army. I say to my hon. friend and to the committee that I am perfectly ready to consider the calling up of men compulsorily for the reserve army if that is the only way in which they can be brought in. I hope that will not be so because I think it would defeat the spirit which is behind the reserve army and which has done so much to build up the active battalions we have. The whole Canadian army has been built up on the reserve army. The units which are overseas were reserve army units which were mobilized. This is entirely different from the situation in the last war. As I say, the whole army is built up on the organization, the esprit de corps, of the units of the reserve army.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister not think that the best way to build up the reserve army would be for the government to decide how many men it wants and then make an appeal to the people of Canada for that number to enlist? These men have had all kinds of discouragements, and I am not surprised at all that there has been great trouble in keeping these units up to strength. The position now, it is quite evident, is that there are only about 80,000 men in the reserve, the difference between that number and 140,000 being made up of these thirty-day trainees, and they by the way are not volunteers, so they do not fit in with the minister's description of the purposes of the reserve army. It does seem to me that if the ministry

War Appropriation
would announce how large a reserve they are going to have-100,000 or 200,000 or whatever the number may be-and then go out and appeal for these men, they would have no trouble in getting them.


James Layton Ralston: I am not going to let
my hon. friend or any other member of this house suggest that the government should necessarily set a target for the total reserve army. My hon. friend knows perfectly well the reserve units in a particular community. Their officers know the number of men they want and all you have to do is to ask them. It is the community that primarily has to do with the reserve units. We have reserve brigade groups right across this dominion. We have reserve units in each district, and I ask hon. members to assist in encouraging a community spirit and in asking men to go into the reserve airmy. If the emergency exists which has been pointed out in this house and in the country, I cannot conceive of men not responding if the matter is properly put to them, not only by the government, but by people in their own community.


Howard Charles Green: If all the reserve units were brought up to strength, what would the total strength of the reserve army be?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell my hon.
friend without knowing the number of the reserve units.


George Stanley White: What is the approximate
strength of the reserve army now, after subtracting the number of thirty-day trainees?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has been
given the figures. I have not the strength returns, but if there are 140,000 on the reserve army and 60,000 of supernumeraries, that makes 80,000.


George Stanley White: I understand that 90,000 men
were called for thirty days' training.


James Layton Ralston: But a good many of them have been called up and are on service now. That number is going down all the time as men are called up for four months' training and going into active service. That number is getting less and less. Do I make myself clear?


Howard Charles Green: If the minister cannot say how many men will be required to complete all the reserve units, surely he can tell the committee how many men will be required to bring up to strength all the reserve units which have been ordered brigaded.


James Layton Ralston: For one reserve brigade, about 3,000 men. Multiply that by eleven districts; eleven times 3,000 would make it 33,000.
44561-108$


George Stanley White: Is it the intention of the department to have one brigade in each military division, or will all the reserve force units be brigaded in time?


James Layton Ralston: The plan has not been to brigade all the reserve force units. The brigade plan was for a special purpose at a particular time. The reserves have never been brigaded, with an active full-time brigade staff. They have been in their regular brigades in their particular locality, but all on a part-time basis. For operational purposes administration and training staff have been provided for one brigade in each of the districts. That does not mean that the other reserve units are not operating as they always have been.


Gordon Graydon: From what medical categories are the reserve army drawn?


James Layton Ralston: I think it goes down as low as "C", but I cannot tell my hon. friend to-night. My hon. friend the member for Vancouver South asked me a question with regard to the reserve army and with regard to strength, and that gave me an opportunity to give the committee what I had made a note of, namely my hon. friend's suggestion that the reserve army should be completed by the calling up of men for service under the National Resources Mobilization Act. May I say to him that I thoroughly agree with some of the things that have been said. The reserve army has had a good deal of discouragement. Their functions have been changed twice that I know of, having regard to the particular situation in which we found ourselves. The reserve army units at first had the expectation of being mobilized, and each one of them held on to the men in their particular ranks as active service men. They did not want them to go as reinforcements because they entertained the hope that they would be mobilized for active service. That hope faded in a great many cases; some of the active service men went to other units from the locality or elsewhere, and that caused discouragement. The suggestion was made and followed of setting up an organization whereby they were asked to keep a certain percentage of their personnel in the active service category, A category men, so that they could furnish reinforcements and at the same time carry on reserve units proper. Then that was reviewed. Representations were made to the department by some of the reserve units themselves. They felt that the reserve units were in competition with the active service units in the matter of recruiting, and they felt that the age limit should be changed so that men between 19 and 35 years
War Appropriation

of age would not enlist in the reserve units. That age limit has been in force now for some little time. As I have indicated, an order is just going out now that the age limit will be changed for married men from 35 to 30.


George Russell Boucher: What is the situation about the single man from 30 to 35 who cannot enter the reserve army and cannot be called up? Would the minister tell us about that?


James Layton Ralston: What does my hon. friend mean by "tell us about that"?


George Russell Boucher: What is to become of that particular class?


James Layton Ralston: I suppose they could enlist.


Howard Charles Green: They cannot be called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act.


James Layton Ralston: These men can enlist. Under the National Resources Mobilization Act, all one has to do to call them up is to issue a proclamation increasing the age limit. That has not been done, but a proclamation can be issued, and probably might be in the very near future, so that these men could be called up. In the meantime, they can enlist in the active service.


Howard Charles Green: Why should there be that gap? The Prime Minister announced that the government was only going to call men up to thirty years of age, from twenty-one to thirty, and they are to be chosen by lot. Why that gap between thirty and thirty-five? You are allowing the married men from thirty to thirty-five in the reserve, but not the single men.


James Layton Ralston: The government did not announce that they would not take men over thirty but that they would take any man up to thirty. They may announce at any time that they will take any man from thirty to thirty-five. I think it is perhaps a pretty good policy that single men from thirty to thirty-five should be encouraged to enlist. It has been represented by officers commanding units that there are cases in which a man does not realize his duty to enlist if he is in a reserve unit. The situation is that there is a place for that man to serve. He has not been called up at the present time, but he may be called up. I do not see any harm being done to the national interest or to the army by what my hon. friend calls that gap, which is really not a gap at all.


Howard Charles Green: A man from thirty to thirty-five is supposed to enlist in the active service

force, but a man from twenty-one to thirty is called up for home service. Why are they not all treated in the same way?


James Layton Ralston: I would say that the man from twenty-one to thirty has the same opportunity to enlist in the active service forces. The man from twenty-one to thirty has two opportunities: he is liable to be called up, and his alternative is to enlist in the active service forces. The man from thirty to thirty-five is not liable to be called up as the proclamation stands at present. But he does have the opportunity, or liability, or obligation, or whatever he may want to call it, to enlist from thirty to thirty-five. If any preference were given, it was given to the man from thirty to thirty-five.
Progress reported.
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday March 27, 1942