MOBILIZATION OF MAN-POWER TABLING OF ORDERS IN COUNCIL GIVING EFFECT' TO GOVERNMENT POLICY

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it was
announced last night that I would to-day make a statement concerning measures recently adopted giving additional effect to the government's policy with respect to the mobilization of man-power. In that connection I have in my hand a number of orders in council which have recently been passed with respect to the mobilization of man-power, and I should like to table them. The orders are in English and French. I might cite the various orders:
P.C. 2250, March 21, 1942, restricting the entry of men of military age into certain occupations.
P.C. 2251, March 21, 1942, stabilization of employment in agriculture regulations, 1942.
P.C. 2252, March 21, 1942, amendments of national war services regulations, 1940 (recruits) (consolidation), 1941.
P.C. 2253, March 21, 1942, transfer of national registration functions, records, etc., from Department of National War Services to Department of Labour.
P.C. 2254, March 21, 1942, providing for the appointment of a Director and Associate Director of National Selective Service, and the establishment of a National Selective Service Advisory Board.
P.C. 2192, March 21, 1942, authorizing a proclamation for the calling out of additional classes for military training.
P.C. 22*29, March 23, 1942, providing for the reconditioning of certain classes of physically unfit persons ("R") recruits.
P.C. 2291, March 23, 1942, providing for the reconditioning of other classes of physically unfit persons (active service personnel).
PC. 2301, March 23,	1942, appointing
E. M. Little, Esquire, Director of National Selective Service, and Paul Goulet, Esquire, Associate Director of National Selective Service.
P.C. 1445, March 2, 1942, authorizing the Minister of Labour to establish and1 maintain an inventory of employable persons.
P.C. 638, March 4, 1942, essential work (scientific and technical personnel) regulations, 1942.
P.C. 26/1840, March 10, 1942, providing for extension and improvement of training in
	.
personnel management, for the appointment of a director of personnel training, and for the appointment of personnel managers.
P.C. 1955, March 13, 1942, providing for the reregistration of persons under unemployment insurance.
These orders are important, and I imagine hon. members will wish to refer to them from time to time. If the house will give its consent I suggest that they be printed as an appendix to the Votes and Proceedings of to-day.



NATIONAL SELECTIVE SERVICE-MEANS OF EFFECTING INCREASED MOBILIZATION OF MAN-POWER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne at the opening of the present session of parliament contained the following paragraph:
The government's policy of national selective service will be extended, as generally and rapidly as may be necessary to effect the orderly and efficient employment of the men and women of Canada for the varied purposes of war. You will be advised of the means the government proposes to adopt to effect as complete as possible a mobilization of the material resources and man-power of the country in direct furtherance of a total national effort.
I propose in the statement I am now about to make to set forth means the government proposes to adopt to effect increased mobilization of the man-power of the country in direct furtherance of a total national effort, and to outline the measures themselves as already adopted.
Modern total war is not confined to the struggle between opposing armies and navies and air forces. It is a struggle between whole peoples, in which all of each nation's resources, both human and material, must be mobilized and brought into action. It is therefore a misconception to assume that the war-time man-power problem is merely a problem of raising men for the armed forces. This is only a part, and not necessarily the most difficult part, of the problem of mobilizing the manpower of a nation for modern war.
Man-power-and in that term I include woman-power-is required for many and varied tasks. In the first place, essential civilian services must be maintained as the foundation of community life on which the war effort rests. These essential tasks are a form of service just as truly as making munitions or serving in the armed forces. In order, however, to free younger men for direct war service, civilian tasks, as far as may be possible, should be performed by older men or by women.
The production of food, in war time, is one of the most essential civilian tasks. To the extent that food is produced for Britain, or

Mobilization of Man-Power
other allied countries, or for Canada's own fighting men, it is a direct war service. If this aspect of Canada's total effort is not to suffer, the man-power required for food production must be kept available.
The man-power requirements for munitions production must also be filled. Some 600.000 workers are already engaged in the production of munitions. It is estimated that in the course of the next twelve months an additional
100.000	workers will be required.
In the armed forces our estimated requirements for the ensuing twelve months are a further 13,000 men for the navy, 90,000 to
100.000	for the active army, and 70,000 to
80.000	for the air force. These figures were given to parliament on February 10th by the Minister of National Defence. In addition, men will continue to be called up for military service within Canada; and this on a considerably increased scale.
When, on January 26th, I announced the war programme for the coming year, I stated that the men and women required to carry out the programme would be mobilized by an extension of the application of national selective service.
It might be helpful were I to repeat the definition I then gave of national selective service as understood by the government.
By national service is meant any form of service, either voluntary or compulsory, which contributes directly to Canada's war effort. By national selective service is meant the selection of men and women for the various forms of national service according to the method or methods calculated to produce the most satisfactory results. '
In order to be selective, national service does not necessarily need to be compulsory. The selective aspect applies also to voluntary service. The army, for example, does not accept every man who offers to enlist. As a war measure, compulsion is only of value where it serves to ensure a greater total effort.
In speaking on the war programme in January, I made it clear that the extended application of compulsion to national selective service -was a highly complicated matter, one which required very careful planning and organization. I also stated that, to carry out the proposed measures equitably and efficiently, the administrative machinery would necessarily be intricate and complicated.
Final responsibility for the allocation of man-power, as for all other phases of our war programme, necessarily rests with the war committee of the cabinet. The war committee determines, in all its aspects, the scope and extent of the war programme. The distribution of men and women among the various
kinds of war sendee obviously depends upon the war programme. The objectives are set forth in the programme. National selective service is a method employed to help achieve these objectives.
To the problems of mobilizing man-power, the war committee has given close and continuous attention. Under the authority of the war committee, a special committee of the cabinet on man-power, presided over by the Minister of National War Services, has given detailed study to the problems involved. The recommendations of this committee have in turn been carefully considered by the whole cabinet.
I shall now set forth the procedures and measures which have been taken to organize and administer the government's policy of national selective service.
The primary responsibility for the extended scheme of national selective service has been placed upon the Minister of Labour. Under the Minister of Labour, the administrative responsibility for the direction and coordination of the policy has been vested in a director of national selective service and an associate director. Mr. Elliott M. Little has been appointed the Director of National Selective Service, and Mr. Paul Goulet, the Associate Director.
The responsibility for increasing the total man-power available for war service has been largely centred in the Department of Labour. It would not, however, be possible, even if it were desirable, to centralize in one department of government all the administrative responsibility for allocating man-power, and for directing men and women into the most useful form of service.
The other departments of government which share in greater or less degree in the tasks of making man-power available for war service and in the allocation of the available man-power are the departments of National War Services, Pensions and National Health, Munitions and Supply, Agriculture, and the three Defence departments. The interdepartmental committee on labour coordination, on which all these departments are represented, assists in coordinating the functions of the various departments, in so far as they relate to the mobilization of man-power. The committee has been strengthened by the addition of the employer and employee representatives on the executive of the national war labour board.
A national selective service advisory board has been established to advise on major questions of policy. This board includes, in addition to the members of the labour coordination committee, the full membership
[Stage Direction]
Mobilization oj Man-Power
[Stage Direction]
of the national war labour board and such other persons as the Minister of Labour may designate. This latter provision will ensure the representation on the board of the agricultural community and of women.
In the programme of national selective service, extensive use is being made of the facilities of the Employment Service of Canada. In each area covered by an employment and claims office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission the director of national selective service will shortly appoint a national selective service officer. The national selective service officers will have local charge of the administration of the selective service programme for their respective areas. They will be advised and assisted in their work by voluntary unpaid citizens' committees which will be set up in each of the areas.
A central registry has been established in the Department of Labour to aid in promptly finding the appropriate men and women needed at any particular time. The registry is based upon the unemployment insurance records, and the records of the 1940 national registration. To the registry will be added the records of such further surveys of manpower as may be made from time to time, with a view to building up a complete inventory of man-power available for war and essential civilian purposes. To consolidate records and to avoid duplication, the administrative responsibility for national registration has been transferred from the Department of National War Services to the Department of Labour.
Under the programme now adopted, the mobilization of industrial man-power will, in the main, be effected through the agency of the Employment Service of Canada. The armed forces will continue to recruit men for the active army, the navy and the air force by the present voluntary methods. The calling up of men for compulsory military training and service will continue to be the responsibility of the Department of National War Services.
Compulsion is now being applied in aspects of the mobilization of man-power, other than military service within Canada, to which it has been applied since October, 1940. It is recognized that no hard and fast compulsory regulations can be made which may not work injustices in individual cases. As a consequence, considerable discretion has been vested in the national war services boards to decide appeals from the compulsory or restrictive regulations of the government, and from the orders of the director of

national selective service and the national selective service officers.
The right of appeal will be enjoyed, not only by employers; employees, farmers, farm labourers and others directly affected, but also by interested government departments. The duty of hearing civilian appeals will add greatly to the work of the national war services boards, now mainly concerned with the appeals of men called up for military service. In order to cope with the increased duties which will fall upon the boards, it may become necessary to increase their number and in some cases to divide their territorial jurisdictions.
The war-time mobilization of man-power has three important aspects:
1.	Estimating the number of men and women required for the different kinds of war service.
2.	Increasing the total man-power resources available for war purposes. In other words, making available for some part in the war effort the largest possible number of men and women.
3.	Directing the available men and women into the most useful form of war service.
All of these tasks have to be carried on at one and the same time, and, in part at least, through the same channels.
The whole programme is interrelated and interdependent. I shall now give a brief outline of each of the measures, indicating, as far as possible, how each relates to and affects the other.
Estimating the number of men and women needed in the war effort, and the most effective distribution of the total among the armed services, war industry and essential civilian pursuits, is a difficult task. A constantly changing war necessitates constant changes in military and production plans. These changes, in turn, involve continuous revision of the estimates of man-power requirements, and the proposed allocation of man-power reserves. To this end, the director of national selective service has been given authority to obtain information from government departments, and empowered to secure from employers, by compulsion if necessary, full information, regarding prospective labour requirements, existing labour forces, wage scales and working conditions.
In the early months of the war, there were large reserves of available man-power for war service because of the unemployment and under-employment of many thousands of Canadians. If we except women who, for domestic or social reasons, have not desired or sought employment, we are now well past

the stage where there is any considerable reserve of employable unemployed persons. Women, therefore, constitute the most important available reserve of man-power. It is, however, not so much by bringing women directly into the armed forces, though that is being done, that the total man-power available for war service can actually be increased; rather is this end accomplished by the substitution of women for men in essential civilian tasks, and in war industry.
Additional man-power is becoming potentially available for war service as an indirect result of the curtailment of civilian production. To the achievement of a maximum effort, it is vital that man-power thus released be shifted as speedily and efficiently as possible into some form of war service. The process of shifting man-power from civilian occupations into war service has, of course, gone on steadily since the outbreak of war. It has now been given more definite governmental direction and is being accelerated.
For more than a year, the Department of Labour, in cooperation with the provinces and industry, has been increasing the man-power available through training men and women for employment in war industries. During the past year, more than 60,000 trainees received instruction in about one hundred technical schools. Industries cooperating with the Department of Labour, and often on their own initiative, trained at least an equal number. Through the Department of Labour services, and directly in industry, greater provision is now being made for training and retraining men for essential war production; for diluting present working forces by employment of men of lesser skill for simpler operations; and for the constant up-grading, as a result of training and experience, of existing working forces.
The programme of increasing war-time manpower reserves has a threefold objective:
First, to increase the total male labour force available for war production.
Second, to make possible the replacement of able-bodied men of military age with older men, or men less fit physically for arduous tasks.
Third, to increase war-time man-power reserves by .bringing women into industry. This is the most important single feature of the programme.
The first two objectives are being accelerated by governmental and industrial assistance. The assistance is similar in character, although on a smaller scale, to that being afforded for recruiting female labour.
The series of measures being undertaken to bring women into industries include:
Mobilization oj Man-Power
1.	Recruiting campaigns, planned and publicized to attract women into the needed work;
2.	The provision of appropriate and adequate facilities for interviewing women applicants and for giving them advice and direction;
3.	The establishment of competent job information and placement services, specializing in female labour;
4.	Advances, where necessary, to meet trasnportation costs in getting women workers to places where work is available;
5.	The provision of hostels or other satisfactory housing arrangements;
6.	The provision of nurseries and other means of caring for children;
7.	The provision, where needed, of medical and recreational facilities;
8.	The provision in industry, as well as under direct governmental auspices, of training programmes, specifically designed for women;
9.	Pressure upon employers who may be reluctant to engage female labour;
10.	Changes in civil service and institutional restrictions on the employment of female, and, particularly, married female labour.
Some of these measures have already been applied over a considerable period of time. From now on, they will be more extensively applied.
An important phase of the man-power problem has to do with providing in war industries the necessary supervisory personnel. It has been found that, as war industries continue to expand, it is increasingly difficult to secure sufficient supervisors, personnel managers, and foremen, to direct the enlarged work forces. Many plants producing urgently needed war materials are now operating day and night, seven days in the week. Others that might be operating on the same basis are hampered by lack of supervisors.
A recent statement by Mr. Bevin on the importance of personnel factors in war production in Great Britain is equally applicable to Canada. It reads:
In the layout of our war effort, sufficient attention was not paid to the personnel problem.
. . . The longer the war goes on, the more necessary it becomes to pay greater regard to this personnel side of industry. The absence of a proper understanding of the problem has been one of our greatest handicaps in this great struggle. . . . Hence my additional plea for the personnel manager, who should be specially trained to have an equal position in industry with others members of the executive. Indeed,
I am sure-and I would emphasize this-that our post-war position will be materially helped.
Mobilization oj Man-Power
[Stage Direction]
and the future prospects of British industry enhanced, by a full appreciation of this important fact.
To assist our Canadian employers to meet their personnel problem, provision has been made by the government for training in personnel management. The universities have agreed to cooperate. Experienced personnel men will serve as instructors and sponsors. Trainees will be given practical instruction in the classroom, and on the job.
If the experience of this undertaking warrants, these facilities will be extended to foremen and other supervisors. It is hoped by this means greatly to reduce an important area of *difficulty in war production. Moreover, better personnel policies and practice should minimize friction between management and men, improve morale, and thereby increase output.
The government is also undertaking an extended programme of reconditioning men to fit them physically for military service.
It is and has been standard practice for the army to accept men for service who require only dental treatment, provision of glasses, or nutritional improvement. After enlistment or enrolment, treatment is provided for these men as a matter of routine.
There are, however, men volunteering for the active army, or called up for training and service, who at present have to be rejected because of some condition other than those just mentioned, and which, though not a serious disability, is important enough to require more than routine treatment.
It has been decided that when disabilities of this class are mendable within a comparatively short time, free remedial treatment will be provided to restore the standard of physical fitness of these men. Such a policy is in the interests of the armed services and also of benefit to the health of the nation as a whole.
Free treatment will be available to those who volunteer and undertake in writing to enlist as soon as they are physically eligible, provided they are certified by a competent board to be cases in which the disability can be removed or mended by treatment so as to make them physically fit for enlistment within a specified reasonable period.
Free treatment will also be available to those who are called up for compulsory training and service provided it is similarly certified, as in the case of volunteers, that the disability is such that it can be removed or mended within a specified reasonable period. When the treatment is successfully completed, these men will be available for military training and service.
In giving treatment, the Departments of National Defence, Pensions and National
£Mr. Mackenzie King.]
Health, and National War Services, will cooperate.
The treatment, both for volunteers and for men called up for training and service, will be provided or arranged for by the Department of Pensions and National Health. In neither case will men undergoing treatment be accepted into the army unless, and until, the treatment has been successfully completed. In both cases, in addition to free treatment and, if necessary, hospitalization, men undergoing treatment will be paid an allowance for time actually and necessarily lost during the remedial period.
It should be added that free treatment on precisely the same terms as in the case of volunteers for the active army, will be provided for men who volunteer for the air force, and would now be rejected for physical unfitness.
Until recently, the most important form of direct compulsion in mobilizing men has been the compulsory military training and service of unmarried men and of widowers without children. This, of course, is being continued, although with certain changes in the selective procedure.
A proclamation is being issued making liable to call for military training and service all men born in the years from 1912 to 1921, who on July 15, 1940, were unmarried or widowers without children. In other words, the age limit for compulsory service has been raised from 24 to 30. It has also been decided to select the men to be called up for service by drawing lots over the whole field of those who are subject to the proclamation. As soon as the necessary administrative arrangements have been worked out for this plan of selection by lot, a detailed announcement will be made by the Minister of National War Services.
Liability for compulsory military service is, at present, confined to citizens of Canada. It has been decided to extend this liability to all residents of Canada, whether citizens or not, as far as may be expedient in the light of all the circumstances. As reciprocal arrangements and other international considerations are involved in the proposal, its details cannot be announced immediately.
The liability to compulsory military service will continue to be general for the age categories affected. The burden of demonstrating the case for postponements is unchanged1, except in the case of persons wholly or mainly employed in agriculture on March 23, 1942, as defined in the amended national war services regulations.
One of the man-power problems with which the country is faced is the growing shortage

Mobilization of Man-Power
of agricultural labour. Means, accordingly, have had to be devised to ensure that the supply of farm labour is not depleted. To that end, regulations have been enacted to stabilize employment in agriculture.
With three exceptions, the regulations provide that no male person wholly or mainly employed in agriculture on March 23, 1942, as defined by the regulations shall enter into any employment outside agriculture unless he has obtained written permission from the national selective service officer to enter such employment. They also provide that no person shall take into employment outside agriculture, any male person wholly or mainly employed in agriculture unless such male person has obtained such permission.
The three exceptions provided for are active service in the armed forces by voluntary enlistment, seasonal employment in a primary industry, and compulsory military training if it is established that the person concerned is not an essential worker in agriculture.	.
The exception of seasonal employment in other primary industries, which include lumbering, logging, forestry, fishing and trapping is, in reality, not an exception. In many parts of the country, agriculture and the primary pursuits specified are complementary aspects of what is, in effect, a single occupation.
The other specific exceptions both relate to service in the armed forces. Voluntary enlistment of farmers and agricultural workers in the active army, the navy and the air forces will continue to be encouraged. It is felt that the privilege of serving voluntarily in the armed forces should not be completely denied to a whole class of the community, however important may be the service its members are at present performing.
On the other hand, the growing scarcity of labour on the farms and the increasing importance of maintaining, and, indeed, of increasing food production, has been recognized. This has been accomplished by a fundamental alteration of the policy regarding compulsory military training and service where such service touches persons wholly or mainly employed in agriculture. Up to the present there has been a general obligation to serve, and the responsibility for proving a case for postponement of service has rested with the individual. Under the new regulations, farmers, farmers' sons and agricultural labourers will normally not be obliged to undertake compulsory military training and service. It is realized, however, that in a limited number of cases, men on the farms are not, in fact, essential agricultural workers.
If it is established to the satisfaction of the national war services boards concerned that such persons are not essential workers in agriculture, they will continue to be called for service in the appropriate age groups.
This change of policy regarding compulsory military service applies only to those who were wholly or mainly employed in agriculture, on March 23, 1942, in accordance with the terms of the regulations. Persons who subsequent to that date may return to employment in agriculture, except from normal seasonal occupations, will continue to be liable for military service. In such cases, the earlier regulations regarding postponement will continue to apply.
Apart from the three specified exceptions to the rule that persons engaged in agriculture shall not enter into other employment, the regulations also empower the national selective service officer, having jurisdiction in the district in which a person resides, to give permission to farmers and agricultural workers to enter other employment. This provision has been included in the regulations so as to maintain a reasonable degree of flexibility in policy. It is recognized that there may be those engaged in agricultural pursuits, who, because of the limited character of their production or on other grouncjs, are not performing an essential war service. At the same time, such persons, because of age or physical condition, or for other reasons, may not be suitable for military service. Unless the way were left open for such persons to move into other fields of activity, great individual hardships might result, and valuable sendee in other fields be lost to the country.
It will, therefore, be open to farmers and others engaged in agricultural work, who desire to enter some other field of employment, to apply to the national selective service officer, having jurisdiction in the district in which they reside, for permission to change their employment. Detailed regulations to guide national selective service officers in determining whether such permission shall be granted or refused will be made and revised from time to time in the light of experience. Two governing factors will be taken into account in determining these regulations, namely, the maintenance of the necessary agricultural production in Canada, and the extent to which the applicant is essential to-the maintenance of such production.
The policy of stabilizing employment in agriculture represents what, in effect, is a block allocation to agriculture of the persons best fitted for food production. It constitutes a form of large scale selection for national
Mobilization of Man-Power
[Stage Direction]
service which should go far to ensure the supply of man-power essential to the food production aspect of the national war effort.
Another step in the allocation of man-power recently taken, relates to the diversion of technicians to war service. It concerns persons normally engaged in the engineering profession as civil, mechanical, electrical, chemical, metallurgical or mining engineers; also production and industrial engineers, college teachers of engineering science, persons trained in any branch of the science of chemistry, research scientists and persons other than teachers holding university degrees in engineering, chemistry, physics, geology, mathematics, architecture, or in any natural science; also all technically qualified members of the Engineering Institute of Canada, the Canadian Institute of Chemistry, the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada and of any provincial association of professional engineers, chemists or architects.
About a year ago, with the aid of the professional engineering societies, there was established in the Department of Labour a war-time bureau of technical personnel. The bureau has accumulated information on most of the professional engineers of the country. It has sought to make engineers available as needed in the armed services and in war industry. The time has come, when in the opinion of the government, all technical men should be shifted from non-essential activities to war or other essential services.
Under regulations at present in force, if, at the request of the Minister of Labour an engineer is willing to transfer to more essential work, his present employer is obliged to release him and to reinstate him when his undertaking on essential work is completed. Employers who hire or release technical employees are required to notify the bureau so that technical men as needed in the war effort may be quickly located. Contracts of employment for the services of technicians require the approval of the Minister of Labour.
This measure is restricted for the present to professional technicians. It may, however, become necessary as an essential war service, also to require skilled workmen in certain categories, to remain in their existing occupations in war industries, or to move from one war industry to another, or to remain in certain [DOT]essential civilian occupations. Should such widespread control become necessary, every [DOT]effort will be made to reduce its arbitrary aspects to a minimum, and to secure, from workmen and employers alike, the largest measure of voluntary cooperation.

In order to increase the numbers of men available for service in the armed forces, in war industry, or in other essential occupations, regulations have been made which prohibit the entry into employment in a wide variety of occupations, of men who are of military age and physically fit. These occupations will be known in future as restricted occupations. The regulations include a schedule of the restricted occupations. The schedule comprises:
Bookkeepers, cashiers, stenographers, tyists, clerks, office appliance operators, messengers, salesmen and sales clerks, taxicab drivers.
Any occupation in wholesale or retail trade, advertising, and real estate.
Any occupation in, or directly associated with, entertainment, recreational or personal service, including but not restricted to theatres; film agencies; motion picture companies; clubs; bowling alleys; pool rooms; sports; barbering and hairdressing:	domestic service; dyeing;
cleaning and pressing; laundering; hotels and lodging houses; baths; restaurants; cafes and taverns; shoe shining, guide service, and funeral service.
Any occupation in the manufacture or production of
1.	Biscuits, confectionery, cocoa.
2.	Bread and bakery products.
3.	Aerated and mineral waters and other
beverages.
4.	Liquors, wines, beer.
5.	Rubber products.
6.	Tobacco, cigars, cigarettes.
7.	Leather and fur products.
8.	Textile products.
9.	Furniture and upholstering.
10.	Photography.
11.	Printing, publishing and engraving.
12.	Radios, refrigerators, washing machines,
and vacuum cleaners.
13.	Jewellery and watchmaking.
14.	Pottery and china.
15.	Soaps, and toilet preparations and
articles.
16.	Mattresses.
17.	Musical instruments.
18.	Barber and beauty shop equipment.
19.	Cameras and films.
20.	Sporting goods.
21.	Games, toys and novelties.
Any occupation in the repair of clotliiqg, boots and shoes, furniture and household equipment, jewellery or watches, musical instruments.
It is provided that, on and after March 23, 1942, no male person shall accept employment, and no employer shall engage any male person in any of these restricted occupations, unless such person presents to the prospective employer a birth certificate or other incontrovertible evidence that his age is less than seventeen or more than forty-five years; or a certificate of honourable discharge from the armed forces; or evidence of rejection on grounds of physical unfitness for active service

Canteen Funds
in the armed forces during the present war; or a permit from a national selective service officer authorizing him to accept such employment.
The conditions which govern the granting or refusing of permission by national selective service officers are to be made, and may be revised from time to time, by the Minister of Labour. Permits are necessarily subject to cancellation at any time.
The Minister of Labour is authorized to require employers to furnish reports about all persons engaged for or released from restricted occupations. The governor in council is empowered to amend the schedule of restricted occupations, by the deletion or addition of any occupation.
By applying the negative compulsion of restriction, where possible, in preference to the positive compulsion of allocation, the waste of man-power in unessential activities is prevented. At the same time, men and women are maintained in or directed into the form of service they prefer. It is obvious that the greater the measure of willingness that can be preserved, the more effective the service will be.
May I say, in conclusion, while the government has not hesitated and will not hesitate to apply compulsion where compulsion will serve to increase the total war effort, the government has no desire to add unduly -which means wastefully-to governmental machinery. It is essential that at a time of war, the services of men and women should not be consumed in unnecessary tasks. It is imperative that the services of all should be directed into war-time tasks. In those aspects of our war effort in which voluntary methods are working satisfactorily, voluntary selection, including a measure of choice by the individual of the appropriate field of service, has been and will be continued. The more expensive and complicated methods of compulsion have been employed only where it is felt that compulsory selection is necessary in order to increase efficiency in the prosecution of the war. Compulsion, however, will be applied without fear or favour wherever in the opinion of the government its use will aid in the achievement of a maximum war effort.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved:
Whereas it was deemed necessary after the war of 1914-18 to provide legislation for the
disposal of canteen funds and the purposes for which such funds were to be utilized for the benefit of ex-servicemen and their dependents;
And whereas by order in council dated December 20, 1940, P.C. 7520 (as amended by P.C. 224 of January 13, 1941, P.C. 1087 of February 14, 1941, and P.C. 1959 of March 24, 1941), a committee was constituted to inquire into and make recommendations and report to the Minister of National Defence concerning the collection, custody, investment, control and utilization of moneys accruing from the profits of canteens, and certain other related matters as set out in the said orders in council; and whereas the said committee has reported to the Minister of National Defence under date the 30th August, 1941, and has made certain recommendations with regard to the matters referred to it as aforesaid;
And whereas a subcommittee of the general advisory committee on demobilization and rehabilitation, namely the subcommittee on the administration of special funds has made an investigation and an interim report with reference to the administration of canteen funds following the war of 1914-18, to which is added the comment of the subcommittee thereon and certain recommendations as to the use of canteen profits for the welfare of ex-members of the armed forces of Canada in the present war;
And whereas it is considered desirable in the public interest that the collection, custody and control of canteen funds and the purpose for which they are to be used should be examined, considered and reported on by a committee of the house;
Therefore be it resoved:-That a select committee of the house be appointed to inquire into the collection, custody, investment and control of such moneys as under existing regulations and agreements accrue out of the profits arising from the operation of canteens and other auxiliary services and institutes for the benefit of the armed forces of Canada during the present war; and as to whether certain portions of the profits arising from canteens other than the portions of profits for w'hich provision is now made should be paid to the government of Canada; and the policy and method of management to be adopted in the utilization of the said funds for the benefit of those who have served in the Canadian armed forces and for the benefit of the dependents of such persons; and to report to the house their opinions, observations and recommendations thereon; and to recommend to the house the appropriate legislation to implement such recommendations as the committee may make.
That the committee shall consist of the following members: Messrs. Abbott, Adamson, Black (Yukon), Blanchette, Booth, Brooks, Bruce, Castleden, Chambers. Claxton, Cleaver, Cruickshank, Diefenbaker, Emmerson, Factor, Fauteux, Ferron, Gillis, Graham, Gray, Green, Halle, Harris (Grey-Bruce), Hazen, Isnor, Jackman, Johnston (London), Jutras, Lapointe (Matapedia-Matane), Lapointe (Lotbiniere), Macdonald (Kingston City), Macdonald (Halifax), Macdonald (Brantford City), MacKenzie (Neepawa), Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre), Macmillan, McCuaig, McLean (Simcoe East), Marshall, Massey, Mutch, Quelch, Ross (Middlesex East), Ross (Souris), Sanderson, Sinclair, Sylvestre, Tomlinson, Tremblay, Tucker, Turgeon, White, Whitman, Winkler, Wright, and that
Canteen Funds
[Stage Direction]
standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto; that the committee shall have power to send for persons and records and report from time to time.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to offer two brief comments on this resolution. The first is that I believe the thanks of this house are due to the committee which was established by order in council to investigate the custody, control and investment of canteen funds, which committee was headed by a very distinguished and public-spirited Canadian, Mr. J. M. Macdonnell.
The other comment which I wish to make is to suggest that this is subject matter which might perhaps well be referred to the other chamber for investigation, having regard to the great number of special committees which are being set up in this house, and the strain upon some of our membership, especially those who are returned soldiers. At the moment I do not think there is any real necessity for this matter to be considered by a committee of this house, and in my view it would present an opportunity for members of the other chamber to engage in very useful work. I believe it is almost a national disgrace that the great talents and abilities of members of the other house are not being put to public service at this time. If there is any particular reason why this matter should be investigated by a committee of the house of course I shall not press this point; but I offer the suggestion to the minister and to the government for their serious consideration.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The suggestion offered by my hon. friend has not been brought to my attention before. The committee suggested consists of all hon. members who served in the great war and who are on active service in the present war. It vras felt that the two reports submitted to the government, one by the subcommittee of the general committee on demobilization and rehabilitation, the other by the committee headed by the gentleman to whom my hon. friend has referred-and I wish to support his commendation of the excellent work done by that committee-indicated that this work could be best done by members of this house.
IV e have frequently heard the comment from some of our members that sufficient work is not given them during the ordinary course of the session. I believe that a non-partisan committee, such as here suggested, is the best form of committee to deal with this important problem. Hon. members will recall that this matter came up in parliament after the last war, at which time about $2,500,000 was made

available for disposition. Trustees were appointed in various provinces, and in some of those provinces there were unfortunate occurrences with regard to these funds.
It is therefore the desire of the government to place this matter before parliament and the house, and I have no doubt whatsoever that means could be found to ask hon. members of the other chamber to cooperate with this committee, if they so desire, in the work of the committee. I believe the resolution should commend itself to everyone in the house. To my mind it is most important to see to it that the benefits from these funds, which accrue in various ways

in the first place through dry canteens and wet canteens in this country-should accrue so far as possible to the men themselves, and that any investments to be made should be made for the benefit of those who are serving the country at the present time.
I shall be very glad to see if a method can be w'orked out by which cooperation with the other chamber can be secured, as has been suggested by the leader of the opposition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister referred to abuses. Were there any prosecutions following those abuses?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That would be a matter of provincial jurisdiction, because all the trustees were created by the provinces.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that this is the occasion on which to make suggestions, but I have two suggestions to make to the committee. The first is that the money accruing from canteen funds should be made available to help the men by reducing the cost of their going home on furlough, especially the last furlough before embarking for overseas. A good many of our men are sent, we will say, from western Canada to Nova Scotia, or to some other distant part of Canada, and they often find that before embarkation they are unable to pay their fares home. I therefore make the suggestion that this money be used for that purpose.
There is another point which to my mind deserves consideration. I heartily agree with the minister when he says that this money should be used in the interests of the men. One way in which it could be used for the benefit of the men would be to have it meet the cost of insurance.


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the house of the difficulties that arose after the last war through the accumulation of

Canteen Funds
canteen funds, when no one seemed to have any definite idea as to just what useful purpose these funds could serve. At the close of the last war there had been accumulated from canteens in Canada and overseas something like $2,500,000. As time went on, in the minds of returned soldiers this sum grew, like the proverbial snowball, into a sum that they thought might represent $100,000,000. There was not a meeting of ex-soldier organizations from which suggestions did not emanate as to the uses to which these funds should be put. Finally, after a great deal of controversy in this house, in the upper chamber and in the country, the matter was referred to what was known as the Ralston commission. My hon. friend who is now Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) toured the country to study the matter of canteen funds, as well as a large number of other matters affecting returned soldiers. Associated with him were Lieutenant-Colonel Dubuc and Colonel Walter McKeown. His report was hailed1 at that time as the magna charta of returned soldiers. Many features of it were translated into legislation, and among others was his recommendation with respect to canteen funds.
A feature of the recommendation was that the funds should be divided into provincial funds on the basis of the enlistments from each province. Canteen funds legislation was passed by this parliament, but it provided that canteen funds under the supervision of trustees should be set up in each province. In any event they were set up somehow, under the authority of the provincial government. Distribution was made in accordance with the views of the trustees. For instance I recall that in some provinces it was decided that the capital and interest would be spent. In others it was decided that only the interest would be spent. So far as I am aware the funds have been exhausted in most provinces, some through unwise investments and some otherwise.
The point I wish to make, however, is that we should now have a definite programme with respect to what is to be done with these moneys, in order to avoid all the troubles and difficulties which might arise after the war. It has been suggested-and I believe there is a good deal of merit in the suggestion-that there should be no accumulation of these funds. The difficulty there is of course that a large proportion of the funds are derived from auxiliary services canteens, and from the wet and dry canteens, and1 thus the question of competition with local stores arises. But the difference in prices may be only the matter of a fraction of a cent; the profit accrues through the volume handled'.
Then it has been suggested that these moneys should be expended on the men themselves. This method, suggested by the hon. member who spoke a moment ago, is one which perhaps deserves the most consideration. The other suggestion is that the proceeds should be. devoted to the encouragement of sports, the acquisition of books, the provision of men's recreational facilities, and so on.
I do not wish to attempt to press my views on anyone, but I have a strong feeling that the accumulation of funds which will be only a cause of dissension after the war is perhaps undesirable, and that, after all, anything which could be done with these funds by way of relief or assistance could perhaps be done better by a central governmental authority.
There is another point which merits inquiry, and that is the number of such funds which are in process of accumulation at the present time. I have in mind the proceeds of funds derived from regimental institutes. In the Royal Canadian Air Force a very large fund is being accumulated in what is known as the Royal Canadian Air Force benevolent fund. This is a fund which, it is intended, shall accrue for the benefit of Royal Canadian Air Force men after the war. I believe it was originated in 1924, when we had only a very small permanent force. What should be considered is whether the moneys made out of the sums expended by persons wrho are in the war only for the duration, who were not in the permanent force and who are concerned only with doing their duty as citizens during the war, should go into a fund which in all probability will be of greater benefit to the men of the permanent force than to those who enlisted later. If it is to be distributed to all those who served only during the present war, where are we to get the distributing agency? Is it to be an agency composed of men who are in the army, the air force or the navy after the war, or is it to be a civilian agency?
The experience in the last war was that when a man got out of the army, the air force or any of the armed services he wanted to see as little as possible of those armed forces. Again, speaking without any authority and from a purely personal point of view, I am not quite sure that a benevolent fund such as that which we are building up in the Royal Canadian Air Force is the right kind of fund. All these are matters which require the sincere consideration of some body; whether it be composed of members of the Senate or of the House of Commons I am not prepared to argue. But the fact that the House of Commons is closer to the people from whom the profits which make
Canteen Funds

these funds are derived leads me to the belief that perhaps the house would be the better body to inquire into these matters. Eventually we shall have to decide on some system and bring in legislation to deal with it.
It has been decided, if not by privy council, by the treasury branch in Britain, that canteen funds are public funds. There was a great deal of controversy at the end of the last war over who owned these funds which were made up of very small amounts contributed by a great number of people. The British treasury said they were public funds. In this country a great many people held other views. Certainly if they are public funds the House of Commons is the place to deal with the matter. I have no strong views on the question whether there should be a committee of this house, a committee of the other house or a joint committee, but I do submit that it is something we should get at, and get at immediately.
Before taking my seat I want to add a word of tribute to what has been said by the leader of the opposition in praise of Mr. James Macdonnell of Toronto and his associates, Mr. Plante and Mr. Watson Sellar, of Ottawa, for the work they did in digging into the great mass of information which we have on this matter and giving it careful study. I commend their report for study and inquiry by the committee.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: I. am glad to see this resolution introduced at this time and shall be glad to support it. I think it is a matter of sufficient importance to be considered and dealt with by this House of Commons.
As the two ministers who have just spoken have told the house, there was after the last war a canteen fund which amounted to a couple of million dollars. I had a good deal to do with the ultimate distribution of that fund, as the present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) will recall. Enlistments in the last war from the Yukon were per capita as high as if not higher than in any province of the dominion, and when the canteen fund was ultimately distributed a fair proportion was placed at the disposal of the Yukon returned men. That fund was put into the hands of trustees, consisting of the comptroller of that territory and two trustworthy returned men, and has been wisely used to help reestablish returned men in civilian life. Loans have from time to time been made from the fund, and for the most part have been repaid. I am happy to be able to say that a considerable amount 
still remains in the fund for the use of the returned men who need it. I hope the canteen fund that will grow up from this war will be as well handled as the canteen fund of the last war was handled and is being handled in Yukon territory.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say
that the commission headed by Mr. Macdonnell was initiated by my colleague the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) while I was absent from Canada, and that is why he has been good enough to speak to the resolution. I want to add my very sincere word of appreciation of the excellent work done by Mr. Macdonnell, Mr. Sellar and Mr. Plante and of the time they took and the effort they put into getting this complicated subject into some sort of shape. In their report the house committee will find they have an excellent document upon which to work and make recommendations with respect to what I regard as a major matter of future policy which ought to be determined by a committee of the house and by the house itself.
Mr. ROSS W. GRAY (Lambton West): Speaking as one who served as a private soldier in the last war, I feel rather strongly on one aspect of this matter which was barely touched upon by the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power). It should always be remembered that these canteen funds and similar funds are designed primarily for the comfort and convenience of the personnel they serve. It does seem to me that when this question comes before the committee it should be strongly urged that in the main the funds are accumulated from the private soldier, and that so far as possible they should be distributed to the private soldier, at cost. In my opinion there should not be a large accumulation of profits to be left over after this war as there was after the last war.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: I
should like to say a word, as I come from the province of Saskatchewan which suffered disgracefully from the mal-administration of the canteen funds. In my opinion those to whom this money belongs should have a greater voice in saying what should be done with it. I notice that there are on the proposed committee members who are on active service in this war. After all, this money does belong to those who are on active service, and I suggest that as soon as possible representatives be received from the returned organizations of soldiers of this war. In some parts of this dominion already such organizations are functioning. I suggest also that one of the

Post-War Reconstruction
greatest benefits that can accrue from use of such a fund is the establishment of educational scholarships and other educational benefits.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved:
That a select committee of the house be appointed to study and report upon the general problems of reconstruction and reestablishment which may arise at the termination of the present war, and all questions pertaining thereto; with power to such select committee to appoint, from among the members of the committee, such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable or necessary, to deal with specific phases of the problems aforementioned, with power to said select committee and to such subcommittees as may be formed therefrom, to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, and for such select committee to report from time to time to the house; and that the said committee shall consist of the following members: Messrs. Authier, Bertrand (Prescott), Black (Cumberland), Brunelle, Castleden, Dupuis, Eudes, Ferron, Fraser (Northumberland), Gershaw, Gillis, Gray, Harris (Danforth), Hill, Jean, Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre), Macmillan, MacNicol, McDonald (Pontiac), McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River), McNiven, Marshall, Martin, Matthews, Maybank, Mitchell, Poirier, Purdy, Quelch, Ross (Middlesex East), Sanderson, Stirling, Turgeon, Tustin, White and that the provisions of standing order 65, limiting the number of members on special committees, be suspended in relation thereto.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, because of the
urgency of dealing with other business before the Easter adjournment it is not my intention at the moment to discuss this resolution at length. I intend, however, to make a full and detailed statement before the select committee in regard to all that has been done by the government in connection with the committee on reconstruction since 1939, and I would hope that there would be an interim report from the committee this session which will be debatable by the house. I anticipate that the committee may not complete its work during the present session.
Mr. GREEN:: Is it the intention to refer to this select committee Bill No. 5, providing for the reinstatement in civil employment of persons who enlist in his majesty's forces?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So far that has not been determined.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: When does the minister propose to make a full statement on reconstruction and rehabilitation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is my intention to make a full and complete statement before the committee, and it will be distributed to every member of the house.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to delay this resolution unduly, but it raises one or two questions which I think it is well at least to mention at this stage.
We are told that the committee is to consider reconstruction and reestablishment. I take that to refer both to the internal and to the external conditions of the country, since Canada's relations with other nations are affected. I therefore conclude that the whole matter of providing that the citizens, including soldiers, shall enjoy freedom from want and freedom from fear will be involved in the problem to be studied by this committee.
I should like to point out to the committee that, under the provisions which give them the right to call persons to testify, they should see to it that they call men who not only think they are able to explain but who are actually able to explain how freedom from want and freedom from fear can be guaranteed to the men who return from overseas.
If I might so far infringe upon the time of the house as to read a passage from one of the minister's speeches, I should like to single out a quotation which he used: I find it in the speech which he delivered on October 30, 1941, to the Association of Canadian Advertisers at a luncheon in Toronto. He quoted the following passage:
The citizen of a democracy should be guaranteed, as of right, enough food to maintain him in health. He should be assured of a minimum standard of shelter, clothing and fuel. He should be given full and equal opportunities of education. He should have leisure and facilities for enjoying it. He should be secure against the risks of unemployment, ill health, and old age. Above all, the presence of children should not be allowed to bring with it misery for the parents, deprivation for the children, and poverty for all.
The minister was quoting the words of one Mr. Crowther.
I wish to refer to one more quotation he made, which I think is important, too. This time he is quoting from a noted American thinker who has made a similar list of humanity's basic aspirations as follows:
1.	The right to creative work and profitable and useful employment.
2.	The right to an adequate standard of living measured by the productive capacity of a nation and the right to an equitable distribution of national income.
3.	The right of the worker through collective bargaining with his fellow men and by other
Post-War Reconstruction

means to subsequently share in the management of the industry to which he has devoted his labour and his life.
4.	The right to security against the hazards of unemployment, accident, illness and old age.
5.	The right to the best service science can provide in the maintenance of health
6.	The right to leisure and its effective use.
7.	The right to education, considered as the central element of the good life.
These two passages came to my mind the other evening when several thoughtless ones were twitting the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) about "$25 a month". I wonder whether those who did1 that, some of whom are in the Liberal party, were aware that in large measure they had1 been committed to something far exceeding $25 a month, in the quotations which were cited with approval by their minister of pensions. I wish to commend the minister for his speech; I wish to commend him for the selection of quotations with which he enriched the speech, and I urge upon him and upon the government that they accept no equivocal statements whatsoever, that they utterly insist that want and fear be abolished.
The committee, if it examines witnesses wiho can tell how these things are to 'be brought about, and if it listens to them, will have conferred upon the people of Canada one of the greatest services conceivable at the present time. I would urge that the committee should not be satisfied with anything less; and may I point out to the committee before it starts that the system wibidh is being used to-day in Canada will not and cannot guarantee these things.
Inasmuch as the whole question of reconstruction is mentioned, the committee should call witnesses and authorities and receive papers which will satisfy it that there is not in this dominion a group of men, cooperating with a similar group in the other selfgoverning dominions of the British empire and in the United States, who are seeking to destroy the sovereignty of this state and to bring this country into a union called "Federal Union" or "Union, Now," or some other organization which will take away the sovereignty of this state and thereby destroy its ability independently to attack this problem of internal reconstruction. For if this state is to be in any way affected by the decisions of outside states in trying to grapple with its internal problems, I submit that the problem confronting Canada will be utterly hopeless.
I therefore commend to the committee two very serious questions: first, the one of insuring freedom from want and freedom from fear; second, the problem of ensuring that Canada shall maintain her sovereignty and shall not 
be inextricably bound up with any group of nations in such a way as to make an unutterably intolerable situation for this country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As I read the resolution, the minister is referring the subject matter to a select special committee for the purpose of reporting to the government on what should be the method of government policy. After all, the government has a responsibility, and I suggest that the course adopted by the minister is not the proper one. I have no doubt he has a policy; the fact has been indicated on more than one occasion; and I believe it is the duty of t'he government to communicate that policy to parliament, to give the lead to the country in a considered statement made to this house, not to send the subject matter to a special committee to make a policy for the government.
I had not thought that this matter would come up to-day. I supposed there were other important matters which would be discussed and entered upon at this time. It is quite evident that the committee cannot be more than set up in the remaining days of this week and that the whole subject matter will go over until after the recess. It seems evident from the extent of the subject matter to be discussed that the committee cannot reach final conclusions at this session, and that the inquiry will have to be resumed at subsequent sessions of parliament. My suggestion to the minister is that he withhold this motion until after the Easter recess; then make a statement of government policy in this house-where it should be made-and, with that as a lead, refer the matter to the committee.
After all, the government must have a policy on this question of reconstruction. That is the constitutional responsibility of the administration, and one which has always been recognized in days gone by. That is the position the government should take, and I suggest it is the course the minister should now follow.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I do not wish to discuss this resolution. My purpose is to commend the minister for bringing it forward and to express the hope that the committee will be able to deal effectively with the tremendously important questions involved. I wish however to associate myself with what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has just said. I think the minister should have made his statement to the house and not to the committee. Later this afternoon I 6hallhave

Post-War Reconstruction
something to say on the question of how this house is being ignored by the government, and this is just another illustration.
I would call attention to the importance of the resolution. The committee is being appointed to study and report upon general problems of reconstruction and reestablishment which may arise at the termination of the present war, and all questions pertaining thereto. I am sure the minister and hon. members generally will agree that that is a colossal undertaking, because when the war is over, whenever that blessed time may come, we shall be faced with the disruption of the economic and social conditions within our own country. We shall be faced likewise with dislocation of trade as between countries, and we shall be faced with the condition that always follows war, namely, the unsettled state of mind generally and the unsettled political conditions not only within nations themselves but as between one nation and another. The committee will be faced with the question of charting Canada's course in the midst of these tremendous problems.
The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) referred to the danger of this country losing its sovereignty. A great many countries have already lost their sovereignty, and they have not lost it to any federation or federal union. They have lost their sovereignty because they did not see far enough in advance the necessity of cooperation between nations with a view to preventing such a result. If we are to be in a better world in the future than we are in at the present time it will be because the nations of the world are prepared to give up a certain amount of sovereignty in order that they may have security.
Mr. O'BRIEN: I suppose it is safe to assume that this is for civilian reconstruction and rehabilitation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: For some time I have been waiting for some such action on the part of the government as seems to be embodied in the proposals which the present committee is to be set up to study. I recall that at the last part of the last session of parliament, in November-I believe, it was on the last day-I asked the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) when we might expect a report from the government on its plans for post-vfar reconstruction. As I remember, he answered the question by saying that some such report would be made at this session. I have been waiting patiently
for that report to be brought down. I refer to what I believe would have been the report of the seven-man government reconstruction committee. As I have been patiently waiting the minister has brought down one or two bills with respect to civil reestablishment and a proposal for some land settlement scheme, but in these proposals I have not been able to detect any real or vital policy for a post-war reconstruction programme. The leader of the opposition has just said, and his words were well spoken, that the-government should bring down to this' house its policy on post-war reconstruction. Personally, I do not believe the government has any vital policy on reconstruction if all it has in mind is to find jobs for men after the war is over. To my mind that is no policy in connection with reconstruction; for if we are to have a type of reconstruction in Canada, as associated with other nations, for a world reconstruction, it must be the type of reconstruction that will learn war no more. Simply giving men jobs is not going to do away with the fundamental and underlying evils that breed war one generation after another.
I am not going to take time to go into all the details of what might be involved in these underlying evils. I simply say that giving men jobs is not going to solve the problem. It seems to me to be just like the attempt to bring back a sick patient to complete health and strength by calling in the doctor, trying to diagnose the case and then saying, "Now the best thing we can do to prolong the life of the patient is to change the bedclothes and put the patient in another bed so that he can rest more comfortably." That does not touch the cause of the disease. I suggest that there are movements going on in the world to-day which will take from us not only our sovereign rights but the freedoms for which we are now fighting. We have already heard of the proposals known as federal union or "Union Now." I suggest something which I believe the government and the house already know-that the proposals of "Union Now" are proposals to perpetuate that which has brought on war after war for generations. It was the thing that brought on the war of 1914; it is the thing that gave rise to dictatorships; it is the thing that brought on the present war, and it is the thing that will plunge the world into another war after this, if it is not completely rooted out.


Mr. MARTIN:: Nonsense.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) says, under his breath, "nonsense". If he is an exponent of the proposals of "Union Now"-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say that.
Post-War Reconstruction


Ernest George Hansell: Well, I thought I heard that. If he is a proponent of those proposals of "Union Now" he has a right to say so. But the committee should call in for examination men who do believe in such proposals and try to find out where those proposals will eventually lead this nation and the world.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What proposals?


Ernest George Hansell: The proposals known as federal union or "Union Now". I am not going into all the details, but in substance they believe in a world currency based on gold; in an international police force, which is the maintenance of a standing army and navy under the control of one central power, and in a world judiciary. Put that trinity of evil together and what chance has a small nation to exercise its own God-given democratic rights?


Mrs. CASSELMAN:: What chance has it now?


Ernest George Hansell: It has no chance now. We are fighting against a tremendous military power that is attempting eventually to rule the world. We want to defeat that power and maintain our own democratic rights. Underlying this there is another power just as vicious, a centralized power, seeking to rob us of our democratic rights. As the nazi power is attempting to do it by military force, the other power will attempt to do by an international banking conspiracy. That is the position, and while we may win on the one hand we may lose on -the other.
All I am saying is that the committee should go into these matters in minutest detail. We have as chairman of the seven-man committee of the government a man who we have reason to believe is very nearly an exponent of the proposals of that same "Union Now". I refer to Doctor James, principal of McGill university, who on one occasion ran off to Washington and who I believe is now in England. When the hon member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) last week brought that to the attention of the Minister of Pensions and National Health the minister said he could tell the house that Doctor James was not running this government. Those words were sweet music to my ears. Nevertheless Doctor James is chairman of that committee, and I say that the proposed committee of the house should have the right to call Doctor James to the stand, put him under oath and keep a record of what he says so that we can learn exactly what is going on behind the scenes.
Canada is in an excellent position to give leadership in connection with post-war reconstruction, and in particular to tell the world 
right now that we will not stand for this government or this country being taken back into a system based upon gold and controlled internationally. I say Canada is in an ideal position to do that, because in spite of criticism one way or another, Canada is playing a vital role in the present world conflict. We are supplying Great Britain with vast quantities of munitions and supplies, and we have reason to believe that we are of tremendous help to the United States of America. Just last night we gave second reading to a bill to give Great Britain one billion dollars this year with which to buy 'Canadian production. Canada therefore is playing an important part in the present world conflict and is in an excellent position to give leadership in this whole matter of world reconstruction.
There is another question I should like to deal with for a moment. I have forgotten the exact words used by the hon. member for Vancouver' East (Mr. Maclnnis) as he rose just now, but in sum and substance I think he said that the danger is that the people do not see far enough ahead. That perhaps touches the crux of the whole situation with respect to movements that are taking place in the world, including Canada. I have always said, and I think hon. members will agree, that strong leadership is leadership that will lead and not follow. In order to lead, a leadership must inform the public so that'an informed public will go step by step with them. But the fact is that things are put over on the public. I am fearful that in our post-war reconstruction the very thing I have protested against will again be imposed upon the public.
I am anxious to see the present government and the government that will be in power when the war ends give outstanding leadership in the reconstruction of the post-war world. In order to do that they must have the people with them. In order to have the people with them the people must be informed. Facilities should be made available to inform the public on every phase of an issue. I am not going to say I should be satisfied with simply printing a report of the committee's proceedings; I suggest that the widest publicity be given to it, and equal publicity to every phase of post-war reconstruction, so that the people may be informed of the benefits of one thing and the dangers of another.
I had intended to speak on this matter at some length. The motion, however, was brought down rather suddenly. It was given the usual notice in the Votes and Proceedings, of course, but as the leader of the opposition has already said, if we had a little more time on this matter I think the house itself would

Post-War Reconstruction
have gone to some length in its discussion of post-war reconstruction. You see what is happening now. Here is a motion to set up a committee. If we want to talk on post-war reconstruction, we had better do it now. When this motion passes the committee is set up, and then everything will be done by the committee. Reports will be made to the house, but if my prognosis is correct a motion for concurrence in the reports of the committee will not be mad^, so that there will be no opportunity to discuss these matters unless we do so on some general topic. Do I understand that the minister has promised the house that time will be given for adequate discussion when the reports of the committee come up in the house?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly.


Ernest George Hansell: That is music to my ears, too, Mr. Speaker, because it is my profound conviction that if the fundamental evils of our entire system are not corrected, we shall not solve our problems after the war is won.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to support the view of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), that a full statement of what the government has already done, and perhaps what it has in mind, should be made before this committee is set up or this matter sent to the committee.
I do not intend to prolong the debate; there is a great deal of important business to be done, but I do want to impress upon the minister my support of the suggestion of the leader of the opposition that before this committee is set up and this subject matter referred to it, the minister should make a full and complete statement to this house in order that we may know what has been done and thus be prepared to discuss the question later. I may add that to no other group in the house is the appointment of this committee a matter of greater satisfaction than it is to us, but we would appreciate a full statement by the minister before the reference to the committee of the subject matter of the resolution.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: I notice, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Danforth is to be on this committee. I remember the magnitude of the problem along these lines, in connection with reconstruction and rehabilitation, that had to be faced at the end of the last war. I remember that those who at present occupy the treasury benches made very strong representations across Canada that sufficient was not being done, and later made many promises as to what would be done, for those who were returning from world war No. 1. So much
was this propaganda spread across Canada that after the election of 1921 hon. gentlemen found themselves in power. Since that time I cannot remember having the honour and privilege of serving on any committee dealing with these questions until after a statement had been made to this house as to the detail of what the committee was being set up for, and what the ideas were in the mind of the minister in charge.
At the present time we have a very able minister in charge of this department, whose responsibility it is to keep up to the minute on every phase of this very important subject matter. No one in this chamber is better qualified than the minister to give a lead to hon. members as to what might or what ought to be done. I realize that we are anxious to approach this problem from a non-partisan point of view, but we must have some starting point. During the days when hon. gentlemen opposite occupied the benches which we at present occupy, I think perhaps not only the minister but also the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will remember their anxiety that we should have responsible government in Canada by a responsible administration. To my mind the very essence of responsible government is that in connection with a matter of this kind the government charged with responsibility shall give the house its policy.
It may be said that the war is still going on, and that this policy cannot be properly enunciated now. That may be quite true, but we should like to know what has happened during the last ten years. Would it not be possible for the minister to bring us up to date as to what facilities will be available when the time comes? All this information- is in the department, but in fairness to this house we should be told, before this committee is convened. The minister must give us some lead. Of course that will not be final, because the war is not over. It will be amended first by the members of this committee, when they have the benefit of the presentations that will be made by those appearing before them. But at least we should be brought up to date and should not be sent out into the wilderness without knowing where we are going or whether we are right or wrong. Then as one year follows another the policy can be further amended, following further declarations by the minister.
If the minister does not make a statement on these matters now I should say he has failed in his duty in connection with the introduction of this resolution. We are all
Post-War Reconstruction

anxious as to what will happen when this tragedy of war is over, with regard to those who will return. That is the first point. We are anxious too with regard to those who now find themselves in profitable employment, and we are concerned with those who are dependent upon the first two groups I have mentioned. If a statement is made by the minister now, the morale of Canadians in all three groups will be greatly strengthened. They will know that we are about to consider the matter, and they will know that a responsible minister has given some lead. But if we set up a committee and start on a fishing expedition as to what might be done, we may be submerged by all kinds of hare-brained ideas coming from all sections of the country, and we may fritter away our time looking into matters which no doubt already have come to the attention of the minister in his study of this reconstruction problem. On the other hand if we had the considered opinion of the government as to what might be done, and were assured that all the frills and fads were eliminated, we could give our attention to the very kernel of the problem. We could bring back an up-to-the-minute report, so that the country would know that this matter had had careful and sound consideration. In the other case we go before a committee and wander from one thought to. another, or one subject to another without having governmental responsibility as a basis. I strongly urge upon the minister that he give consideration to the thought expressed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and, as I gather, approved by hon. members sitting to our left.


Mr. BROOKE CLAXTON (St. Lawrence-bt. George):: Mr. Speaker, next to the measures directly related to the carrying on of the war, this is, in my opinion, the most important measure to come before the house at this session. Like other hon. members, I had not expected it would be reached before the recess, but I take this opportunity of placing before the house as briefly as possible, without preparation, one or two views on the matter.
I wish to emphasize with all the strength of my being the importance of the resolution and of the work the committee will undertake. Next to winning the war, or to any measure directly connected with that undertaking, we could not spend our time in any more profitable way. I am glad that hon. members have refrained from saying, as some newspapers have said, "Let's get on with the war, and postpone any talk about post-war matters until the war is over." Unless we talk about 
post-war matters during the war, we may not have a post-war world. I would be the first to say that we ought not to spend a minute on this discussion if I thought that by continuing it we were postponing the making of a single shell. On the other hand I believe that discussion such as we are having to-day, and the work of the committee which will flow from it, will make us fight better. It will give us something more positive than we have yet had to fight for.
We can base the emotions which direct and charge us in fighting this war on hate, or we can base them on the hope that something better will come from victory. My belief is that our war effort will be far stronger and far better than the enemy's if we do not follow the line of hate, but rather choose the line of hope and work for the realization of that hope during as well as after the war. I believe that our people will fight better, that they will give their blood, and their sweat and their tears more freely if they believe that in consequence of what they are giving they will not return to periods of scarcity and unemployment, but have some reasonable expectation of attaining better conditions than we have known before.
This subject is being discussed everywhere throughout the world, both on our side and on that of the enemy. Hitler has laid out his plan of a new world order, and one of the great motivating forces impelling his armies, so far so successfully, is the hope that that new world order will be realized. Hitler has used the forces of propaganda and ideas to fight for him. We have better ideas than he has. We have a better system of government, and we have a better civilization; otherwise we would not be fighting at all. But in the past we have stopped short of making our ideals fight for us, as they should.
Everywhere among the allied nations I find that discussions of this kind are going on. I spent the week-end attending an exceedingly interesting conference at Williamstown, under the auspices of Williams college. To that conference men came from all parts of the eastern United States to discuss this subject. The consensus of those men, experts in their various fields, was that in order to have the united nations make their utmost effort it was necessary to clothe the bare bones of the declaration of those nations with something more positive than we yet have had. There was the feeling that the united nations must have common ideals for which they are fighting. Up to the present we have not made our union effective; we are fighting separate wars rather than one war. This is a global

Post-War Reconstruction
war. We are fighting Hitler and the forces of the axis powers everywhere, and one front is as important as another.
With respect to the post-war objective of the work of the committee I should like to say one or two words. I do not think anyone has yet realized the magnitude of the job which will face the government of the day that will deal with the post-war problem. If we stopped the war to-day we would have 10 per cent of our population directly engaged either in the active fighting forces or in the making of munitions. Would their work stop? Would they become unemployed? What machinery would be provided? What controls, what construction projects would be necessary to provide employment for that 10 per cent of the population, until our economy began to function properly again? This can be judged by a single figure. In 1942 the nations of the world will make 150,000 aeroplanes. In 1939, to supply the commercial airways of the entire world with normal replacements and additions, 250 planes were required. The difference between those figures is some indication of the magnitude of the post-war problem, from the point of view of employment of war workers alone.
Then, let us consider it from the point of view of the constitution of Canada. At the end of the last war two cases were decided by the privy council which held that the government's power under the War Measures Act ceased with the termination of hostilities. If those decisions were to be followed at the conclusion of this war, the government would not be able to do any of the things which ought to be done to carry on the life of the country with the controls and powers it exercises through the War Measures Act. So consideration should be given by the committee-and I hope later by the government- to the constitutional questions involved.
Perhaps we may decide-I hope so-to build half a million houses in Canada within five years after the war. We cannot have a housing project of that nature unless it is done as a national enterprise, and with nation-wide powers. So I suggest that here is a field of study which the committee might properly take up in the course of its work.
The problem of unemployment must somehow be licked. Everyone has known for years that the world can produce enough food and necessities for every man, woman and child-brown, black, white and red1-on its surface. But we have not learned the technique of production and distribution well, enough, particularly distribution. To-day the working forces of the world are at work.
In Canada they see the full dinner-pail for everyone at a time when we are engaged in manufacturing things to be used for destruction. We see that happening in Canada at a time when we are reducing our external debt and giving to Britain more than twice as much as we ever sold her in any year before, and people are asking themselves: If that is possible in war, why not in peace? That question is going to be a very difficult one to answer unless the answer is: Yes, we can and we will do it. That is a simple question to the men overseas and the workmen in the factories of Canada. It is going to require complicated answers to show that it is not possible or that it should not be done. I suggest that we must strive to reach the stage after the war where there will be virtual full employment, or governments will go.
Everywhere we see under consideration plans, internal and external, to provide the maximum amount of employment. An exceedingly interesting book has just been issued by Alvin Hansen, the American economist, on precisely that subject. He believes that full employment can be obtained in the United States and that it would be the greatest contribution by the United States to post-war settlement. Measures to provide maximum employment are under consideration everywhere, but it is obvious that it cannot be done by any nation alone. That we have to cooperate is just as evident as that day follows night.
I am completely with my friend in the southeast corner when he said that freedom from want and freedom from fear are two objectives which must be realized, and I certainly agree with him in his remarks about the plan, "Union Now". On the other hand, I say that what we want has to be done by a combination of external and internal measures, springing from a realization for the first time by the nations of the world that they are interdependent and that the world is one, and by their beginning to tackle problems which they can face together but which they cannot face alone.
I suggest that if it is possible the proposed committee should secure the views of outstanding people from other countries. It is of the utmost importance that in this matter we make sure that our thinking in Canada takes account of the thinking in other parts of the world-in Britain, where there has been a great deal of work done, in the United States, and in the British dominions and the countries of the united nations. I suggest that that study can be carried on effectively only if it is carried on in close correspondence with our opposite numbers in other countries of the
Post-War Reconstruction

world so as to make sure that we are beginning to think about the same things at the same time and beginning to decide on similar lines of policy that must be followed if success is to be achieved.
Finally, may I say that in the plan of a postwar world or post-war reconstruction I do not think any blueprint can be laid out in detail now. What can be done is to see the nature of the problem, consider its magnitude, consider the kind of objectives that must be worked for and the kind of means that must be followed, and then gradually set up the machinery by which the transfer from a war to a peace economy is to be effected.
We are fighting in this war for survival. We are not fighting for anything else at the moment. We are fighting to defeat Hitler. Victory is a prerequisite to lfe. Life would not be worth while without it. But victory will not give us any more than a chance. Having achieved it, all it gives us is a new start. We shall have a chance of avoiding the mistakes we made after the last war. We have had twenty years of experience, of development in understanding, to guide us. But it will be hopeless if suddenly the war comes to an end and peace comes on us and catches us unprepared. It will produce nothing but chaos in our thinking and chaos in our organization. We may then have a call for a khaki election and for this and that. We shall fail to serve our best interests unless we are prepared and the people are prepared by thinking of these problems now. To have a khaki election might have results as disastrous as the khaki election in Britain after the last war and after the south African war, two elections which produced perhaps the two worst governments that country ever had.
The problem is imminent. We have been at war for two and a half years. I dare say that everyone in this chamber hopes, although it is not certain, that we may have victory within another two and a half years; but if we have done no more in the next two years than we have been able to do in the past to prepare for peace, victory and peace will catch us unprepared, and we shall then have to pay the penalty of our unpreparedness.
In order to make our utmost effort, Canada along with the united nations must have faith that, in consequence of that effort being made, we shall get, not only victory, but the chance to work for a better world than we have ever had before an-d the probability that we are going to get it. But to achieve this, the united nations and the peoples of each of the United Nations must share their views and ideas, create habits of thinking together, build confidence in each other and in their ability to carry out their purposes.

Our aim to defeat the enemy is only a stage. The need for a united will and united action goes far beyond victory. We must see that the four freedoms which President Roosevelt defined for the world belong to us and to our children, the children of Canada, and children everywhere in the world.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that I am a member of the proposed committee. But first I want to say that the busiest time I have in this house is when I am trying to decide whether something I have to say is relevant to the matter under discussion. Many times I have risen to say something which I have considered important and intended to state briefly, only to be declared out of order. Most of the discussion that has taken place here this afternoon I consider a waste of time, and being Scotch, I do not like a waste of time. The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), following the discussions which have taken place on this subject in the house for the past two years and a half, has brought in a resolution to set up a committee to study the subject matter of those speeches. The committee that has been set up will, in my opinion, have very little to do with settling these questions, because my understanding is that there has already been a committee studying this problem for the past two years, and that the committee now being set up here under this resolution is merely instructed to study and report to the house on reconstruction and reestablishment after the war. The committee has no authority to do anything except gather information and pass that information on to another committee, which, in the final analysis, will decide what is going to be done about this problem. That is my understanding of the appointment, of this committee, and I think we might very well adopt this resolution without further discussion, because frankly I am not hearing anything this afternoon that I have not been listening to for the past two years.
I rose particularly to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health whether the committee which had been studying this problem for. the past two and a half years has complete and final say in the matter of rehabilitation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Absolutely not. Their only function is to make recommendations in regard to procedure with reference to future policies to be adopted. They have no authority whatsoever.


Clarence Gillis: And this select committee is to be appointed for the purpose of gathering

Post-War Reconstruction
information and passing it on to the smaller committee, which in turn will boil it down and make recommendations to the government?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I explain to my hon. friend? Last year, at the request of many members of this house we had a committee on soldiers' rehabilitation, of which my hon. friend was a very able member. Immediately we met we called in to give evidence the committees which had been working under my direction for some twelve or fourteen months, so that the parliamentary committee of this house might be made thoroughly familiar with all the progress which had been made in the meantime by the interdepartmental committees which had been studying these various problems. I would imagine that exactly the same procedure would be followed in the present instance.


Clarence Gillis: The only difference I see is that the committee on pensions drafted their own report. They boiled down the evidence submitted and tabled in the house their own report. My understanding of this committee is that they will not do that-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, yes. Certainly.


Clarence Gillis: -that they will merely report to the cabinet committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. They will report to this house.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to have an understanding of this question of when one is in order and when not in order. I do not care if we discuss this question of rehabilitation for the next year. The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) warns us of what may happen if we do not do what we did after the last war. Let me say that if we do not do more than that, personally I do not want to be living in this country when the army that is overseas comes back.
I do not agree with the statement that hon. members are not getting enough work, and I have no wish to sit on a committee merely to make an addition to my work; that is not a sufficient reason. I have more work now than I can do. But I consider this is the most important job I can go on. As a member of that committee I am not going there to waste time. If any hon. member outside the committee has definite views on the subject and wishes to present them, I personally should be pleased to hear him, and will use what I learn to the best advantage.
The terms of reference in this resolution are very broad, and as far as I am concerned I am going to make full use of the latitude it allows.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Has this committee power to arrange for service clubs in the municipalities, manufacturers, and others, to list jobs which can be done after the war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. As a matter of fact, that work is now being done by one of the subcommittees.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am veiy happy to see my name on the committee, because during the past few years I have been making an exhaustive study of this question, mostly in the direction of a survey of public resources. In the course of much travel I have found that vast resources in this country are tied up, and have been for many years, by interests of one kind or another. I have in mind a very large area said to contain hundreds of millions of tons of high-grade coal. Upon making inquiries why no coal was being mined, I was informed that the property belonged to a certain estate, which had held it for many years. I hope the time will come when this country will forbid the retention of unworked natural resources by private interests beyond a reasonable length of time.
I do not believe that they should be permitted to profit to the extent of millions of dollars because other properties in the neighbourhood have been developed in the meanwhile. Another example which occurs to me is a site not many miles east of Ottawa, and well known to most hon. members, where from a million and a half to two million horse-power can be developed, should have been developed, and should now be in use for the production of munitions with which to fight this war; yet there are no signs of development. I hope the committee will not be precluded from recommending the development of such national resources. When the government of Canada or of any province gives such rights to private individuals, there should be inserted in the contract a time limit within which the resources shall be utilized; otherwise they shall revert to the crown.
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln): May I also add a word, more in the form of an interrogation of the minister? It is evident, both from the minister's brief statement and from the information in the hands of hon. members, that considerable inquiry has been made into this problem, particularly during the past two years. The minister has said that he is going to make
Post-War Reconstruction

a statement to the committee and not to this house. May I ask him whether, with all the information which has been gleaned JP to the present, the government is not now in a position to make some definite statement as to its policy of reconstruction after the war, so that when the committee retires at Easter all hon. members will be in a position to direct in some way the deliberations of the committee after the recess? I should like to know why that statement has to be deferred. Is it because the government has as yet no policy for reconstruction which it can submit to the house, and, instead of giving leadership, is looking for further light before enunciating some policy? I do not want the minister to assume that my criticism is biased by political considerations, but it is a fact that back home the people are asking the question; returned men of the last war, too, are asking the question, and we are, so to speak, wandering in the wilderness if we do not get something definite to work on. It seems to me that the government has had sufficient opportunity to give some light to the committee, and that other hon. members should have something which they can pass on during the Easter recess.


George Hugh Castleden: I am in agreement with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) when he says that he thinks a lot of this discussion should take place in committee; but, since this resolution is almost identical in substance with that of a motion which is on the order paper in my name, I would ask permission of the house to withdraw my motion at this time.
I would also draw to the attention of members of the committee that it has to deal with reconstruction, and its assignment to the study of reconstruction implies that something in the past has failed and that we are to build something new. Proposals to reestablish parts of an old system which have failed will not receive very kindly consideration.
As a member of this committee, I shall work with everything I can to contribute something, in the hope that it will prove of more value than some of the promises which have been passed out from this house in the past. I wish it good luck.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: As a member of the banking and commerce committee of 1939 I suggest to the house that there was at that time an interesting discussion in regard to banking in Canada, the mechanics of financing and so forth, and it might be useful if tlhe banking committee were given some 
information with respect to the present-day financing of Canada so that the public might understand what is going on and what the prospects are for financing in the future. Information could be obtained1 by the banking committee which would be very useful to the reconstruction committee. I suggest that there .might be some meetings of the banking committee, such as we (had in 1939, and I would also commend to hon. members, as very interesting reading, the summary of the report of the banking committee of that day.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre): I am rather surprised at the -way in which this debate has developed -this afternoon. Especially am I surprised at the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). Looking at Hansard of March 5 of the present session, I find that my hon. friend specifically asked this house to set up such a committee as is now being organized for the purposes which are outlined in the language of the resolution. A similar request came also from the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).


Major James William Coldwell: Not quite in the same form.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Probably not. It came, too, from several other members of the house. Hon. members will recall a resolution which appeared on the order paper in 1940, placed there by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), which was withdrawn with the unanimous consent of the house because of the tragic war episodes of those days.
I have refrained from taking up more of the time of the house this afternoon in describing in detail all the ivorkings of the reconstruction committee of last year. I had an address ready which I could have given. I appreciate as strongly as any member of the house the importance of devoting attention to post-war reconstruction, but I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), who said last night that there is something more urgent just now in Canada than post-war problems, and that is guaranteeing that thing without which reconstruction will never be possible, namely, the winning of the war to ensure victory for our arms and our cause.
The first essential of reconstruction is the attainment of victory, because if we do not win the war, if we do not bend all our efforts and energies toward that end, we shall all be reconstructed by someone else. On the other hand, I agree that there is nothing, next to the winning of the war, which is more important

Privilege-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
than a planned and careful study of the problems of the aftermath. They are giving attention to this question in the United Kingdom and they are doing the same in the United States. I have been in touch with the organizations in those countries. We are exchanging correspondence with the committees concerned, and I venture to say that just as we are to-day the most advanced country in the world from the point of view of legislation which we have already passed with reference to our service men in the present war, so we have gone further in our studies with regard to reconstruction than they have done in the republic to the south of us, and certainly in the old country.
Four or five subcommittees have been formed by the committee, exactly as was done last year by the committee on the rehabilitation of soldiers, and about twenty major studies have been entered upon, some of which are completed, in regard to practically every phase of our economic life and structure in Canada. I would ask my hon. friends, did we not succeed very well last year when we called before the committee on pensions and soldier problems those men who had devoted month after month to the study of these problems. The committee itself had before it the most complete details with reference to every single suggestion tha't had been advanced. In its wisdom the committee made a report to parliament and 90 per cent of the report has been implemented by legislation since that time.
Surely, therefore, the proper procedure at this time is to refer the matter to a committee of this house, and the parliamentary committee can call in those six distinguished gentlemen, men representing every walk of life, who have been so kind as to give their time to the question. There is a subcommittee on postwar employment headed by the veteran labour leader, Tom Moore. There is a committee dealing with the point referred to by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) in connection with the conservation of resources. There is a committee dealing with public works in the dominion, under the chairmanship of the chief engineer in the department. There are, as I say, six subcommittees in all, and twenty different investigations are proceeding at the present time.
I suggest, therefore, that I took the wise course in asking as briefly as possible, in order to save the time of the house, so that the immediate and urgent problems which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has before him may be proceeded with, that this matter be referred at once to the committee. The committee will meet after the recess; there will be available for it complete direction in the line of its investigation, and there will be presented
the first day of the committee, a complete programme which will occupy its members far longer than the present session. I suggest that the resolution pass immediately so that the Minister of Finance may proceed with the very urgent resolutions he has before the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Transport) moved:: That standing order No. 63 of the House of Commons, relating to the appointment of standing committees of the house, be amended by adding to the standing committees of the house, for the present session a standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, to which will be referred accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines for the present session, for consideration and report to the house; provided however that nothing in the resolution shall be construed to curtail in any way the full right of discussion in committee of supply; and that the said committee consist of: Messrs. Bercovitch, Jackman, Bradette, Hazen, Donnelly, Dubuc, Emmerson, Ferland, Gray, Shaw, Hanson (Skeena), Harris (Danforth), Howden, Howe, Lockhart, Nicholson, McCulloch, Maybank, Parent, Pouliot, Ross (Middlesex East), Sanderson, Sissons.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not
looked at it, but I assume this resolution is in the usual form.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Exactly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
REFERENCE TO REMARKS OF MR. LACROIX (qUEBEC-MONTMORENCy) IN DEBATE ON MARCH 20
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to ask the Minister of National Defence a question on a matter of public importance, and also, I think, on the ground of privilege. During the debate on the United Kingdom financing resolution on Friday last, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), as reported at page 1494 of Hansard, made reference to a certain report, No. 47, sent out by the military intelligence section of the Department of National Defence, entitled "Summary of Intelligence from Military Districts", and he
1584	COMMONS
Privilege-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
read paragraph 13, which he stated included a report from the intelligence officer of the fortress of Halifax. My questions are:
1.	Has the attention of the minister been called to this portion of the hon. member's speech?
2.	Will the minister advise the house how the hon. member came into possession of what I assume to be a confidential military intelligence release?
3.	What does the minister propose to do about the matter in the premises?


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member told me that he intended to ask about this matter. May I say categorically that my attention has been called to the report of the speech to which he refers.
Secondly, "with regard to the matter of how it got into the hands of the hon. member I have not the faintest idea. I can only say that whoever gave it to the hon. member gave it without authority and in complete breach of duty, and that a most rigorous investigation is being conducted to ascertain who was responsible for the hon. member obtaining this copy. Further, I want to say that intelligence reports of this class are solely for the secret and confidential information of certain senior officers at National Defence headquarters and of district officers commanding. This particular class of report has, I understand, the most limited circulation of any reports of the Department of National Defence.
I note that the report of the speech refers to it as propaganda. Reports are not propaganda in any sense of the word; they are confidential reports on all sorts of conditions as the officer reporting sees them. Their weight, of course, depends on the capacity of the officer who happens to prepare them. As I have said, the report was given to the hon. member without authority and in breach of duty, but the responsibility for making it public and propaganda devolves entirely on the hon. member who submitted it to this house. As is plainly stated, it is simply a report indicating what the officer considered to be the views of a section-I emphasize that because that is the word used in the report-[DOT] of the active army. In no sense is it intended to represent the views of the army, or of the minister, or of any officer of the department. Intelligence reports deal, as the house will understand, with all sorts of views which affect men's thinking, no matter how unfounded or inaccurate the views may be. All that the report does is indicate that these different viewpoints exist.

I call the attention of hon. members to the fact that no conclusion whatever is drawn, and, contrary to what the hon. member said in his speech, there is not the slightest reflection in the world against French-Canadians who enlist in the army.
The hon. member asks what is proposed to be done about the matter. I have just indicated that the most rigorous investigation is being conducted to find out who was responsible for the hon. member receiving this copy, and appropriate action will be taken according to the circumstances. I also want to say that at some appropriate time when the opportunity arises, I intend to tell the house what has been and is being done in the Department of National Defence to recognize, support and make just as effective as possible the war activities of French-speaking Canadians as far as the army is concerned.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On tlhe orders of the day:
John Horne Blackmore: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources. Will he tell the house whether the report of the special committee appointed to investigate the Lethbridge southeastern water conservation project and to report thereon on February 17, 1942, is yet in his hands. If so, when will the report be tabled? If not, why does he permit the delay?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend's question may stand as notice.



ALASKA HIGHWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for
Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) asked me on one or two occasions about the route the Alaska highway is to take, and in particular how the road from Edmonton, on the south is to reach Fort St. John. The hon. member pointed out that there is only one bridge across the Peace river, that is at the town of Peace River, and he asked whether the road is to go over that 'bridge.
The answer is as follows: The Alaska highway proper, that is to say the road which is to be constructed as a result of the recommendation of the permanent joint board on defence, is to begin at Fort St. John, British Columbia, and follow the general line of the-airports until it reaches the existing road system of Alaska. Existing roads in the country

War Appropriation
between Edmonton and' Fort St. John provide a choice of two or three routes, depending on weather conditions, between Grouard, which is west of Lesser Slave lake, and Grande Prairie. One of these routes is that referred to by the hon. member, namely that through Peace river which utilizes the highway bridge at that point and crosses back to the south side of the river by ferry at Dunvegan.
We have no information as to which of the available roads between Grouard1 and Grande Prairie will be used by the United States authorities in the case of equipment or supplies which may be taken by road to Fort St. John.
From Grande Prairie to Fort St. John there is only one road available, and this crosses to the north side of the Peace river by ferry in the vicinity of Taylor.
It is reasonable to suppose that most of the supplies and equipment to be used on the construction of the highway will be sent as far as Dawson Creek by rail. Dawson Creek is fifty or fifty-five miles south of Fort St. John.



WAR APPROPRIATION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 15, for granting to his majesty aid for the purpose of financing United Kingdom war requirements in Canada and for national defence and security.
Major James William Coldwell: Before the bill is read the third time, I wish to say briefly that I hope the minister will consider some method of dealing with the securities of Canadian industries and so forth, held in Great Britain. As I said last night, I have given a good deal of thought to this matter and I believe it is of some importance to the country in the post-war period. Last night I suggested that these securities might be considered as collateral to the loan of $700,000,000. It was suggested to me that perhaps to enforce the taking up of these securities from the people who now ov^n them might involve some hardship, and that, instead, an arrangement might be made whereby an understanding could be reached with the British government so that in the event of any of the securities now privately held in Great Britain coming into the market for resale, particularly markets abroad, Canada should have an option on all such securities. That might be less drastic than I proposed yesterday and on previous occasions, but I believe it would, to some degree at least, safeguard this dominion and prevent the
resale of any of these Canadian securities now held by British investors or in Great Britain on, say the New York or some other market, and to that extent our interests would be protected.
I feel, as I said yesterday, that we have made a great gift to Great Britain to the extent of $1,000,000,000, and I do not think anyone would expect this country to make an additional loan of $700,000,000 and forego the opportunity of asking that any Canadian securities now held in Britain, offered for sale, should be first of all offered to the Canadian government so that we may safeguard our interest in that connection.


Mr. J. SASSEYILLE ROY (Gaspe):: (Translation) Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the third reading of this bill for the purpose of granting Great Britain a gift of $1,000 million, I wish to record my opposition to the measure. This vast amount represents an average contribution of almost four millions and a quarter for each constituency in Canada. My electors have in no way authorized me to make such a gift. I followed very closely the discussions which have taken place here as well as those in committee. In all earnestness I have been unable to understand just how this financial aid of $1,000,000,000 would be more helpful to Great Britain in the form of a gift than in the form of a loan. Nor have I been able to understand what motive can inspire or explain the zeal manifested by some, a zeal which leads them to exhibit so false a patriotism. However, since this house has already accepted the principle, I suppose this assistance to Britain is as good as granted. Yet there is still time to amend its form. I therefore humbly propose to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) that this amount be loaned and not given outright to the United Kingdom. I trust that the minister will find this suggestion reasonable and that all members of this house will support it.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 14, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Declaration of emergency year.
Prairie Faim Assistance
Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not know this was coming on; it was not on the agenda given to us last evening.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I am mistaken; but members of the committee from this side are not in the Aouse at the moment. I do not understand that there is any contention about the matter, but I should like to ask the minister whether there was any objection to this in the agriculture committee, and what is the position. I have not followed the proceedings of the committee; I have no opinion on the matter, not knowing very much about it, but perhaps the minister could make a brief statement as to what it is all about.


Mr. GARDINER:: There was considerable discussion with regard to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which is amended by this bill, after which the committee reported the bill without amendment. The main point of discussion was the question whether the provision now in the act to the effect that even after the 80-eent restriction on the government is removed, it still applies to the category that runs from eight to twelve bushels to the acre. In order to explain that, I may say that the act now provides that the government cannot declare a year an emergency year if the price of wheat is over 80 cents a bushel. We have removed that restriction; but the act also provides that when wheat is over 70 cents a bushel, so far as the category from eight to twelve bushels to the acre is concerned, for every cent wheat advances beyond 70 cents, 10 cents is taken off the amount paid. The total amount paid in that category is $1, so that when wheat reaches 80 cents that category goes out; and since we have increased the advance from 70 to 90 cents, this automatically puts that category out.
Most of the discussion in the committee was as to whether we should recommend back to the house that the government give consideration to amending that section of the act in order to put that category back in, and the committee decided, by a majority vote, not to make that recommendation. So the bill was returned to the house without amendment, as it now stands.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I think the effect of the discussion in committee has been well covered by the minister's explanation. The only real argument was as to whether the eight to twelve bushel group should be maintained in some manner because, as the
vMr. Gardiner.]
minister said, when the price goes over 80 cents that group goes out. We had a thorough discussion of that point, from all angles. I for one thought it should be maintained only as an emergency measure. Others, from northern and central Saskatchewan, felt that it should be maintained at all costs. However, all sides of the argument were presented and the proposal was voted down by the committee, so I do not think there is anything contentious in the bill as it now stands.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I only want
to express regret that the committee did not see fit, and the government have not seen fit, further to amend this act in order to permit people living in townships where the yield is from eight to twelve bushels per acre to obtain these benefits again this year. When the bill was in the second reading stage-


The CHAIRMAN:: May I point out to the hon. member that in debate in committee he cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as it received second reading and wan referred to committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not doing that, Mr. Chairman. I am only pointing out that during the course of the discussion of this and the other wheat legislation there has been considerable argument as between distributing farm income on a bushelage basis and distributing farm income on an acreage basis. The argument has been made repeatedly that the fairest way to distribute income is on the acreage basis; and one of the principal reasons advanced for not raising the price of wheat any higher is that it is supposed to be fairer to distribute income on the basis of acreage. I merely want to point out to the committee that those who believed in that point of view are the very people who, by their failure to include that provision in this bill, are preventing large numbers of people from benefiting under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I think the figures placed on Hansard during the discussion on second reading show that between thirty and thirty-five thousand people each year, of those receiving benefits under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, came within the eight to twelve bushel category. They constituted about 63 per cent of the number receiving bonuses, but now those people will be excluded from the ambit of this legislation.
I think that is unfortunate; I think it argues against all the theories that have been advanced by those who have been claiming in the house for the past two weeks that the fairest way to distribute farm income is on an acreage basis. This legislation is doing just

Wheat Acreage Reduction
the opposite; it is reducing the distribution on an acreage basis and increasing the distribution on a bushelage basis.
When the matter was before the committee some of us moved an amendment that a recommendation be sent back from the committee asking this house to reconsider the bill and to amend the section in order to permit the eight to twelve bushel group to come in. Unfortunately that was voted down. If I remember correctly, the minister intimated that he was not prepared to recommend it to the cabinet in council. I think that is too bad, and much disappointment will be the result.
As has been said repeatedly, this piece of legislation has now become an established measure in dealing with the problem of crop failure in western Canada. It is the basis upon which ultimately it may be possible to build some type of crop insurance scheme. No one suggests that it is crop insurance; but it is a move in that direction, and by widening, extending and modifying the act, it may be possible to base a proper crop insurance scheme on this legislation. A great many people have come to look upon it as something upon which they could depend in those years when, for some cause beyond their control, they have not been able to get adequate crops. Now 63 per cent of those people will be excluded by virtue of the fact that the price of wheat is being established at 90 cents, and the government having failed to bring down an amendement to make the proviso, those people will not be shut out.
I wish merely to make my protest. I do not believe there is any use in labouring the point, or in holding up the bill. If the minister and the government are determined not to bring in the amendment, then all we can do is to do what we did in committee, namely ask the government to take the matter into consideration, with a view to bringing down an amendment next year. That would seem to be the proper procedure, if the government is not prepared to take action now. Just as to-day the price is fixed at 70 cents, and every time the price of wheat rises above 70 cents, the bonus of the 8- to 12-bushel group is reduced 10 cents an acre, it would have been equally fair to raise the price to 90 cents and to have said that every time the price of wheat rises one cent above 90 cents the bonus should be reduced 10 cents an acre. It seems to me that would have been fair and equitable as between tlhe different groups suffering crop failure. If the government is not prepared to take this step now, I hope it will at least take the matter into consideration with a view to doing so at a later date.


Mr. FAIR:: Mr. Chairman, before the bill passes through committee I, too, wish to voice my disappointment with respect to the action taken in the committee on agriculture in ruling out the 8- to 12-bushel to the acre class. Some members in the committee felt that because the price of wheat was increased to 90 cents a bushel, there was no longer any need for those in the 8- to 12-bushel class receiving a bonus. I wish to point out once more, and to protest, that even though 90 cents a bushel, basis No. 1 northern Fort William, is being advanced, the farmers are not getting nearly the cost of growing their wheat, and I cannot see how the government-even though the committee on agriculture did decide against keeping in the 8- to 12-bushel class-is justified in ruling out that particular class.
I am not satisfied that the amendment should be left over until next year. In my opinion this is the year in which it should be passed, and the government should take action to put back into the legislation that clause which had been wiped out through the price being raised from 70 to 90 cents, basis No. 1 northern Fort William.


Mr. PERLEY:: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to labour the question. I agree with what the hon. member for Weybum has said. The matter was thoroughly discussed in committee. The minister heard the discussion there, and he made it plain that, after consulting with council, it had been decided not to go further. I regret that the 8- to 12-bushel class could not have been included. I trust the minister may take into consideration the suggestion made by the hon. member for Weyburn, so that next year there may be an amendment including the 8- to 12-bushel class, and a further amendment which would make the measure one more in the nature of insurance than it is now.
The minister has stated definitely what he proposes to do. The matter was thoroughly discussed in committee, and I shall say no more.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 12, respecting wheat acreage reduction.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon. Mt. Yien in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
15S8
Wheat Acreage Reduction
[Stage Direction]
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Thomas Vien: We are on Bill No. 12,
clause 1, short title.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, this bill has been discussed in conjunction with Bills Nos. 11 and 14, and really one cannot be discussed apart from the others. What I have to say will take only a few minutes, and if it is not in order now I shall have to wait until the third reading.


Thomas Vien: I am governed by the rules of the house, which bind me as well as every other hon. member. We are on clause 1, short title, which reads:
This act may be cited as the Wheat Acreage Reduction Act, 1942.
Hon. members must obey the rules.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Perhaps I might be permitted to say on clause 1 what I have to say.


Thomas Vien: Under the standing orders of the house the general principle of a bill cannot be discussed in committee. It must be discussed on the second reading. Standing order 58 is clear, that we shall take the bill clause by clause and limit the discussion to the substance of the clause before the chair. I know that the practice has developed of being a little lenient and allowing some latitude in discussing the principle on the short title of a bill, but it is against the rules. On clause 1, nothing but the short title is involved. I do not believe that it is within the four corners of standing order 58 to discuss the principle of the bill on the short title.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, ever since I have been here it has been the practice that when a bill has been returned to the house from a committee, especially with amendments made in committee, to allow the principle to be discussed on the short title. So far as this bill is concerned I do not see how we can discuss it at all when we have not seen the amendments. I have not even been favoured with a copy of the bill as amended.


Thomas Vien: I know that in a number of cases what the leader of the opposition has just said is true. The house has given unanimous consent to suspending its rules, but without a suspension of standing order 58 it is not permissible to discuss the principle in committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for unanimous consent

to discuss the principle of the bill on the short title.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think there can be any objection to having a general discussion at the moment as to what was proposed in committee and what was accepted by the committee. The suggestion has been made by the hon. member for Weyburn that it is difficult to discuss this bill apart from the other two bills. I have some doubt as to whether it would be wise to carry latitude that far. I think we should confine ourselves to this bill, and when the other bill comes before us it can be discussed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the minister is right in his last observation I do not think it would be in order to discuss the principle of a bill which is not before us, but I do think we should be able to discuss the principle of this bill on the short title with respect to (a) those portions of the bill which are being amended and (b) those portions attempted to be amended.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The leader of the opposition has just said that he did not receive a copy of the bill as amended. Of course, as leader of the opposition he is entitled to prior consideration. I have often thought that every hon. member should be given copies of bills as amended. It is difficult to discuss a bill without knowing what the amendments are. While I do not like to make this objection on a bill of the Minister of Agriculture, he is about as convenient a cushion to fall on as anybody else.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question arose in the committee whether this bill should be reprinted, and I think the final suggestion was that the amendments were so limited that they might well be reported to the house. The first amendment, for example, just adds the word "flax" to the definition of "coarse grains". Under another amendment a new clause is submitted. By the way, the drafting in the committee was not acceptable to the joint law clerks, and they have submitted another drafting in words more acceptable to them but meaning what was intended. That is only one short section. Another amendment adds two words to one of the clauses. The amendments were not thought sufficient to justify the whole bill being reprinted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree if the changes are slight, but it might be well for the minister or the chairman of the committee to indicate the amendments and read the sections as amended so that they will be understood.

Wheat Acreage Reduction


Thomas Vien: It has been the practice to reprint and distribute a bill when a number of amendments have been made by a committee; but where the amendments are negligible or few in number, it has been the practice for the chairman of the committee to read the amendments to each section as it is reached, and I propose to do that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is all right.


James Garfield Gardiner: To help the members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I might just read the amendments so that the bill as amended may be discussed intelligently. Paragraph (c) of section 2 is amended to add the word "flax" after the word "corn" so that the definition will read:
(c) "coarse grains" means barley, oats, corn, flax and peas.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Why put flax before peas?


James Garfield Gardiner: To save cutting out the "and" and putting it after "peas".
There is also an amendment to section 4. The committee had proposed to add a new subclause 3, but the amendment as submitted to the committee was withdrawn and the following submitted instead:
4. (3) Notwithstanding any law relating to bankruptcy or insolvency moneys payable under this act shall be deemed not to be property or assets of the bankrupt or insolvent person for the purposes of the said laws and shall not be subject to garnishment or attachment, nor be assignable either at law or in equity.
The intention there is that no one can have any legal claim on these moneys so long as they are in the hands of the government, that any legal claim for debt which there may be will have to be established after the individual is paid.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It would be too late then, would it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: Then on page 4 of the bill section 11 (a) has been amended to read:
(a) in respect of any information or return required under this act or regulations thereunder, wilfully submits false information or knowingly makes a false return thereto.
Then, subsection 2 has been amended to read:
No payment shall be made to any farmer who wilfully submits any false information to the minister or knowingly makes any false return.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
would be uniform.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those are the only amendments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Apropos of your ruling a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman, may I ask, just for my own information, can section 1 be discussed?


Thomas Vien: Unless the hon. gentleman has the unanimous consent of the committee to suspend standing order 58, I cannot allow it. But if the hon. gentleman seeks and obtains unanimous consent, then the standing order is suspended.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think it would expedite the progress of the bill if my hon. friend would just carry on and discuss what he wants to discuss.


James Garfield Gardiner: Agreed.


Thomas Vien: I take it that the hon. gentleman has the unanimous consent of the committee?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: *will mean that $7 million less is being paid out under that act this year than last year; that, under the bill which is now before the committee, the wheat acreage reduction measure, a new basis is being agreed upon for payment, that last year an established acreage was worked out upon which we paid on an average of the 1939 and 1940 wheat acreage, and in the agriculture committee of the house it was found that on the new basis, which is to be the 1940 basis, payment will be made this year on one million acres less than last year, which means another $2 million less. Also it will be found in this bill that the amount of money to be paid for summer-fallow is to be reduced from $4 an acre to $2 an acre. According to figures supplied by the minister, the number of acres upon which summer-fallow was paid last year was 5,493,200, or roughly five and a half million; and at $2 an acre that means $11 million.
I draw these facts to the attention of any who consider that there is reason for complaint concerning the legislation on the ground of excessive generosity to western Canada: $20 million are taken out 'by virtue of the withdrawal of the prairie farm income bonus, $7 million through taking out the 8- to 12-bushel class, $2 million by virtue of changing the basis to 1940, $11 million by virtue of reducing the allowance for summer-fallow from $4 to $2 per acre, making a total of $40 million.
When complaints are made about paying $56 million more in terms of wheat prices, I think those who have raised those objections should bear in mind that the legislation with which we are now dealing, and the legislation which was dealt with before supper, on the prairie farm income bonus, mean a reduction in the acreage payments to western Canada of around $40 million.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But anyone would trade $40 million for $56 million, any day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Correct. But I do wish to ask hon. gentlemen who have been objecting, saying, "We are giving $56 million to western Canada", to realize that we .are giving them $56 million with one hand and taking away $40 million with the other, which is a very different thing from suggesting that we are giving them an outright present of $56 million.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Who offered the objections?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have not heard anybody object.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I do not recall any objection to the increase.


An hon. MEMBER:: There was no
objection.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There were a number who objected.


An hon. MEMBER:: Name them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A number of hon. gentlemen spoke rather scathingly to the effect that western Canada was always asking for more and more. As a matter of fact, when I was on my feet stating that the farmers would not be satisfied with 90 cents a bushel, someone on the Liberal benches said that they would not be satisfied with anything.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Yes, but that came from your happy friend across the street.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
James Garfield Gardiner: The amendment is put in section 2, as I understand, when it comes back from committee.


Thomas Vien: We read the section as amended. I .will draw the attention of the committee to the fact that paragraph (c) is amended by adding after the word "oats" the word "flax".


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Basic wheat acreage.
Mr. QUELCH:: I do not like this section as it stands. I might point out that the agriculture committee did not like it either, and they moved that the section should be struck out and another substituted. Another section was drafted, and the Minister of Agriculture himself spoke in favour of the other section which was drawn up. He also pointed out that, since the new section would mean an increase in expenditures, it would have to be referred to the cabinet. This was done, and they refused to accept it.
There are many reasons why this section as it stands before us now is undesirable. In the first place, the government asked the farmers of western Canada to cooperate in 1940 by reducing their acreage. A very large number of farmers did cooperate and now, as a result of that cooperation, they are being penalized under this section. Section 3 reads:
For the purposes of this act, the basic acreage in wheat on any farm in the area shall be the wheat acreage in 1940. . . .
Last year under the regulations we stated that the basic acreage would be dependent upon the 1939 and 1940 acreage; in other words, we said that if the average of 1939-40 wheat acreage was less than 60 per cent of the total cultivated acreage we would take the higher of the two. If we take the bill as it stands, the farmer's basic acreage is

Wheat Acreage Reduction
dependent upon the 1940 acreage alone and there will be a considerably smaller amount paid to the farmers.
The minister said that the definition we had last year had caused a great deal of delay in making the payment; that looking back over the 1939 records had occasioned a good deal of trouble, for the reason that many of the farmers had not kept records, and he blamed that largely for the delay. The point is, however, that we have now done all that work and that basic acreage has been established so that there can not be any delay this year from that cause. If we are now going to take the new basic acreage, it means that all the work we did last year will have been done for nothing. The suggestion the committee made was that, for the farmers who applied under the act last year, the basic acreage as established last year would be used, and for the farmers who did not make application last year, the new basic acreage would be used.
I would say to the government that as soon as it becomes known that we are taking the 1940 acreage as the basic acreage, there will be discontent throughout the west. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will be flooded with protests. Imagine what is being done! Many farmers in 1940 had only about twenty or thirty acres of wheat out of a total of 400 acres of cultivated land, and now the government is saying that that twenty or thirty acres shall constitute the basic acreage, although the total cultivated acreage may be 400 acres. Can any minister justify that? There is absolutely no justice in this section. Last year we discussed this whole question fully in the house for days and finally came to the conclusion that the only fair way to deal with the matter was to take the average of 1939 and 1940 and, where that average was less than 60 per cent, to take the higher. Even now at this late hour the government should reconsider their action. The Minister of Agriculture himself had endorsed the alternative section.
While we are on this section I might be allowed to say, so far as this measure is concerned, that we would have been better off if we had given the farmers $1 a bushel and increased the price, as we are doing, for oats, barley and flax. The farmers, under the present proposal, will not be satisfied. A dollar a bushel plus a sound crop insurance plan would have given satisfaction, and we could have eliminated this measure; but seeing that we are keeping it in operation I submit that we should do everything in our power to put it on an equitable basis.
The minister himself knows that section 3 is not equitable, and it will cause a great deal of discontent in the west. I do not think a single member of the house heard any criticism from any farmer in regard to section 3 as it read last year. We spent a great deal of time in working it out and it was fair, but in order to save a few dollars the cabinet is now prepared to sacrifice the old section and put in this one, which is decidedly unjust.


James Garfield Gardiner: In order to keep the record straight I would call attention to the fact that a vote was taken on this amendment in the committee, and, if I remember rightly, I voted for the legislation as it stands, which of course I would be expected to do.


Victor Quelch: Afterwards.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; when the vote was taken in the committee on this.


Victor Quelch: The minister supported the amendment in the first place?


James Garfield Gardiner: With regard to this particular section I voted for the clause as it now stands in the bill and as it was in the bill when brought before the committee. As a matter of fact, I presented the bill to the house and recommended that the house accept it, and I also did the same so far as the committee was concerned.
When the matter was under discussion in the committee two proposals were made. One was that we accept the acreage of 1940 as the basis from which the reduction would be made this year-that is, the actual acreage of 1940. That is the provision which is made in the bill. The other was that we accept the assumed acreage for 1940, which was provided by taking the average between 1939 and 1940. The discussion began with that, and I pointed out to the committee that the reason for putting this proposal in the bill was the great amount of criticism which came from all over western Canada during 1941 because of the delays in making payment, which delays were almost without exception due to the fact that we had the average of 1939 and 1940. That is to say, if we had simply taken the 1940 acreage and had it sworn to, that would have been a sworn statement of one year's crop and we would have had to consider only that one year. As it was, however, we asked the farmer to go back to 1939 and give his acreage for that year; and when he did so, in many cases, he made mistakes of 5 or 10 acres on the total crop acreage and, in some instances, 20 or 30 acres. Immediately the mistake was re-
Wheat Acreage Reduction

ported to the treasury, the treasury officials refused to pay the amount claimed until the reason for the mistake was established or until the figures were corrected.
Most of the criticism that came in during the summer was caused by the attempt to average. I did make the suggestion, as an alternative to the proposal made by certain members of the committee, that we might get over some of the difficulty which I had in mind if we were to make the 1940 average apply to the new applicants and leave the provisions, with regard to those who had been paid last year, as they were in the regulations of last year. I suggested that I would take that to council and have it discussed, and if council were satisfied to provide the additional expenditure made necessary by that provision, then the matter could be brought back to the committee and agreed to. I took it to council, but council did not agree to have the additional expenditure made. The section as it was in the bill when referred to the committee, has been brought back to the house.


James Arthur Ross: In my opinion the recommendation of the committee should have been considered. As was pointed out in the committee, considerable work was done last year, and that work is now going to be lost in the coming year. More than that, those farmers who did not cooperate last year will be brought in under a different basis from that on which the others will stand. The committee were fairly unanimous that the recommendation should have been carried out in an amendment to section 3. Surely those people who did not cooperate last year Should not be brought in now on a basis different from that on which the vast number stand, who really played ball last year. I suggest that the administration will have a good deal of extra work to do, and administration of the measure will cost more money. I regret that the minister has not seen fit to get the cabinet to agree to amend the section.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The members of the committee will recall that last year just before the Easter recess the minister brought down his regulations regarding wheat acreage reduction. Most of the western members took copies of the regulations west with them during the Easter recess to endeavour to explain them to their constituents. I think the experience of the minister was probably the same as that of other hon. members, that in almost every public meeting farmers came and pointed out with some indignation that they had acquiesced in the request to reduce wheat acreage, and they said "Now you are going to penalize those of us who acquiesced, and pay the man who did not follow the min-
(Mr. Gardiner.]
ister's suggestion." When we assembled after Easter most of the western members made representations to the minister asking if it were not possible to remove what looked like discrimination. The minister agreed and a new basis was worked out. I agree with the minister that probably it did mean a good deal of extra work and did produce administrative difficulties, and I would be the last to ask the minister to go through that again, trying to harmonize the wheat acreage of the two years. But that has now been established for all the farmers who came into this scheme.
This arrangement is going to be veiy confusing for these people. A certain wheat acreage has been established; this year when they apply for the bonus they are going to find that they are being paid on a totally different basis. They will be coming to members of parliament; they will be going to the offices in Regina or to see the supervisors, and we shall have the same thing we had last fall all over again. I am sorry for the minister's own sake and the sake of those who have to administer the legislation if it is not possible merely to send out notification to each of the farmers who came under this legislation last year saying, "Your basic wheat acreage is so much; that is established. The basis on which you were paid last year is the basis on which you will be paid this year. On any reduction below that figure you will be paid S2 an acre." But under this section the 'basis is changed, we shall have to go through it again for readjustment, which will make the legislation more difficult to administer.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Payments on acreage reduction.	,
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is an amendment to the amendment you have before you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the amendment before you be withdrawn and the following substituted therefor:
(3) Notwithstanding any law relating to bankruptcy or insolvency the moneys payable under this act shall be deemed not to be property or assets of the banker or insolvent person for the purposes of the said laws and shall not be subject to garnishment or attachment, nor be assignable either at law or in equity.
That is the phraseology of the Department of Justice.


Thomas Vien: In view of the fact that the bill as amended has not been reprinted, I would point out that the bill came back from the committee with a subsection 3 added to section 4 which subsection was as follows:

Wheat Acreage Reduction
Every award payable under this act shall be exempt from the operation of any law relating to bankruptcy or insolvency or garnishment or attachment and shall not be assignable either at law or in equity.
The amendment moved by the minister is in substitution for this amendment offered by the committee which is to be withdrawn.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As to the legal aspect, is this on the theory that once an award is made, it is vested in the individual applying and therefore could be attached or garnished? I would have supposed that as long as it remained in the hands of the crown, it might be assignable, but unless it actually vests in the claimant by reason of the award it would not pass to his trustee in bankruptcy. The idea I assume, is to keep this money from coming into the hands of the man's creditors?


James Garfield Gardiner: In practice the intention of this legislation has been carried out during the past year; that is, we have not permitted anyone to claim these moneys from the government; we have not permitted the government to become a collector of debts for other people.


Richard Burpee Hanson: (York-Sunbury):	That is
quite proper.


James Garfield Gardiner: And we have paid the
money direct. But that has not prevented our having many applications from persons asking the government to pay the money to them rather than to a person who is a debtor to them. Therefore the committee thought it best to have the position taken by the government stated in the legislation so that it would be known by all parties that no claim can be made, and consequently claims will not be made. There is a similar provision in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and it was with the intention of copying that provision that this amendment was moved in the committee and accepted. I have a statement here from the joint law clerks giving the reason for changing the wording.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I quite
understand that.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was thought that it
did not have the effect intended. But this is largely for the purpose of making clear to the public that there is no use in anyone making application.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But this goes far beyond that.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Supposing a farmer who
has a large credit with the government goes into bankruptcy-


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: What farmer has
any large credit with the government?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Some have a good deal. What happens to that money owing to that farmer from the government?


James Garfield Gardiner: What the government has been doing in connection with all this legislation is that where the particular farmer owes money to the government, the government keeps the money.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But what the hon. member is asking is, what would the government do with an award that actually had not been paid, to a man who goes into bankruptcy?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Who gets the money if the farmer goes into bankruptcy?


James Garfield Gardiner: He cannot, as I understand it. The law forbids it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Then why have the clause?


Richard Burpee Hanson: If a farmer in Saskatchewan can no longer go into bankruptcy-I am not sure whether or not that is true; the bankruptcy act provisions may have been taken away from him, but then there must be some provincial legislation which has been quiescent, which comes into operation-he must be able to make an assignment for the benefit of his creditors under the provincial laws. All provinces have such provisions, put into the background, it is true, as long as bankruptcy occupies the field. But when that is out of the way, then there must be in Saskatchewan some law making possible an assignment whereby a man's assets may be equitably distributed among his creditors. In the case of bankruptcy or assignment, one under dominion legislation, the other under provincial legislation, that money cannot go to the legal representative. What becomes of it? Does the government retain it, or does it go to the insolvent or bankrupt as the case may be?


James Garfield Gardiner: The intention is that this money is paid to the farmer, no matter what his obligations may be to anyone else.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Then the minister confirms what was my opinion. We are incorporating in a government bill a drastic change in connection with the matter of bankruptcy. No other business in the country is treated in that way. When a man goes into. bankruptcy all of his assets are totalled up and divided among his creditors. Apparently this man cannot go into bankruptcy; but if he cannot pay his creditors and the government owes him money, the minister has just said that
Wheat Acreage Reduction

money goes to the man and not to his creditors. Surely that is a principle which should not be put into a bill here. There is something radically wrong with the whole system if we are going to incorporate in bills like this radical changes in the matter of debtor and creditor, and that is what we are doing in this bill. I protest against it, because no other section of the country is being treated in that way. No other bankrupt and no other creditor are treated as we are now arranging to treat these semi-bankrupts and these creditors under this bill, and I am against it.


James Lester Douglas: The hon.
member says that this is a principle which we should not incorporate in this legislation. I submit that the opposite principle which he is suggesting is one which we certainly ought not to introduce in any legislation. Surely the hon. member would not suggest that the legislation should be so framed that the government would become a debt collecting agency for any group of people in the Dominion of Canada.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Oh, no; but if a man owes money to his creditors, the money ought to be paid to him so that his creditors would have a chance to get at it.


James Lester Douglas: This is not a new principle with reference to debtor and creditor.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Well, anyway, it is a vicious one.


James Lester Douglas: Just let me finish; we shall see how vicious it is. Exactly the same provision is contained in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. As I understand it, the point in this legislation is that a man, having complied with certain conditions laid down by the government, is entitled to receive certain money. All the government is saying in this legislation is that the money shall be paid to that man; that the collection by his creditors of any money which may be owing them is a matter for personal action by them, and that the Department of Agriculture will not take a hand or any responsibility in deciding whether or not any of this money can be garnisheed or attached. That is exactly what it means.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Oh, no. I just want to ask the hon. member this. If it means what he says, that is a different picture, but that is entirely different from what the minister told the committee just a few minutes ago. If the meaning is as the hon. gentleman has said, then I think it should be made clear in the bill; but according to the minister's statement

the money cannot be attached, it does not go to the creditors, and is not liable to civil action.


James Lester Douglas: I think what the minister said and what I have said amount to exactly the same thing.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No.


James Lester Douglas: The money
which is accruing to the individual who has complied with the regulations cannot be attached and cannot be garnisheed. When the money has been paid to the individual, however, then it becomes a matter of arrangement between him and his creditors, with which the government has nothing to do.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: If you catch him in time.


James Lester Douglas: That depends on when you get him. It is not a new principle. I think the amendment which has been brought in by the minister is most commendable, and should be adopted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the point of garnishee, you could never garnish
money in the hands of the crown. A garnishee order never runs against the crown but only against individuals. Therefore it is unnecessary to make any provision in this measure. I understand the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act is still in effect in Saskatchewan; the minister will know if that is correct.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act is in effect, then why, on principle, in a bona fide arrangement under that act, should not this money be made available, not to be attached in the hands of the crown, but available when the true position is ascertained? It seems to me that it is not only protection for the crown and the department that is being sought, for I should think that could be done by more apt words. I should think it is going to be pretty difficult for creditors to get any part of this money, and of course I think that is questionable legislation. I am just going to leave it at that.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: By what manner or method are the cheques under this measure distributed? I intend to say a few words after I have received an answer to this question. Are they sent out from the central authority, or on occasion are they distributed by hand, by individuals in the department?


James Garfield Gardiner: In practically all cases they are sent through the mail from the central office. Some cheques may have been handed to persons who have called for them

Wheat Acreage Reduction
and some may have been delivered to individuals in localities to which the officers were going. But the general practice is that the Department of Agriculture checks the applications that are received and passes those applications to the treasury, endorsed by the Department of Agriculture. Then, where there is no question about it, the treasury department makes the payment. If there is any question, they may refer the matter back to the inspection department to have further checks made, or they may make further checks themselves; but the payments are made by cheque by the treasury department.


John George Diefenbaker: Have any complaints been received by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Finance that in certain instances in western Canada departmental officials, in distributing these cheques, have gone to the persons entitled to the cheques, secured their endorsements and applied part of the money covered by the cheques to the payment of private debts?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been one complaint to that effect, with regard to one official, and that complaint is under investigation at the moment. I understand that the complaint is not in accordance with the facts, but an investigation is being carried out to ascertain the situation. At the moment I am not in a position to state more than that, and would not under all the circumstances desire to mention any names.


John George Diefenbaker: I can quite well understand that no names should be mentioned at this stage, but how many complaints were lodged against this individual? In how many instances was he alleged to have used his position as a civil servant to secure the payment of private debts, by causing individuals, recipients of these cheques, to endorse them over to him for the purpose of collecting money on account of the debts?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the complaint came from one lawyer, based on three or four affidavits.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then that became a practice on the part of one individual?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is suggested, but as yet we have not all the facts, and I should not like to even say it was done in the way it has been claimed.


George Hugh Castleden: Does the treasury
board in Ottawa issue these cheques?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; there is a branch representative of the comptroller of the treasury at Regina, who issues the cheques.


George Hugh Castleden: Just the one man?


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no; there is a considerable staff there.


James Arthur Ross: I wonder whether the minister would explain further why certain officials should be given these cheques to deliver to people personally. To me this seems a very improper procedure for any government department to allow.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the facts are as they were stated by the lawyer who wrote in, then it would be an improper practice, and we would, of course, require to discipline the official. We are checking up on the case, as a matter of fact; and if we find the facts are as they have been stated to be, then we shall have to take action which will bear proper relation to any wrong that may have been committed. But until we are certain of that, I should not like to discuss the matter further than we have.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the man been suspended in the meantime?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; sufficient grounds have not, up to the moment, been established upon which to order suspension.


John George Diefenbaker: How did the cheques get into the hands of this individual, when the ordinary system is that they are sent out directly by the treasury department to the recipient? How did this individual get hold of the cheques and place himself in a position where, by intimidation, he could influence these people to endorse the cheques to him?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think there is too much being inferred in the remarks being made. I do not know that there was any intimidation, or that the cheques were got in any way other than what might be considered a proper way. That is, if an individual wrote to me, and I was going home to that particular place, he might ask me to bring the cheque along with me. In other words, he would ask me to be the carrier of his mail, so to speak, and I might not object to doing it. If those are the circumstances, then I do not think anyone would consider there had been much of an offence committed. We are going into that part of it now, just to find out what the basis of the complaint is.


Ernest Edward Perley: Why did the treasury branch hand the cheques out in that way?


James Garfield Gardiner: In this particular case in hand, the persons concerned were all at the man's own home.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He took the cheques home, and then made a call.

Wheat Acreage Reduction


John George Diefenbaker: That answer is scarcely satisfactory. It still does not answer my question as to how it came about that this cheque got into this individual's hands, when he is an official in the department. How did he get these cheques? It is all very well to suggest that he may have carried the mail. Does the minister say there is even a suggestion that he ever carried the mail?


James Garfield Gardiner: This particular man's mail; he may have been asked to take it; I do not know.


John George Diefenbaker: How would this man, carrying the mail, get possession of cheques sent out by the treasury department- or which should be sent out by the treasury department?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a very simple matter to write a letter to the treasury, when the two offices are operating in the same building. It is a very simple matter for that to happen in a case of that kind. I think, however, all of the facts will be made known in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: How many instances were there?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to say, because it has not yet been investigated fully.


John George Diefenbaker: Whether it has been investigated or not, how many complaints have been made?


James Garfield Gardiner: Just the one, as I have already answered. There is just the one, to my knowledge; that is, one complaint made by one lawyer.


John George Diefenbaker: Covering how many individuals?


James Garfield Gardiner: Covering, as far as I [DOT]emember, three individuals. The complaint is based, I think, on three affidavits.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And against one official?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, one official.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that official still carrying on, while the investigation is proceeding?


James Garfield Gardiner: He is still carrying on, until he has an opportunity to make an explanation.


John George Diefenbaker: And still carrying the cheques?


Mr. ROWE:: Do we understand the minister to say, with respect to the payment of this money, that no creditor can collect the 
money from a farmer? Does this mean that it is set aside, and that it cannot be collected by any creditor?


James Garfield Gardiner: It cannot be attached while it is in the possession of the government. But after the cheque is issued, anyone could collect, of course, if he can find a way of doing so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And if it has not been spent.


William Earl Rowe: So long as he summer-fallows in excess of what he summer-fallowed last year, can he summer-fallow his whole farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, he could summer-fallow his whole farm.


William Earl Rowe: And if he were insolvent, it would pay him to keep on summer-fallowing, would it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not very well. It would not pay him to keep on summerfallowing at $2 an acre if he can grow twenty bushels to the acre, to sell at 90 cents.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: With respect to section 5, I would point out that a year ago the minister's department advertised widely the regulations brought out. An important change has been made in connection with the basic period. What arrangements have been made this year to publicize the changes which have been introduced? Last year a number of people were unable to take advantage of the regulations because of not filing their applications in time. I can anticipate that because of confusion over changes there might be some difficulty this year. What plans have been made?


James Garfield Gardiner: The question is as to what arrangements have been made to make the farmer acquainted with the changes in the legislation this year compared with that of last year. My answer is that advertisements are in the west to be placed in the hands of the local press in western Canada, and those advertisements are to appear immediately the bill passes this house. The advertisements give the farmers full information as to this year's policy. Then, announcements will be made over the radio, and addresses will be given to audiences throughout western Canada by officials of the provincial and federal departments. The information with regard to the whole matter will be in the hands of every municipal secretary in the three western provinces, as it was last year. I know of no reason why farmers should not be made acquainted with any changes made.

Wheat Acreage Reduction


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister will recall that last year many orders in council were passed after July. I have at least three of them in mind1. The definition of "summer-fallow" was changed on November 27. While I am prepared to accept and support the bill, I think the minister should make it clear that a number of orders in council will not be passed in mid-summer changing any of the sections of the bill. He should make it clear to the farmers that this is final, and that there will no changes such as the one with respect to the definition of "summer-fallow", to which I have referred. Last year it was most confusing to have orders in council come out a month or so after the summer-fallowing had been completed.


James Garfield Gardiner: 
William Earl Rowe: It would seem that the farmer is paid $2 for those areas sown to grass. What happens if the grass does not grow? Does he still get the $2 because it was sown to grass?


James Garfield Gardiner: If he takes it out of wheat this year and seeds it to grass-


William Earl Rowe: And the grass does not grow.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, we need not deal with that alone for the time being. Anything else may not grow, either.


William Earl Rowe: But you pay him. anyway?


James Garfield Gardiner: If he seeds it to coarse
grain, grass or rye, he receives $2 an acre.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the theory that it is wheat reduction?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Even if he summer-fallows it and does not put in anything, he still gets the $2 because he is taking it out of wheat. In addition if he does sow, and grows a crop the succeeding year, he gets an additional $2 in that year.


William Earl Rowe: He gets $2 for not sowing
wheat and $2 for sowing grass.


Mr. HAZEN:: I listened with a good deal of interest to the criticism made by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) in connection with these cheques. I do not know enough about the subject to express a definite opinion, but I would ask the minister this question: A tenant farmer farming land he does not own, and possessing no assets, engages a man to work for him. That man works for the farmer for some time and is not paid any wages. A cheque is coming to the tenant farmer. Has that workman any redress? Is there any way in which he can get his money? I ask this question because on one occasion I worked very hard for a threshing outfit in the west and never got my money.


James Garfield Gardiner: That dispute would be settled now under the landlords and tenants act, or masters and servants act, which is provincial legislation, and not under any legislation passed here.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-Regulations.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it the understanding of the minister that the regulations contemplated by section 10 are limited to the question of enforcement and administration of the measure and are in no sense to be made an extension of the principle of the measure as was the case under the summer-fallow provisions of last year? In other words these regulations are strictly limited to the enforcement and administration of the legislation and cannot go beyond that. Is that his understanding?


James Garfield Gardiner: This bill as now drafted is practically 100 per cent the regulations of last year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that.
Wheat Acreage Reduction


James Garfield Gardiner: Last year the whole policy was put into effect by regulations. This year the only power we have with regard to regulations is the power given in this particular section, which provides:
The minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, make such regulations as may be deemed necessary for the efficient enforcement and administration of this act.
We shall not be able to change the principle *of the bill by any regulations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is what I was calling attention to. It is a very limited1 power of regulation.


Mr. LACOMBE:: Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased indeed to congratulate the government upon its announcement this afternoon exempting the farmers from military training and I should like, through the Minister of Agriculture, to thank the government for its action on this very important national question.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Offences and penalties.
Thomas Vien: I draw the attention of the committee to the amendments as read by the minister. In line 24 "wilfully" is inserted before "submits" and in line 25 "knowingly" is inserted before "makes". In line 28 "wilfully" is added after "who" and in line 29 "knowingly" is inserted before "makes."


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the minister taken the opinion of his legal advisers on the effect of the insertion of the words "wilfully" and "knowingly" in these two paragraphs? I suggest to the minister that if he insists on the inclusion of these two words, he will probably never be able to get a conviction.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. gentleman to elaborate that a little. It would be a very serious consequence, if so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is no reflection on anybody. I am not going to go into an elaborate discussion here of the theory of intent, but I know how difficult it is to prove it apart from the mere submission of a document. I am not going to object at all. I think it is a protection to the treasury. I simply point out that in the administration of justice, if you insert these words, it is going to be just that more difficult to get a conviction.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I certainly did not intend to say anything on this bill, but the treasury officials who institute these prosecutions consider it of the utmost importance that they

be able to get convictions in cases of true fraud, of which there have been some. I wish to make it perfectly clear that my understanding of the amendments to this section is that they do not change the section one bit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It makes it more difficult to prove the offence, that is all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would not have agreed to this amendment if I had thought it would enable persons to get away with fraudulent claims. I do not believe it does. I do not believe that a conviction should be secured for submitting false information unless it was knowingly submitted, and I would be surprised if any conviction was ever obtained in cases where an innocent mistake was made in giving information. I certainly hope that we have not ruined this section by putting in these words, because there will be the odd case of fraudulent claim, and it is of extreme importance, of importance I would think to everybody interested in the measure, that the fraudulent claimant be punished. The honest claimants, who are in the overwhelming majority, would themselves want the fraudulent claimant punished for the reputation of the community and of the legislation. I would not like the legal advice of the leader of the opposition to go out to a certain class of individuals, to the effect that they can now get .away with anything because the words "knowingly" and "wilfully" are in the legislation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister is imputing something I never suggested. I simply tell him as a practising lawyer that the inclusion of "wilfully" and "knowingly" in this clause is going to make it very difficult to get a conviction, and I am in the judgment of every practising lawyer in this house when I make that statement.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
On section 13-Officers and employees.
Ernest Edward Perley: Does the minister think it will require as large a staff to administer this *bill as he had last smar? Last year everything was done by regulation under order in council. The principle of those regulations and orders in council are embodied in this bill. A lot of inspection has been done in the last year or two, and does the minister not think that the staff can now be reduced and a considerable saving effected this coming season in administering this bill as now drafted?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no permanent staff in connection with the administration

Wheat Acreage Reduction
either of this legislation or of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, excepting the staff in the offices, and a very few superintendents of districts covering the three prairie provinces. The other persons employed, that is the inspectors, are employed only for the time they are required. Some of them have employment for a few weeks, and some for as much as three or four months. I doubt if many have employment for any longer. Of course, those staffs are pretty well reduced at present. It depends entirely upon what we are required to do next summer as to how many men will be called back to work during the summer months. We have followed the practice of calling back those who have given the best service during the years preceding, and we have not called up new men unless we require men for additional work. The number that are on at present is very small. I have the figures here, and could look them up, but it would take some little time to go through the papers I have in front of me.
As we come into the summer months, and applications are made by the 31st of May. we shall be required to make certain inspections, and those inspections will be made. After the 1st of July, when inspections are made for payment and we pass them on to the treasury, there will be cases referred back to us and we may have to engage an additional number of men. The number we shall require will depend largely upon the number of mistakes that are made by farmers when they make their applications. I do not suppose anyone in the house would ask us to have the payments made, where mistakes have occurred, until those errors have been corrected. The more mistakes that are made, the more corrections will be necessary, and the more men will have to be sent out to make inspections. Therefore at the moment I am not in a position to say to what extent we can limit the number of men to be employed, but we will certainly restrict them to the lowest possible number to get the work done. Our costs, in spite of what has been said, have not been high. It has been asserted from time to time that there have been hundreds of inspectors out, one inspector inspecting the other, and so on. But our costs are low, as costs of this type are considered from place to place throughout Canada.


George Hugh Castleden: Were not a considerable number of mistakes made by the inspectors themselves in checking up on this work?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course, all persons are human, and one inspector may think that
a piece of land is not properly summer-fallowed while another man might say that it is. There may be a difference of opinion, and where there is, we usually have to send someone else to arbitrate as between those who differ. All these things cost money and take time.


John George Diefenbaker: How many employees were there last year, and what was the total amount disbursed in the administration of this measure?


James Garfield Gardiner: I had that information before the committee the other day. I am not sure that I have it here; I will see.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister said just now that the cost of administration was fairly low.


James Garfield Gardiner: About 4 per cent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to point out that the cost of administration for this last year up to February 27, according to sessional paper 153A, was $785,800.42, and the cost of administration under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act-because the inspectors, I understand, are used interchangeably-for last year, also up to February 27, 1942, was 8387,422.07, making a total, roughly, of something over $1,000,000. The amount expended! under the wheat acreage reduction plan to* the same date was, roughly, $26,500,000, and the amount spent in the same period under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act was about $5,326,000. In other words, about $30,000,000 was paid out under these two bonuses, with an administration cost of a little over $1,000,000. I would hardly call that very low.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the summary of the staff as at February 28. I am sorry 1 have not before me full information for the entire year.
The staff for the three provinces consists of: one director; one assistant director; three superintendents-one for each province-one accountant; five supervisors in the office; nine inspectors working from the office; two clerks,, grade IV; four clerks, grade III; thirty-two clerks and stenographers, grade II; twenty-eight clerks and stenographers, Grade IA; six clerks and stenographers, grade I; 532 clerks* and stenographers, day basis, for the three provinces, taken on at different times; field staff: thirty-four supervisors, permanent employees, for the three provinces; seventy-four inspectors, making a total of one hundred and eight; or a grand total of 732 in the office and outside.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that the number who are engaged at present, or the number hired during the whole year?
Wheat Acreage Reduction


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the number at the date of this return, which was February 28. The number of inspectors would be lower then than during the summer months. There would be more inspectors in the field in the summer; I believe the total number was somewhere between two and three hundred, but I have not the exact figures.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On what basis are these inspectors and supervisors paid?


James Garfield Gardiner: The supervisors are paid on a monthly basis. I think the highest amount is $150 a month, or $1,800 a year. I should not like to speak from memory with regard to the others. The stenographers, also the clerks, are paid the regular rates which are paid in the civil service. The director, the assistant director and the superintendents are paid on the same basis as persons doing similar work elsewhere in the civil service.


John George Diefenbaker: Would it not be possible to reduce this staff very considerably? According to the information furnished by the hon. member for Weyburn, here is an expenditure of about 3i per cent from the administration of these two acts. There are seventy-four inspectors in the winter time looking after summer-fallow, or wheat acreage reduction.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, now, that is not a fair statement. My hon. friend knows that.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the purpose of having those inspectors in the winter time? WThy have them all the year round?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: To keep the snow off the summer-fallow!


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Lake Centre only needs to look at this own. files, and so does every other member from western Canada, to get the answer to that. Not a day passes even now when I do not get a letter from some member of the house, and when a member misses a day I get letters from half a dozen secretaries of municipalities, or where they miss I get letters from many farmers.


John George Diefenbaker: Because of delays.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, 'but the delays are brought about, in most instances, by mistakes made by individuals who are claiming money, and the treasury does not pay any of these accounts until the correct statements are made, *or at least until the claims are proven to the treasury. That requires, of course, that any mistakes which are made be corrected. In the winter time we are checking many of these claims which have been made. We check with the operators of the elevators, the secretaries of municipalities and any other indi-
IMr. T. C. Douglas.]
vidual who may know anything at all about the business transactions of a man who is making a claim, and attempt during that period to establish his claim so that it oan be paid.


James Arthur Ross: In this respect I understand that no matter how correct a claim which is filed may be, or how favourable the report made by the ordinary field inspector, any item of over $1,000 is not paid until a second inspection is made. If that is right, is the second inspection made by an official of the Department of Agriculture or by an official of the treasury branch.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not wish to answer that question by saying they are made one way or the other in all instances. In some instances a second or third inspection may be made by the treasury. I believe that in all instances the second inspection has been made by the Department of Agriculture.


James Arthur Ross: That is for payments over $1,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister has not given me all the information I want. There have been many criticisms in my constituency about these inspectors doing too much travelling. Some are inspecting areas twenty, thirty or forty miles from where they live. I do not know whether it is well founded, but the complaint is made that they drive back and forth morning and night in order to build up mileage. The minister might give information as to the basis on which they are paid. I am thinking of the case of J. L. MacKay from Yorkton who was paid $690.33 as salary, $686.94 for travelling and $427.10 for subsistence. We have no hotels in that area where the rates are as high as they are at the Chateau Laurier or the Lord Elgin. One can live a long time in that country on $427. The travelling expenses appear to me to be too high. The minister might explain the basis on which the inspectors are paid for travelling and also the basis for subsistence. I do not think these allowances are in line with the price of wheat per bushel.


James Garfield Gardiner: The payments are made on the same basis as is allowed in all departments of government. I believe, speaking from memory, the rate for driving a car is seven cents a mile, and then there is a certain allowance for daily keep of individuals.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Is that more than they actually pay in hotels?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think so; it is not supposed to be. It will cover hotel bills -meals as well as lodging.

Wheat Acreage Reduction


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How much per day?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be their actual costs. There may be some cases where an allowance is given to some of the higher officials, but those who do the work will have to put in vouchers for their expenses. As a matter of fact, the figures just stated are not very far away from the expense accounts we get generally throughout the whole service.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This is a field in which great economy could be effected. After checking a similar return a year ago, I asked the minister's department for an itemized statement in connection with the expenses of four or five men working in my own area and I was refused that information. I think the minister should tell us whether these men are paid so much a day or actual expenses. I am interested to know how some of these men come to be paying the hotel bills they are paying in this part of the province where hotel rates are very reasonable.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would suggest that the hon. member bring that matter up when my estimates are before the house and I shall have the facts before me. I do not have them here because I did not expect that these answers would be required. I had them in the committee the other day, and I tried to coax members to ask questions but they did not do so.


An hon. MEMBER:: There was no Hansard there.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister says he
coaxed members for questions the other day. I brought this very matter to his attention then. The minister will remember that I suggested that when he changed inspectors from one municipality to another, moving them year after year, it involved a lot of travelling and unnecessary expenses. Inspectors were changed in my district-Indian Head going to Wolseley and Wolseley going on. I know two of these men were deliberately driving forty miles and back getting mileage and living at home. In fact, I checked up on one fellow who was driving forty-six miles every night to Windthorst, and after I told the municipal secretary that I would take the matter up with the department in protest-I ventured the opinion that the Minister of Agriculture would not stand for it if he knew about it-he decided that he would pay a dollar for a room in the town and stay there nights instead of driving home. The minister could make a considerable saving in this regard. He has stated that the staff was 732 as at February 28. I think that is out of all reason. There is no organization or industry which, having an expenditure of $30,000,000 to make, would ever employ 732 men to do the work. I venture to say that if proper business methods were followed, this could be cut in half. The minister might give us the number of inspectors and the staff employed by the treasury branch in addition to these. They have a number of inspectors throughout the province inspecting different claims of $1,000 or more, and I presume they have quite a staff. What staff have they in addition to these?


James Garfield Gardiner: The suggestion is made that 732 is a considerable staff. I would agree that if 732 persons were being employed throughout the whole year, they would probably constitute a considerable staff; but 532 of them are clerks and stenographers on a daily basis and are hired only for short periods. For example, last summer when people were urging that these payments be got out, the director went to the normal school. He could not get employees elsewhere in the numbers required, and he asked the principal of the normal school to recommend to him, from among those who were training as teachers, persons to work at night to get the payments out. This would mean that a very considerable proportion of the young people who were attending normal school at Regina at that time would be on the staff on particular days. This 532 is made up of people employed on a day-wage basis, many of them employed just a few days, some a few weeks and some a few months. I would think that none of those who were on a daily basis would be there for more than a very few months. Therefore that leaves 200 who might be looked upon as a somewhat permanent staff in the three provinces where they are checking up payments to 186,000 people; in other words,
186,000	applications have to be checked in that office.


Ernest Edward Perley: They do not issue the
cheques; the treasury department does that.


James Garfield Gardiner: But that is the least part. The cheques, in fact, are made out by machine, but before the machine starts to work, all the information has to be gathered and checked by the staff. When the statements come in, any that appear on the face of them to have some mistake have to be sent out to inspectors and gone over again. Just a few weeks ago we were checking up on the unpaid applications and at that time there
Wheat Acreage Reduction

were somewhere about 40,000 of them. Each one of those accounts had been checked the second time. In order to get the corrections, they had to be gone over again either by telephone or letter; further information had to be obtained before payment could be made. These officials are working on those applications.
I might point out that in answer to a question asked in the committee a few days ago-by the way it was on the other bill the one passed before recess this afternoon, not this one-I pointed' out that $33,000,000 had been paid out in three years under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and the cost of administration of that particular act for the three years had been $1,500,000. I submit that is not a high cost for the administration of payments of that kind, where all the farmers in a large section of western Canada are being paid under the terms of that legislation.
The same staffs are dealing with the payments under this legislation, but there is a distribution of the costs, and the $1,500,000 figure that I gave to the committee the other day had to do with the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act alone. Some figures quoted a few days ago from a return brought down in the house indicated the division of cost as between this branch and the other branch of the service. From the figures I have seen I would assume that costs in this part of the service are lower than ander the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


James Lester Douglas: In discussing
the administration of this bonus, much has been said by the minister at various times about mistakes made by the farmers, and naturally many are made. The minister himself has said that very few farmers keep books, and it is not easy to get the acreage. But a great many mistakes are also made by virtue of the fact that many of these appointees are not appointed because of their ability or experience in work of this kind. I do not say that unkindly, and I am not making a blanket charge about all the inspectors and supervisors. I think many of these men know their business, but I know that many do not. I know that some of them have had their reports sent back to them again and again because they were poorly written, because the men were not capable of gathering the information or of computing the basis upon which the bonus should be paid. If this bonus is going to be handled efficiently, I think it will have to be handled increasingly through the municipal officials, through the hail insurance officials, and through a trained

staff rather than through some people who are-to use the best phrase-purely political appointees.
If I remember correctly, last year when the estimates were up for the -payment of this bonus, someone on this side asked the minister how many inspectors it would require to supervise, and I think the minister said about one hundred. Later he said it might take more, that it might be 125. If my information is correct, at the peak last summer there were actually between 200 and 300. Could the minister explain that?


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement last year was that it would take 100 to 125 in addition to the inspectors already employed under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I think that is about the way it worked out. When we had between 200 and 300 the greater number were men who would have been out in connection with Prairie Farm Assistance work.
As to tho suggestion that we should use municipal men, we used municipal men altogether for the making of applications in connection with this legislation. A considerable part of the cost of administration goes to municipal secretaries. We pay the municipal secretary fifty cents for every claim made. With 186,000 claims it is apparent what goes to the municipal secretaries. I think it will also be agreed that many of the supervisors we have out are some of the best municipal men in Saskatchewan, and that is true of other provinces as well. The supervisor in the district covering Weyburn is Mr. Black, who has had, I think, as long a record as municipal secretary as any man in Saskatchewan, and a very creditable record. We have made an attempt to get men with experience in the two lines of activity mentioned by the hon. member, namely municipal work and hail insurance work.
We have, of course, tried to get men who at least believe in the policy and think it is doing some good to agriculture in western Canada. We believe that they will give better service than some others who might like employment but do not believe in the policy itself. We have had men-this may surprise my hon. friend-of our own political faith, apply for jobs on this work who were turned down because they do not believe in the policy; at least the reports are that when they are going about the country they have left the impression that they do not believe in the policy. I think hon. members will agree that if you have decided to put over a particular policy in an area, it is better to have men checking and inspecting on it who at

War Appropriation
least believe in it and are trying to get the best possible results from it. We have been doing that as far as possible.


James Lester Douglas: The minister spoke of the peak. I suppose the peak would come some time in the fall. What is the total number of inspectors, field men, supervisors, under the three bonus acts-the prairie farm income, the wheat acreage reduction and the prairie farm assistance-and how are they distributed between the three? Does the figure of two or three hundred cover only the wheat acreage reduction? My impression is that the number for all three is much higher.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am speaking from
memory; I would rather the question be put when I have the books before me and definite figures, but the same inspectors do the work on all three.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Usley that
the house go into committee to consider a resolution to provide that sums not exceeding $135,000,000 be granted to his majesty for national defence and security.
Liguori Lacombe: Louder, please. I want to hear something, as a member of parliament. I want to know what is going on. On many, many days I do not hear anything.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Liguori Lacombe: I rise to a point of order. We can hear nothing, absolutely nothing, during many of the discussions in this House of Commons.


Georges Parent: Order. The house is now resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance that I leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on a certain proposed resolution for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, you are not leaving the chair before I rise to a point of order in this House of Commons. I was insulted by the Prime Minister last Friday, as a private member of this house.


Georges Parent: Order.


Liguori Lacombe: I rise to a point of order on this question.


Georges Parent: Order.


Liguori Lacombe: I will cite to you the Hon. Mr. Gladstone, in 1872-


Georges Parent: Order.


Liguori Lacombe: -who, when addressing the British House of Commons-


Georges Parent: Order. The hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) has the floor.


Mr. WHITE:: Mr. Speaker-


Liguori Lacombe: I rise to a point of order, and I want a decision on this question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Georges Parent: Order.


Liguori Lacombe: You do not want to give me fair play in this democracy.


Georges Parent: The hon. member must resume his seat. He is not in order in saying what he has just said. We are on a certain order of business, which must be proceeded with. The hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough has the floor and must not be interrupted; and the Chair must not be defied.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. You are absolutely out of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Liguori Lacombe: If you wish I will go out of the house, but you are being unfair on this question, absolutely unfair. You will remember this. If you read the 13th edition of May-


Georges Parent: Order. The hon. member must resume his seat. I have already said what is the business before the house, and if the hon. member continues to defy the Chair I shall have to name him. I hope he will not impose that unpleasant duty upon me, but the business of the house must be conducted in a decorous and proper manner. It is not being so conducted by the hon. member. I hope he will not cause me to name him and have him removed from the house.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, it is not you;
it is the government that is doing this.


George Stanley White: Mr. Speaker, before the resolution now under discussion is advanced a stage, I should like U make a few brief remarks in connection with our war effort. First of all, I should like to
War Appropriation

associate myself with the remarks made last night by tihe hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) who expressed the hope that the few remaining days before tlhe Easter adjournment would be devoted entirely to a discussion of our war effort. In my opinion it is most unfortunate that during this session, which is now in its third month, we should have spent so much time in the discussion of the speech from the throne, the plebiscite, the question of wheat and so on, while practically no time at all has been available for the discussion of Canada's war effort.
Naturally all hon. members were greatly interested in the statement made this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), but it is unfortunate that it is nearly two years since the registration was taken, and only now is the government making any attempt to put into force a comprehensive and extensive man-power scheme. Every hon. member knows of many cases in his own riding in which available man-power is being wasted. In my riding, which is largely agricultural, I find that even to-day cheese-makers are being called up for military training. I submit that a qualified eheesemaker is a highly skilled man in connection with our war effort. During the past few weeks meetings have been held in many agricultural ridings in Ontario, under the auspices of the provincial agricultural representatives, at which they have given cheese and bacon producers pep talks, pointing out to them the urgent need of increasing the production of bacon, cheese, cream, butter and all other foodstuffs. I do not think it is necessary to give pep talks to the farmers of Ontario in order to get them to produce more, because they are only too anxious to bring about maximum production. They ask for only two things-a fair price and that they be given some assistance in the matter of farm help. The remarks of the Prime Minister to-day in regard to farm help will receive most careful examination.
I had intended to say something at this time about the situation in connection with appeals by farmers to district boards, but I shall reserve that for a later date, after I have studied the statement given to-day. The Prime Minister stated that there would be further appeals, and that probably the boards would have to be greatly extended. I do not know under what department it comes, but I should like to point out that at the present time the military district in which Ottawa is located, being military district No. 3, includes an area extending practically from the town of Boman-ville well into the province of Quebec. In this area are many centres of population, such as Peterborough, Lindsay, Belleville, Kingston, 
Ottawa and part of Quebec. The headquarters of this board is located in the city of Kingston, and appeals to the board may be made in person or by letter.
The point I should like to stress is that in future, when there will be many more appeals heard, would it not be better to have these boards visit the various counities in each military district two, three or four times a year, sitting at three or four of the* main towns in each county. Then all appeals could be heard in person. At the present time representations are made by letter, and I submit that it is only proper and fair and just that all appeals should be heard in person, and in person only. If some such system as this were worked out, it would remove much of the rising criticism which we hear at the present time.
I wish to say a few words about the number of men in our reserve forces. Under the last book issued by the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson), I believe he listed them somewhere between
140.000	and 150,000 men. My understanding is that the men in the reserve forces are made up of three classes: First, the men who were called for thirty days' training, numbering some 87,000 or 89,000, who took thirty days' training and then returned to their homes. I believe, according to the minister's statement, some 20,000 of those men have since enlisted in the active forces.
The second class of men in the reserve army are the men who were called for four months' training and retained in the army, and the men who have been called since the four months' training scheme was dropped. How many of these men have been called, I do not know, but I believe some 10,000 or
15.000	of them have enlisted in the active forces. The other men who make up the reserve army are the second battalions, and various other units who take their training at their local headquarters. The men who were called for thirty days' training have not yet received any further training-except the men who have been called back for further training.
I submit that the total number of men in our reserve army to-day is only the total number of men who have been called up for the duration of the war and who, so far as I can figure, amount to something like 50,000 men, or thereabouts. That is a great deal short of the 140,000 or 150,000 shown by the minister in his little blue booklet.
A short time ago an order was issued whereby some of these reserve force units would be brigaded. I believe the brigade for military district No. 3 is in the city of Ottawa. But there are many other reserve

War Appropriation
force units in this district which are still orphans. I think the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) must surely realize at this late date that he cannot hope to train men in the reserve army by training two nights a week for two or three hours, with obsolete equipment.
The type of training carried on by these reserve force units consists in many instances of simply parade ground drill, and elementary rifle and bayonet practice. In many instances this is the only type of drill they can take, because they have no other equipment. I have read in the press at various times that the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) has stated that he can equip a division every six weeks. If this means that he can fully equip a division every six weeks, what, then, is the reason why reserve force units have so little and, in many instances, no equipment for training purposes? These men in the reserve forces cannot continue to be trained in the Boer war methods any longer, because very soon these men may be called upon to engage in fighting an enemy who is fully equipped, highly trained and fully mechanized in the 1942 method of conducting a war.
When are those men in the reserve force units going to receive advance training, or when will they receive instructions on mortars, Tommy guns, grenades, or take part in manoeuvres or advanced military tactics in connection with planes, Bren gun carriers, tanks and so on?
If an emergency arose and these reserve force men were called out to engage an enemy, I submit that it would be only criminal to expect them to fight and to engage an enemy equipped with, modern weapons. I have on various other occasions in the house attempted to impress upon the Minister of National Defence the importance of time. Time is the one great factor in this war. I should like to ask the minister why these reserve force units cannot be called up and placed on fulltime training. There are dozens of armouries across this dominion which are used to no purpose, except for reserve force units. Any member of the house who has visited a modern training centre must have been impressed by the manner in which these training centres are equipped, and also impressed with the very highly skilled and trained officers and non-commissioned officers, and men on the permanent staff. Trained personnel of the army is a very, very important factor to-day.
I would suggest to the minister that in order to increase the number of men now being trained, dozens of armouries throughout Canada should be used for basic training. At
the present time the basic training is taken at various training centres. If the men could receive their training-


Georges Parent: Order.


George Stanley White: If the men could receive their basic training at local armouries, these training centres, with their fine equipment and their highly skilled staff could then be used entirely for advanced training. The recruit, on being called up, would be examined, attested, and attached to a reserve force unit at his nearest armoury. There he would go through a course of physical drill, route marches, receive instruction in discipline, training in rifle, bayonet, machine gun, gas and other elementary training.


Georges Parent: Order.


George Stanley White: I am sure there are plenty of officers in the reserve force and plenty of non-commissioned officers in that force, also many veterans of the last war who are quite capable of carrying on and conducting basic training at local armouries. If some such system were adopted, the number of recruits passing through training centres could be practically doubled every two months. If this were done, the reserve force units would then be performing some useful purpose. As they are constituted at the present time, and as they train at present they are practically useless; and the cost of maintaining these dozens of armouries with partial staffs and small administrative and training staffs, and all the other thousand and one items which enter into military expenditures, must be enormous. Each year very large sums are spent on the reserve force units, and in my opinion the results do not justify these huge expenditures.
There is the further point, that if we are to continue the voluntary system of enlistment in Canada-and apparently that is the only system we are going to have-the reserve force units could do a great deal in supplying recruits for the active forces.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has just placed before the house a bill providing for a gift of a billion dollars to Great Britain. There are in his name on the order paper other bills totalling over two billion dollars. Certainly these are staggering sums. Apparently he deals only in millions and billions. But when he comes to dealing with the soldiers he gets down to pinching pennies, for the first time. In the last session members from all parts of the house urged the government to consider a revision of rates of pay and allowances for boys in the armed forces. True, there was some slight adjustment in
War Appropriation

regard to the third and fourth child; but that was really nothing very much, because it should have been that way since the war started in 1939.


Georges Parent: Order. I must ask the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains to moderate his voice. He is interrupting the hon. member who is speaking. That hon. member is entitled to the same courtesy as the hon. member who is interrupting would expect.	.


Liguori Lacombe: Never mind; it will be all right.


George Stanley White: Everyone admits that the cost of living has greatly increased since September, 1939. The government has recognized this by granting a cost of living bonus; but, strange to say, it does not apply to the armed forces. How strange that everyone else in this Canada of ours who is doing any kind of war work receives the highest of wages; yet the men in the armed forces, the only men in Canada who are really making any sacrifice, are discriminated against because they receive no increase in pay, no increase in living allowance, and their dependents are forced to get along on the scale established in September, 1939. I submit to the minister that there is nothing political whatever about this request for an increase in pay for the soldiers, since members of all parties have urged the government to give consideration to making some such adjustment. I sincerely trust that in the very near future the minister will announce that even at this late date something will be done in the matter of adjusting the soldier's pay, and I can assure him that it would have some effect on recruiting, because undoubtedly a young man to-day can earn a great deal more money and enjoy a great many more privileges and comforts by undertaking war work in a factory than by joining the army.
I noticed on the bulletin board of a local newspaper this morning that there were three air attacks on England last night, the first for months, the warming-up for the spring offensive that is soon to break. It will break within a matter of days on all fronts round the world. Here in Canada what are we doing about a spring offensive?


Liguori Lacombe: France will never die.


George Stanley White: Our spring offensive in our appeasement policy will open on the 27th day of April when the people of Canada will be asked to vote "yes" or "no" on a meaningless question. What a fine contribution to our allies of the united nations! Only a few days ago in this house the members 
heard the Prime Minister read a statement that had been issued by Anthony Eden disclosing the atrocities and vengeance wreaked by Japanese soldiers on helpless Canadian and British war prisoners at Hong Kong. Members heard how a ruthless, barbarian, savage yellow enemy raped and ravished white women and girls.


Liguori Lacombe: We do not fear the yellow colour.


George Stanley White: How could any member sit in this house and hear that report read without his very soul being filled with rage and vows of vengeance upon this enemy? Yet, when the Prime Minister had finished his statement, we calmly proceeded with our plebiscite proceedings. I fully expected that after the Prime Minister had made that statement he would have announced that the plebiscite had gone by the board and that we would at last get on with a total war effort. In my riding there are many boys who enlisted and1 went to Hong Kong.


Liguori Lacombe: And the plebiscite will be won by the government, with the radio.


Georges Parent: My patience is almost exhausted. The hon. member is deliberately defying the Chair. I cannot allow that to continue, and I warn the hon. gentleman now that if he persists in further interruptions, I shall certainly name him. I hope he will not put that unpleasant duty upon me.


George Stanley White: There are many boys in my riding who went to Hong Kong, and it would not be well for anybody to go into that riding and ask the parents, brothers, sisters, wives and sweethearts of any of those boys, what they think about the plebiscite or whether they think that Canada should at this late date make a total war effort, nor would it be wise for anybody to go into my riding, which, of all the ridings in Canada, has probably the largest percentage of men in the armed forces, and ask the parents and families of those boys who have gone overseas what they think about the plebiscite and whether they think we should wage total war at this late date.
This yellow peril is coming closer and closer to our shores every day. If Australia falls, what happened at Hong Kong and Singapore will happen here. The very thought of such outrages happening in this country should be enough to make us finish with our appeasement ways and decide at once to make a total war effort and wage total war, which our enemies have done from the day war started. Surely our days of complacency and appeasement should end now, because what happened in Hong Kong and Singapore can happen here

War Appropriation
and probably will happen here. In the few remaining days that are left to us before the storm breaks, are we bending every effort and making every preparation we can? Are we mobilizing all our resources and making plans for every possible emergency, or are we still living in a fairyland and saying that it cannot happen here? Are we still depending upon the British navy and the Yanks to protect us?
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that even to-day there are many Canadians to whom the war means only some slight curtailment of their rights and privileges.


Liguori Lacombe: May I ask the hon. member a question?


George Stanley White: Will the hon. member please sit down.


Liguori Lacombe: He does not want to answer my question?


George Stanley White: Certainly not.


Liguori Lacombe: All right; continue your speech. It is a very Tory speech.


Georges Parent: I am compelled by the hon. gentleman to take a step that I hoped I would not have to take. If he has any explanation to make of his conduct or any apology to make to the Chair, I shall be glad to hear it now.


Liguori Lacombe: I am not Hitler in this House of Commons; I am not Quisling in this house; I am a Canadian; that is all. I want an answer from the hon. gentleman.


Georges Parent: Order. Apparently there is no explanation and no apology to the Chair for the attitude of the hon. member. I therefore name him-Mr. Liguori Lacombe. The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains will withdraw.	.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I believe the practice is that the minister leading the house or the senior minister present moves that the hon. member be suspended for the remainder of the sitting. I do that.


Georges Parent: It is moved by Mr. Ilsley, seconded by Mr. Crerar, that the hon. member, Mr. Liguori Lacombe, member for Laval-Two Mountains, be suspended from the service of the house during the present sitting. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(Mr. Lacombe thereupon withdrew.)
George Stanley White: I regret that even to-day in Canada there are many Canadians to whom the war means only some slight curtailment of their rights and privileges. To many
possibly the shortage of gasoline is a calamity, for they cannot and will not see this terrible menace that is looming up over our horizon.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the citizens of Canada can only be made to realize their great danger by the government giving them a proper lead and showing them proper leadership at this time. I am convinced that in 1942 Canada will be both invaded and bombed, and when that happens it will avail us little to weep, wail and wring our hands and vainly regret that we did not do more while we still had time. It is the plain duty, responsibility and obligation of every member of this house, because the members of this house are the only ones in Canada who have any real authority, to speed up into high gear our entire nation to a total war effort.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me a pity that the work of the house was not so organized that we would not be rushed, with so many matters of importance, just before the long Easter adjournment. The present resolution is one preceding the granting of a supplementary estimate. I believe it is a time-honoured custom of the British parliament that before supply is granted, members shall receive all possible information.
There is another reason why we should receive information at this time. We are sometimes accused of not cooperating with the government and of retarding the work of the administration. I submit that it is becoming more and more difficult to get any reliable information from this government. If we want to know what the government is doing, we have to go either to the press room or to the Financial Post.
I will give the house a glaring example of the condition of which I complain. On March 12 I put on the order paper a number of questions; they remained on the order paper for some time and then were passed as an order for return. I do not know why that was necessary, because my understanding is that an order for return applies only when the information required has to be obtained from several departments, or possibly from branches of the same department in various parts of the dominion. I submit that all the information covering the questions asked by me was in the Department of Munitions and Supply. These were my questions:
1.	How many corvettes have been ordered by the Department of Munitions and Supply from the 1st of September, 1939, to date?
2. How many have been launched by the various builders in the same period?
3. How many have been delivered to the government in the same period?
War Appropriation

To these questions the following answer was returned:
1, 2 and 3. It is not in the public interest to give this information.
Question No. 4 was:
4. What is the average cost to the government of the corvettes delivered?
That question was answered:
4.	$600,000.
The next question was:
5.	How many shipyards are building corvettes for the government?
This question was answered.
6.	What is the average cost of the corvettes completed to date for each yard?
The answer was:
Partly answered by 4. To give complete answer would disclose the location of the shipyards concerned which is not in the public in t/GrGSt.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Everybody knows where they are.


Angus MacInnis: That is just what I want to tell this house.
I have in my hand a copy of the Financial Post of December 6, 1941. In it there is a full-page article by Allan C. MacNeish, editor, Canadian Shipping and Marine Engineering News. All of the information I asked for and more is given in that article. But the point is this. This information is correct, and was given to the author by officials of the Department of Munitions and Supply or by the yards building the corvettes; or it is not correct, and it is giving information which the department and the government state it is not in the public interest to disclose. Therefore I maintain that the government should piosecute the editors of the Financial Post. The Financial Post has not been prosecuted.
Seeing this information in the newspaper, 1 wanted it brought up to date, and the reply I receive from the Department of Munitions and Supply is that it is not in the public interest to give the information. Yet the public had the information months ago. But when we ask the government for it, this is the answer we receive. Then the government asks hon. members to cooperate with it in expediting the passing of this estimate and other business.


Mr. CRERAR:: May I ask the hon. member whether he can vouch for the truth of the statement in the Financial Post?


Angus MacInnis: The minister has missed the point. If the statement is not true, the financial Post should be prosecuted. Even if the statement is true, and if it is a matter 
which the government considers it is not in the public interest to disclose, the newspaper should be prosecuted. It is now held that it is not in the public interest that I should have it-and remember that, when a member of this house asks a question and the question is made an order for return, it is not the member who is refused this information, but this house, because when the return is tabled it becomes the property of parliament.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I suggest that a newspaper report of the cost or of the number of corvettes built and where they are built does not carry the same sanction as a return brought down by the government.


Angus MacInnis: All right, then. I should like to ask who gave out this information.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The information may have developed in the imagination of the person who wrote the article.


Angus MacInnis: Then a person should not be allowed to give out information in that fashion. There are people in internment camps for saying far less than that-if this is government policy. Remember this is a responsible paper, and the author of the article is a responsible individual, the editor of Canadian Shipping and Marine Engineering News. It begins:
Most Canadians are landlubbers.
I believe the government thinks that most members of parliament are suckers, when it treats us like this. The article gives a history of the development of the shipbuilding industry since the war began. It states:
These sobering facts might lead to the conclusion that Canada's shipbuilding programme is nothing to write home about. But this impression would be even less correct than the quick optimism gleaned from first impressions.
Actually, the Canadian programme is one of the biggest jobs the dominion has ever tackled.
And so on. I will give the house the figures given by this paper. The government can deny them, if they like. It begins: Of cargo ships, 4,700 and 9.300 tons, 153 were ordered.
7 launched and none delivered. The total estimated cost of these was S275,000,000, which works out at $200 per ton, or an average of $1,800,000 per ship. Where are the yards? Vancouver, North Vancouver, Victoria, Prince Rupert, Montreal, Lauzon, Levis, Sorel, Saint John and Pictou.
Then we have corvettes-this is the information I wanted: Ordered, 135. It is not in the public interest that hon. members should have this information. Launched, seventy-seven; delivered, fifty; total cost, $81,000,000; cost per ship, $600,000. Where are the yards? Victoria, Vancouver, Collingwood, Midland,

War Appropriation
Kingston, Montreal, Sorel, Lauzon, Quebec. There are some others which may not be operating just at the moment. Everyone in Canada knows where corvettes are being built.
Now we come to mine-sweepers: Ordered, eighty-five, launched, fifty-nine; delivered, forty; total cost, $51,000,000; cost per ship, $600,000. The yards are at Port Arthur, Collingwood, Toronto, Kingston, Montreal, Sorel, Lauzon, Quebec, Sydney and Halifax. Information is given in the same way for destroyers and wooden vessels.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was that date?


Angus MacInnis: The date of this paper is December 6, 1941. I fancy the only difference between the information quoted and the actual information in the Department of Munitions and Supply is that a few more corvettes have been delivered than is indicated here.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that such treatment of the members of this house is.not good enough, and it is happening every day. It was only yesterday that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) said in reference to certain subsidies which are to be paid in conne.ction with the importation of certain food products that he did not know whether he would tell the house who received those subsidies. If the house has any pride or independence left, its reply will be that these subsidies shall not be paid until the house decides that they shall be paid, because if this sort of thing is to be done we might as well go home, for we are of no further use here. We cannot protect the interests of the people who sent us here unless we have sufficient information on which to base our decisions; neither can we cooperate with the government because what we do will not be cooperation but merely acquiescence in what the government does. There is an immense difference between cooperating in the doing of something and acquiescing therein. I should like very much to assist the government, because I am intensely interested in furthering the country's war effort; but I certainly feel that I should be treated as a responsible member of this house. I do not believe the members are Quislings or fifth columnists or children or imbeciles that they should be treated in this fashion. What is the use of asking questions if we are to be given answers of this kind?
There are a number of other things to which I was going to refer while on my feet, but I do not wish at this stage to mix too many subjects. I simply wish to call this situation to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to the attention of the hon. gentleman who is leading the government to-night, and I do so in the strongest possible terms.


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Although wholeheartedly in favour of the billion dollar gift to Great Britain, I allowed my leader (Mr. Hanson) to speak for me and did not participate in that debate because I did not wish to feel that I was delaying the passage of the bill even by a moment, realizing the truth of the old Roman proverb that "he gives twice who gives quickly". Having listened to a number of speeches during that long debate, I have been forced to the conclusion that many members of this house have not even yet awakened to the full realization of the news that comes to us daily from all parts of the world. They seem still to believe that the horrors of war cannot touch us. I can best answer them by quoting some significant words of Sir Stafford Cripps: This war is not a game to be played according to certain rules; it is a life and death struggle for survival, and in that struggle there are and must be no partial interests. It is impossible to have regard to the interests of groups and classes and people still keeping in mind what their position is likely to be after the war. and at the same time to make our effort all-inclusive.
Yet we are dawdling along in this house as if we had all eternity before us, and in a few days we shall adjourn for three months' vacation-


An hon. MEMBER:: Three weeks.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: It might as well be three months. What have we done to deserve a holiday? One cannot help being forced to the conclusion that many of the speeches which were made on the two measures so far concluded would have been enormously curtailed if it were not for the opportunity given here to parties and groups to make parliament a sounding board to publicize their particular theories and ideas of government.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is imputing to members of this house motives which he should not suggest. He said that if this house were not a sounding board for theories and policies, certain speeches would not have been made. The suggestion is that the motive was not to discuss the business of the country but to use the house for an entirely different purpose, and I request that the statement be withdrawn.


Georges Parent: If the remark were made in the general terms which the hon. gentleman states, I should not think he intended to make any imputation of improper motives to any members of the house.
War Appropriation


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the 40-minute rule with regard to speeches be changed to 15 minutes, which would require that the speeches be more carefully prepared and condensed. In order to illustrate my point I should like to tell a story of a clergyman who was asked if he would give a 15-minute address on a particular occasion. He declined on the ground that he had not time to prepare it. When surprise and disappointment were expressed he said, "I should be glad to give you an address of 40 minutes, because I could speak discursively, but if I have to concentrate and crystallize my remarks into a 15-minute speech I have not time to prepare it." That, I think, is a very apt illustration of a good deal of what we have heard here.
I make the further suggestion, that for the duration of the war Hansard be abolished. This would have the effect of saving a good deal of time and money which could then be devoted to war purposes. We are facing the greatest crisis in our history; the issue soon to be settled is whether we are to be free or slaves. We are up against the greatest combination of superbly trained and magnificently equipped military forces that this world has ever seen, who continue to inflict upon us defeat after defeat. Let us not deceive ourselves, but admit the fact that up to the present we have lost every battle, and unless we make a total war effort by utilizing at once all our resources both physical and human, we shall lose the war in this year 1942.
When Sir Stafford Cripps, who should1 be better informed on the situation in Europe, than any other man, arrived in New Delhi yesterday he said, "There is no time to lose and no time for long discussions." The able representatives of the newspapers in Canada in the press gallery can be relied upon to sift the wheat from the chaff, and I am sure the reading public will not suffer as a consequence of what I propose.
The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), speaking on the radio last night, revealed an alarming shortage of rubber, stating that when our present supply is exhausted there will be no more rubber available until the synthetic plants are built and able to produce, rubber. This, I understand, will take from one to two years. So it is quite obvious that our prospect of getting rubber in the near future is very remote. I wonder whether the government have done all that is possible to conserve our rubber supply. Have they taken an inventory of the tires in the hands of manufacturers and dealers throughout the country? Only two weeks ago I was told by a responsible citizen that 
lie had been offered new tires for his car by a dealer who said that up to that time no inventory had been taken of his stock and therefore no one was in a position to check up as to what he did with his tires.
To be caught at this time with a shortage of rubber seems to indicate a lack of foresight on the part of those responsible for our war effort. I was told more than a year ago by a high official in the rubber industry in Canada that Japan was very likely to destroy our major sources of rubber. This man had1 this information; so surely some one connected with the Department of Munitions and Supply or with the war departments of the government would equally have had the opportunity of knowing what the situation was likely to be. Again "too little and too late".
The minister also announced last night that the speed limit wrould be reduced to forty miles an hour. Why not to thirty-five miles an hour? I know that investigators in the laboratories of some of the oil companies have proved that the most economical speed in regard to the use of gasoline and oil is thirty-five miles an hour, which was the speed limit in Ontario until a few years ago. I suggest that it be again reduced to thirty-five miles an hour to save gasoline and rubber tires.
I wish to express my approval of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) last evening that we send a token force to Australia. We fought side by side in the last war, and I think all hon. members will appreciate what a wonderfully stimulating and encouraging effect that would have upon our brothers down under. The force need not be large, a regiment or a brigade. It would1 be very much better for us to fight Japan in Australia 'than in Vancouver.
I feel that some comment should be made on the recent adoption by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver South when the minister announced the appointment of officers to the supreme command on the west and east coasts of Canada. We are fighting Germany and Japan whose policy has been and is to require their senior officers to be trained in the three arms of the service-the navy, the air force and the army-before they are given a unified command. May I ask the Minister of National Defence what training the recently appointed commanders in chief on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts have had in the air force and the navy? We have had many indications that our enemies have adopted entirely new methods of warfare, which have been very successful, and if we are to have a chance of

War Appropriation
defeating them we also must adopt new methods. Is Canada adopting new methods similar to those to which I have referred? True, we have three ministers of defence; I think it is true also to say that the plebiscite bill recently passed was a defence measure- a defence of members of the government for their past performances. May we not learn from our enemies, who have introduced into this war entirely new tactics? Only to-day a Japanese general is reported on the radio to have said, "Defence methods will never lead to victory." I would1 addi that Australia did not hesitate to place her military forces under the command of a man of experience and proven ability, even to the extent of going to the United States to secure such a man, when they obtained General MacArthur. Mr. Churchill did not hesitate to go to Australia to secure a man militarily and diplomatically capable of filling a position in the middle east, when he appointed Hon. Richard Casey of Australia to that important post, at the same time making him a member of the British war cabinet.
I have just one more suggestion to make, which I have saved till the last because, in my opinion, it is the most important of all. I am sure no one will gainsay the truth of my assertion when I say that we have in Canada to-day a man who has the knowledge and experience, and who stands out as the greatest leader this country has ever produced. I refer to Lieutenant-General A. L. McNaughton, whom I now suggest that the Prime Minister appoint as minister of war and deputy prime minister. It may be urged that he could not be spared from his position overseas, but I venture the opinion that after two years of effort and training and planning, someone else could now be found to carry on his duties over there. I am sure that this would go a long way toward satisfying and relieving the anxious and much perturbed Canadian people.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in concluding his remarks last evening the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) sounded a very realistic note. While I do not agree with everything he said, I believe that his remarks in discussing many national problems should be carefully considered by every member of parliament. If there were other hon. members who felt disposed to follow along a similar line, I would hesitate to take the time of the house to say what I am going to say to-night.
The subject which I propose to discuss no doubt will appear to many hon. members as one which should be left until after the
war is over. I refer to the housing of the Canadian people, particularly those in our defence area. The hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Bruce) made reference to the distinguished commander of the Canadian forces overseas. When General McNaughton was interviewed last fall by a delegation of Canadian editors and asked for a message which they could bring back to the Canadian people, which would convey to us the most urgent need of the moment, he is reported in an article written by Hugh Templin, which I believe appeared in most of the weekly newspapers of Ontario, as follows:
Asked what is the most urgent need at present, General McNaughton replied: Put every emphasis on the production of weapons and equipment. We need technical improvements such as can be worked out under the direction of the national research institute and others who work under Mr. Howe. Then these improvements must be put into production quickly. . . .
General McNaughton would not say how many should go into the army and how many into industry. 'We should survey our man-power first. We want no flash in the pan. We must plan for a w'ar of long duration and not put all our goods in the show window now.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the reverses have been many, and the thing that may impress many people at the moment as being most important may not necessarily be most important in the long run. I think that before Hitler will be defeated we must follow the suggestion of General McNaughton and prepare great quantities of the most modern equipment; and if that is to be done, the question I am now discussing becomes a matter of very great importance. Mr. Charles Abrams, in a recent copy of the New Republic, states.
. . . housing cannot win the war, but it can lose it. The habitats of thousands are now boxcars, pews, jails. Defence workers, bidding against each other, have doubled room rents and brought back the three-shift hot-bed. Increased rents have wiped out wage rises. Employers complain of labour turnover, inefficiency, disaffection; health officers warn of epidemics. Lack of housing has upset the production time table. Our programme of defence housing has failed; our wartime housing programme is threatened.
If all the workers in industry could live in surroundings similar to those enjoyed by members of parliament in Ottawa, there would be no question of our production being affected by housing. But in order that hon. members might understand the problems facing the workers, I would suggest that for the next three months we live on a budget similar to that followed by workers in industry, and then set out in this or any other city in Canada to find suitable housing for our families. In the city of Ottawa a great deal has been said
War Appropriation

about the difficulties experienced by stenographers who come here; and reliable reports indicate that already we are facing a very serious turnover of labour in all the cities of Canada where our large industries are located, as a result of workers being unable to secure housing. During the last war in the United States they found that in key industries they had a labour, turnover of from 100 to 1,000 per cent per annum, as a direct result of not being able to find houses for their people. In the production of munitions this year we shall spend at least a billion dollars; and for the . sake of argument assume that we may have a wastage of 10 per cent as a direct result of workers not being able to find living quarters. Thus, in terms of dollars and cents you have a wastage of $100,000,000.
Let me illustrate the problem that arises. In the city of Hamilton, for example, we have many of our largest war industries. Men have gone to that city from all parts of the dominion. Recently I visited one of my constituents who moved there. He spent days and days trying to find a place for himself, his wife and his family to live, and at last in desperation he bought a house for which he paid a cash payment of $300 and arranged to pay the balance in monthly payments representing about twice what that house was actually worth in terms of rental. In all probability this man will be leaving Hamilton when the war is over; but if he had not been in a position to pay the amount I mentioned, I do not know what he would have done for housing accommodation. He happens to be a trained artisan; but had he been unable to find housing in Hamilton, and if he could have found in Guelph or Palmerston or Georgetown a place to live, so that his children could go to school, naturally he would have left the essential war industry if he could have found any sort of employment, even in a non-essential industry.
I realize that the government has given consideration to this question. A year ago it was so impressed with the matter that $10,000,000 was appropriated to set up Wartime Housing; and at a later date, when the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) is in the house, I plan to say something about Wartime Housing projects. I o-night, however, I make a special plea to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), before he writes finis to a very interesting chapter in housing in Canada, the national housing administration. Representations have been made to the Minister of Finance from many places in Canada appealing to him to have activities in connection with national housing

continued for at least another year. I know the problem confronting the minister in finding money, spending it, and satisfying the many demands. It might seem to him that this is a place where economy might be effected, and that we might discontinue the building of cheap permanent houses until the war is over. But let me remind the house of the condition which prevailed in Canada at the commencement of the war.
Canada and the United States had two of the most unenviable records, as far as providing houses within the range limit of people receiving low incomes is concerned. No civilized country in the world waited as long as we did, before giving consideration to this national problem. We have said that this was a problem for the municipalities. The municipalities have replied, "We cannot cope with it; the provinces should assume the responsibility." The provinces, in turn, pass the buck to the dominion.
In the time at my disposal, I am unable to review the development in Canada since 1913, when the very first Canadian conference ever to be held in connection with town planning was assembled in Winnipeg. I have before me a table showing the building activities in eighteen of the most important countries in the world between the years 1929 and 1937. Canada is outstanding in this report in two respects. Taking 1929 as a base period of 100, our percentage dropped to a level lower than that of any of the other countries-namely to a point of 9-7 in 1933. It remained at the lowest level in 1937, when it stood at 24. Other countries, such as Great Britain, did not get below 114 in 1933 and 151 in 1937. In Great Britain they took the attitude, quite correctly, "Here is a field where the government should spend a large sum of money. Money invested by a government in providing low-priced housing is a good investment." They realized that workers who otherwise would be unemployed would in this way be engaged in using raw materials to build something of permanent value. The result is that in the United Kingdom they had a comparatively good record.
If we take 1932 as a base period at 100, we find that the figure for south Africa in 1937 was 582, or five times as much building in 1937 as there was at the depth of the depression. Unfortunately statistics are not available for a very wide area in Canada. As a matter of fact, Winnipeg is the only city in Canada that has prepared a careful annual report which gives any true picture of the prevailing situation. The last report from Winnipeg points out that during the last five years the total dwellings and suites provided was 1,886, while

War Appropriation
during the same period there were 18,322 marriages, or one dwelling or suite for approximately every ten marriages. Of course, many of the marriages are of people from outside the city; but if three-fourths of the marriages were of city people, the rate would be only one dwelling or suite provided for approximately every seven marriages.
The figures show that in 1941 Winnipeg had the most serious housing shortage in its history. There were only 111 vacancies, including suites and houses, as compared with 337 in the previous year and 704 in the year before that. In other words, the vacancies amounted to less than one per cent. Last week the mayor of Winnipeg appeared in Ottawa with other mayors to present the housing problem to the Minister of Finance. AVhile here, he told me of some of the problems which arise in a city like Winnipeg. The wife of a man who is overseas had informed him she had been notified to vacate, and she had not the faintest idea where another house could be secured. He pointed out that this was very bad for the morale of our troops. It is not good to have married men in the forces learn that housing is not available for their dependents here, and that there will not be sufficient housing for them when the war is over.
I realize it is very important that our men and materials should be used in the production of those things which are most necessary. But we have in Canada a great many middle-aged men who have been associated with the building trades, and who will be in the ranks of the unemployed unless we continue our house building programme. I am referring to houses built under plans such as the national housing administration. Housing under Wartime Housing Limited is being carried on by large contractors, and the small contractor has not a chance to enter the picture at all. So, from the point of view of housing our people who are in war industries, and housing the relatives of our men in the forces, I suggest that the minister should give this problem very careful consideration before he dismisses it. I am sure it has been presented to him with great force by many delegations.
I do not approach the subject from the point of view of those real estate people who are concerned about the carrying on of a national housing activity from a purely personal point of view. I am thinking only in terms of a national problem. Again I must say that unless a maximum housing programme is carried on in Canada, we are going to have a very serious reduction in our production, and we shall have a whole host of social problems before the war is over, and after it.
I believe the national housing programme is one which might give the Minister of Finance a great measure of pride. I have in my hand pictures sent to me by the Quality Homes Corporation of Vancouver, showing homes which had been built in Vancouver under Wartime Housing Limited. As has been stated repeatedly, these houses are only temporary. Assurances have been given that they will be demolished- when the war is over. Wartime Housing Limited have been able to satisfy public opinion that these houses will not interfere with the investments of the other property owners. The houses built in Greater Vancouver by Wartime Housing Limited are built at an average cost of $2,996.97 per house, without basement or furnace. In the same city permanent houses have been built with full-sized basements, containing furnaces. These houses are of permanent construction, and they are built at a cost of $2,500, or approximately $500 per house less than these flimsy wartime houses.
On motion of Mr. Nicholson the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 25, 1942
The house imet at three o'clock.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I desire to lay on the table copy of the agreement between the dominion government and the government of British Columbia relating to vacation of tax fields.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are printed copies available, or are they not to be distributed?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, it was not intended that copies be distributed.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. J. E. A. DUBUC (Chicoutimi) moved:: That the petition of the Saguenay Transmission Company, Limited, Saguenay Electric Company, and Aluminum Power Company, Limited, presented on the 24th instant; praying for the passing of an act to approve of the site and plans of their electrical transmission lines
Alberta Natural Resources

crossing certain navigable rivers, together with the report of the Clerk of Petitions thereon, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders to consider the suspension of standing orders 92 and 93 (3) (a) and (c) in relation thereto.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I cannot understand why special legislation is required for this application. We have a Navigable Waters Protection Act. It may 'be that a situation has arisen which is not covered by the act, but we ought to have some explanation by the mover as to why this legislation is required.


Georges Parent: This motion is presented only in order to cover delays which have taken place in connection with the petition. It is purely a formal matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 18, to amend the Alberta Natural Resources Acts.
He said: In 1929, by agreement between the federal government and the province of Alberta, the natural resources in that province were transferred to the Alberta government. At that time there were certain licences outstanding for oil rights and timber rights. These licences had been issued by the federal government, and of course the Alberta government accepted the responsibilities which attached to the licences. Under the terms of the transfer agreement it was held that their conditions could not be varied. In 1938 it was necessary to amend the transfer agreement to enable the Alberta government to put into effect certain conservation measures in respect of the oil development in the Turner valley. The present amendment to the transfer agreement also relates to oil produced in Alberta. The Alberta government have been desirous for some time to secure the power to vary the royalties which may be charged. Certain wells were capable of paying higher royalties than other wells, but the government was limited to similar treatment for all wells covered by dominion licence. The matter has been the subject of discussion between the provincial authorities and the majority of those interested in the oil industry, and the amendment to the transfer agreement which is here proposed is to give effect to certain understandings which have been reached between the provincial government and these oil interests.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister say that the matter referred to has been the subject of correspondence which could be laid on the table for the information of members of parliament?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I should be glad to bring down any correspondence which relates to the matter, but my recollection at the moment is that there is very little. I recall that over a year ago the matter was first broached to me by the minister of resources for the province of Alberta, and the suggestion was made then that, since certain oil interests were concerned, the provincial authorities should discuss the matter with them before we would be warranted in giving authority to vary the terms of the licences which had been issued. Subsequently that was done, and we were advised several weeks ago by representatives of the oil interests and by the province that they wished to have the agreement amended to give effect to certain understandings they had reached.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Did the wartime prices and trade board
release a statement to the newspapers regarding the establishing of a price ceiling on potatoes in which there was mention of speculative buying?	,
2.	If so, what evidence is there of speculative buying?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Potato price quotations collected by the wartime prices and trade board indicate that in many cases the spread between prices received by the grower and prices paid by the consumer widened appreciably in the period immediately prior to the application of the ceiling on potato prices. These facts were accepted by the board as evidence of speculative buying.


ESTEVAN-BIENFAIT LIGNITE COAL AREA-POWER
Mr. TRIPP:: In view of the increased demand for electrical energy for manufacturing purposes, will the government favourably consider developing a head of power in the Estevan, Bienfait lignite coal area?


Mr. HOWE:: The federal government does not assume financial responsibility for

Questions
developing power projects. However, the information is that the supply of power in the Moose Jaw-Regina area at the present exceeds the demand, and, until such time as this is taken up, it is unlikely that any additional power development will be undertaken in this area.


SMALL MACHINE SHOPS IN WAR PRODUCTION
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What steps have been taken to utilize the smaller machine shops throughout the dominion in war production?
2.	How many of these shops capable of some war production are still not utilized in such work ?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	As a result of approximately 1,800 surveys of machine shops alone, every effort has been made and is being made to bring all of the machine shops in Canada into war production, consistent with the efficiency required to make as much war material as possible, as soon as possible.
We are still in the position, partly due to shortages in raw materials, of being able to select first those machine shops which can be used most efficiently. This efficiency depends upon:
(i)	A combination of good management and skilled labour with machine tools which are in shape to do the precision work required in to-day's war machines;
(ii)	Reasonable proximity to the prime contractor's plant, so that supervision of quality and deliveries can be maintained and a minimum of time lost in transportation;
(iii)	A reasonably sound financial condition, which enables the shop to finance its expanded operations.
2.	A considerable number, particularly those located at a long distance from a prime contractor. This condition may continue until the raw material shortage becomes less acute.
There is a substantial surplus of certain types of machine tools, and these are, generally speaking, of the types found in the smaller shops. The machine tools of which there is an acute shortage are of types found only in the larger shops.


AIDS TO NAVIGATION
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	What was the cost of aids to navigation
(lighthouse service) for 1941,	(a) Atlantic
coast, (b) Pacific coast, (c) inland?
2.	What was the total cost?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1. Cost of aids to navigation (lighthouse service), including operation of dominion steamers for same for the fiscal year 1940-41:
(a) Atlantic coast, $1,143,962.10; (b) Pacific *coast, $387,528.53;	(c) Inland waters,

2. Total cost, $2,910,834.85.


PRICE CEILING-FRUIT AND VEGETABLES
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Are any rebates or other payments in connection with price levels being paid to importers of orange juice, oranges, bananas, lettuce, and celery?
2.	If so, what amounts have been paid to date?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Under the import policy of the wartime prices and trade board orange juice is eligible for subsidy, but oranges, bananas, lettuce and celery are not subject to the price ceiling and consequently do not qualify for subsidy.
2.	None.


ANTI-TANK SHELLS
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Were any anti-tank shells No. 1, 1956, B.S., shipped as scrap from St. Paul 1 Ermite or Sorel, in the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, (a) for what reason was this ammunition rejected, (b) where was it manufactured,
(c)	was it made under contract, and by whom,
(d)	what was the quantity and total cost,
(e)	who is responsible for the defective nature of such ammunition?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.
shipbuilding


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What is the number, the total tonnage and the estimated cost of all ships ordered built by the government of Canada or by any other government to be built in Canada of 100 tons capacity or more for commercial purposes, since September 10, 1939, in each of the following provinces, (1) Nova Scotia, (2) New Brunswick, (3) Prince Edward Island, (4) Quebec, (5) Ontario, (6) British Columbia?
2.	What is the number and the total tonnage of all ships launched in each province to March 14, 1942?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This question asks for total production in a certain line of war effort. I have no objection personally to giving the information, but we have been asked specifically by the British government, and an agreement has been entered into on the part of the British government, the United States government and the government of Canada, not to give total production figures of war materials. I notice that in the discussion last evening, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) raised the point, and I must
Questions

say the same to him. He stated that figures were given in periodicals. We cannot help that.


Angus MacInnis: Where did they get the information?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They can probably collect it from the shipyards. It is not hard to get. But publishing unofficial information is different from giving out official information; at least that is the view of the allied governments, and until the allied governments change their position in that regard I do not intend to give figures on total production.


BARRAGE BALLOONS
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Has a committee been set up to arrange for barrage balloon protection for cities on Canada's coasts?
2.	Have we any barrage balloons in Canada?


Charles Gavan Power: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw this question as not being in the public interest.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would the minister give the information privately?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Georges Parent: Dropped.


GOVERNMENT FILM COMMISSIONER
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	What is the total amount that has been paid to John Grierson in salary, fees and/or allowances as government film commissioner?
2.	What is the total amount of money that has been paid to John Grierson since he has been employed by the government in any capacity whatsoever, including travelling expenses?


Mr. THORSON:: 1.
Fiscal
year	Salary
1939- 40	 $ 1,987 10
1940-	41	
5,703	431941-	42	
6,899	99Total	
$14,690 52
No fees or allowances.
2.
Fiscal	Travelling
year	Fee	Salary	expenses193S-39	
$3,650	None None1939-	40	
None	$	1,987	10	$ 612	341940-	41	
"	5,703	43	1,105	991941-	42	
"	6,899	99	5,948	58
$3,650 $14,590 52 $7,666 91 Total amount paid-$25,907.43.

prices of hogs


Mr. SENN:: 1.	Did the dominion government take action at any time during 1941 to stabilize the price of hogs by means of bonus or subsidy?
2.	If so, by how much per hog?
3.	What was the total amount expended in this manner?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes, through subsidizing the price of export bacon to bring hog prices in Canada more in line with a rising United States hog market and thereby retain hogs in Canada for processing and export to Great Britain.
2.	By $2.50 per one hundred pounds of export bacon in three successive advances:
June 2 by 75 cents per 100 pounds June 24 by 75 cents per 100 pounds July 23 by $1 per 100 pounds.
3.	$2,281,264.99.
western wheat acreage Mr. PURDY:
What is the estimated percentage of wheat acreage under crop in 1941 in the three western provinces represented by self-contained farm units of 320 acres or less?


Mr.   MacICINNON@Edmonton West: On March 16 I tabled an answer to a similar question. At that time I said that information was not available at present in view of the fact that the compilation of agricultural statistics as taken in the 1941 census had not been sufficiently advanced to afford the information. On receipt of the second question, which asks for an estimate rather than a definite figure, I consulted the officials of the dominion bureau of statistics, and they advised me that any estimate they might give at the present time would be purely a guess. I regret I cannot give the information.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Since the inception of the Unemployment Insurance Act how many persons have received payments thereunder?
2.	What are the numbers and occupations by provinces of such persons?
3.	How many of the said recipients have been on service in His Majesty's forces during the present war and of those how many are in receipt of payment under the said act as of this date?


Mr. McLARTY:: Return tabled.

Questions as Orders for Returns


BRITISH AEROPLANE ENGINES LIMITED
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What amount of money was paid to British Aeroplane Engines Limited of Montreal, Quebec, during 1941?
2.	What was the average cost per engine for the overhauling work done by this company?
3.	Were the Royal Canadian Air Force repair depots in Ontario and Quebec overhauling similar engines during 1941?



IRON FROM CANADIAN ORES

George Hugh Castleden: What steps have been taken to develop or increase the supplies of iron from Canadian ore deposits ?



COAL FOR ONTARIO TRAINING CAMPS

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	What companies have the contract to supply coal to Camp Borden, Trenton, Petawawa and each of the training camps in Ontario?
2.	How much coal is supplied to each camp?
3.	What grade of coal is supplied to each camp?
4.	What is the price 'of the coal delivered to each camp?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled.



CANADIAN FORCES-SALVATION ARMY

Gordon Knapman Fraser: How many Salvation Army men are enlisted in (a) the army, (b) the air force, (c) the navy ?


James Layton Ralston: This had better be made an order for return. I wish to correct a statement I made the other day. I find that we have, as far as the army is concerned, a record showing, generally speaking, those men who are members of the Salvation Army who have enlisted in the forces.



AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS-BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	Who is in charge of air raid precaution work in British Columbia?
2.	What authority has he?
3.	Has any air raid precaution equipment been supplied by the dominion government to British Columbia and if so, what, and how much ?
4.	Has any money been granted British Columbia for air raid precaution work, and if so, how much?
5.	Who allots this money within the province of British Columbia?


Mr. THORSON:: Return tabled.
WAR OF 1914-18-REPARATIONS Mr. HANSELL:
1.	What reparations, in terms of money, were imposed upon Germany, as a result of the last war?
2.	What reparations were imposed upon the allies of Germany, as a result of the last war?
3.	What was Canada's share of these reparations?
4.	How much did Canada receive from Germany in payment of these reparations?
5.	How was this paid, in goods, gold or securities?
6.	How was this money disbursed?
7.	How mu h of this was specifically earmarked as recompense to Canadian war prisoners in Germany?



JAPANESE NATIONALS-PERMITS FOR EXPLOSIVES

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	Were any permits for powder or other explosives issued to Japanese since December 7, 1941?
2.	If so, how many and on what authority?
3.	Have such licences been cancelled? If so, when ?
4.	Have any Japanese or partially owned Japanese logging or lumber companies been given licences for powder magazines since December 7, 1941?
5.	If so, on what authority?
6.	Have such licences been cancelled? If so, when?
7.	Have all such explosives been confiscated?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Return tabled.



LIFE INSURANCE-SALE OF PENSION BONDS TO SOLDIERS

Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Has the government authorized life insurance companies to canvass men in the armed forces for policies or so-called pension bonds, etc?
2.	If so, has the government examined the provisions and alleged benefits payable under such policies or bonds?
3.	Has the government authorized the payment of premiums on such policies or bonds, by the assignment of pay of men in the Canadian Active Service Force?
4.	If so, will the government authorize a careful inquiry to be made into the terms and conditions of these contracts, including commissions paid to agents, cash surrender values in one-year, three-year, five-year and ten-year periods, comparing these amounts with total premiums paid ?



EXPORT OF CATTLE TO THE UNITED STATES

Mr. LEADER:: 1.	How many cattle have been exported to the United States since the United States-Canada agreement was consummated in 1936?
2.	What number for each category and the number shipped in each quarter of the years from 1936 to 1941 inclusive?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Return tabled.
Motions jor Papers



REQUISITIONING OF SHIPS ENGAGED IN GRAIN TRADE

Mr. LEADER:: 1.	How many ships formerly employed in the grain trade have been requisitioned by the government since the war began?
2.	What are the names of the firms or individuals from whom these ships were requisitioned, and what number from each firm or individual?
3.	Have these ships been purchased, and at wliat price?
4.	If not, what are the terms of rental or lease?
5.	Were any of these ships reconditioned or repaired by the government?
6.	If so, at what total cost?



MOTOR TRANSPORT OF GOODS IN BOND THROUGH CANADIAN TERRITORY

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Has the government of the United States or any official thereof requested either formally or informally that permission be granted by the Canadian government for United States motor transport carriers to operate in transit in bond between United States points through Canadian territory?
2.	If so, what was the nature of such request?
3.	Has any recommendation been made by any joint Canadian-United States committee with reference to this question?
4.	If so, what is the nature of such recommendation ?
5.	Has this question been considered by a subcommittee of the cabinet?
6.	If so, when, and who are the members of such committee?
7.	Has any report been made by such subcommittee and what is the nature of the report?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. CHURCH:: For a return showing-1. A list of the price ceiling subsidies issued, the estimated amount of same and on what articles, or in what trade and commerce.
2.	A list of the members of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, a list of their chief officers, servants and agents, showing where they are located, the number thereof, together with their salaries and other allowances.
3.	Estimated cost of one year of maintaining the ceiling prices staff herein, and the aggregate number of officials and total payroll.
4.	The estimated cost per annum of the operation of this corporation.
5.	The walks of business life that are not yet supervised or directed by any departments of state.
6.	What training the members of this corporation and their chief officials have had in actual trade or commerce, or in a competitive business.
7.	What minister of the crown is responsible to parliament for the work of this corporation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am willing to have this motion passed with the qualifications which

I stated the other day; but if the hon. member would like to let it stand so that I can make a statement to the house as to the principles upon which information should be given or withheld regarding price ceiling subsidies, I am willing to take that course. The question of principle was raised last night sharply by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) to the effect that the amounts of these individual payments should be given to the House of Commons. Generally speaking, the objection I have to doing that is that the principles upon which subsidies are made public, and the giving of the amounts that are paid to individual companies, would give competitors a fairly precise knowledge of the volume and kind of business which their rivals were doing.
There may be other objections as well. Perhaps that is not a sufficient objection, but I should like to get my position formulated, whatever position is eventually adopted by the house, and give my reasons to the house, because this is a very important matter. These subsidies will be large in amount; they are virtually consumers' subsidies, and I do not want to take a course which will be at variance with the proper practice or in conflict with the rights of the House of Commons. On the other hand I certainly do not want to take a course which will prejudice the successful operation of this subsidy system. If the mover of this motion would like to have it go through with the qualifications and exceptions mentioned the other day, I am content. If on the other hand he would like to have it stand until I have opportunity of giving further consideration to the principles that should apply, and of making a statement of those principles to the house, I am content to have it stand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would
the minister be able to make his statement prior to the Easter recess?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know about that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Because this is now becoming a very important matter. We are even subsidizing the packers of Canada on the beef we eat in the restaurant, which is going pretty far. I think the public need this information. I should like to have it as soon as possible, because this thing is getting out of hand.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would point out that if this motion passes to-day without any qualification, the information will not be available until after the Easter recess.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But we would have a start on it.

War Risk Insurance


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should like to give that a little consideration, because it is most important to get this on a proper basis.


Thomas Langton Church: May I suggest that I be allowed to see the minister and have the motion redrafted? I do not object to part 6 being struck out, but if the minister is going to make a statement I might have to discuss it with the minister and the leader of the opposition.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is agreeable to me.
Motion stands.



TRANSPORT OF GOODS IN BOND THROUGH CANADIAN TERRITORY

Douglas Gooderham Ross: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, resolutions, memoranda, or any other documents:
(1)	Exchanged between the government of Ontario or any official thereof and any minister or official of the dominion government;
(2)	Exchanged between the Minister of National Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs, the Minister of Transport, the Deputy Minister of Transport, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the Deputy Minister of Munitions and Supply or any other official of these departments and the Railway Association of Canada, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Railways, the Michigan Central Railway, the Toronto-Hamilton and Buffalo Railway, the Wabash Railways or the Pare Marquette Railroad or any official of any of these companies;
(3)	Exchanged between any minister or official of the government and any municipal council in the province of Ontario or official thereof writh reference to any request of International Highway Forwarders Limited or any motor transport carriers in the United States for permission to operate any transport in bond between United States points through Canadian territory.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I direct the attention of the hon. member to the wording of the motion? As I read it, parts 1 and 2 would cover almost everything that has happened. So far as part 2 is concerned, it does not relate to any particular matter, and the same is true of part 1. Part 3 is more specific. If the information asked for in parts 1 and 2 relates to the information asked for in part 3, then there is no objection to bringing it down. Perhaps that is what the hon. member had in mind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
that would be satisfactory. The motion is rather badly drafted; I do not know who is responsible for it. I suggest that the interpretation which the minister seeks to place upon it is correct, and if the return could be brought down on that understanding it would be all right.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: With that understanding
there is no objection to its passing.
Motion as amended agreed to.



CANADIAN FORCES-SERVICE OUTSIDE CANADA- CASUALTY LISTS

Douglas Gooderham Ross: For a return showing the names and addresses of all persons who were serving outside of Canada who have appeared on the casualty lists of (a) the army, (b) the navy, (c) the air force.


James Layton Ralston: I want to ask my hon.
friend if he will omit, unless it is important, the request for the addresses of the casualties. We have on the casualty lists the names and addresses of the next of kin, but to get the addresses of the casualties themselves we would have to go to the attestation papers, and there are about 2,000 of them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The order could be amended to read "names and addresses of the next of kin.of all persons..."


James Layton Ralston: That is quite all right.


Charles Gavan Power: I might point out to produce this information would take a very long time. I should like to know if any useful purpose is to be served.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think so.


Charles Gavan Power: Frankly I doubt it so far as the air force is concerned. If the house passes the order I will have to obey it, but I shall do it with considerable reluctance.
Motion as amended agreed to.



WAR RISK INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the insurance of property against war risk and for the payment of compensation for war damage out of a special account of the consolidated revenue fund, and to provide further in connection therewith for the employment of such officers, clerks and other employees and agents necessary for the administration of the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This is one of the matters which the minister informed me he would like to have advanced a stage. I assume nothing

Postal Service

further will be done in regard to it until after the Easter recess. But it might be of some interest, having regard to questions asked across the floor, if the minister could make any statement concerning it before the Easter recess.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If I can get to the stage at which I can introduce the bill I will introduce it, but if I cannot, then I shall have to make a statement either in this house or afterwards, depending upon the time that I can get.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I suggest to the minister that it is desirable that this bill be introduced before the recess. I happen to know that in certain circumstances people are reluctant to ship essential war goods to either coast for export overseas when they cannot obtain war risk insurance. There are people on both coasts, in Halifax and1 Vancouver, who are vitally interested in a measure of this kind.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On.the orders of the day:
Hon. W. P. MULOCK (Postmaster General) :: I should like to advise hon. members that steps are being taken to facilitate the exchange of correspondence between soldiers and their homes in Canada at all times. Letters from Canadian troops in England and Newfoundland have been accepted free of postage for some time past, and arrangements have now been completed under which letters posted in Jamaica by Canadian troops stationed there will pass free of postage to their homes in Canada. This concession takes effect on April 1 next.
The regular Jamaican postage will be required on all other items.
I should also like to say to ithe house, in response to numerous questions that have been asked in regard to tlhe establishment of air mail service between Montreal and Quebec, that the business value of an air mail service between these cities 'has been carefully investigated, and in the light of the facts disclosed steps are being taken to inaugurate a regular daily-except-Sunday air mail schedule between these two important points on or about April 15 next. The proposed schedule of service will link the city of Quebec with main line air services at Montreal, operating to and from maritime provinces, the Canadian west, and all points in the United States. The postal advantages of 'this service should prove

to be of definite value, especially at this time when speed in the transmission of the written word is of such great importance.


Clarence Gillis: Is the Postmaster General's department still considering the extension of the air mail service to Cape Breton island?


William Pate Mulock: The hon. member's representations will be carefully considered. That is a matter of policy about which no doubt the house will be advised in due course.


Clarence Gillis: It was definitely promised a year ago.



WAR APPROPRIATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Usley that the house go into committee to consider a resolution to provide that sums not exceeding $135,000,000 be granted to his majesty for national defence and security.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, before eleven o'clock last evening I was discussing a question which would have been left until after the Easter recess had it not been for the fact that unless something is done immediately in this connection the effect upon our production programme will be very serious indeed. I am referring, of course, to the question of wartime housing. Hon. members no doubt are aware of the fact that during the past year we have had two departments engaged in trying to provide more adequate housing in key centres in Canada. I refer to the activities of the national housing administration and to Wartime Housing Limited.
Last year I expressed the opinion that the entire programme of providing housing in war time should have been administered by the government owned and controlled agency, the national housing administration. The government, however, decided otherwise; and a number of dollar a year men were entrusted with the responsibility of administering Wartime Housing Limited. I do not plan to discuss their activities at this time, but after careful consideration and comparison of costs it would appear to me that we are getting permanent construction under national housing for less than we are getting temporary housing under Wartime Housing Limited. Last night I referred to a return which was tabled some time ago, giving the cost of war-time houses built in North Vancouver. It showed a striking discrepancy between the costs of

War Appropriation
war-time houses and those built under natonal housing in that city. I have -before me a return brought down on February 3 of this year, giving the average costs of these temporary houses in various cities, as follows:
Fort William	 $2,860
Halifax	  3,742
Hamilton	    2,818
Welland	 2,886
Peterborough	 3,018
Wrightville	 3,379
Let me remind hon. members that these houses are of temporary construction, without basements and without furnaces. The fuel is stored in a box, attached to the back of the house, capable of holding half a ton of coal. Some of the occupants of these houses in Hamilton spoke of the difficulties they experienced in securing fuel deliveries, since the box has to be empty before half a ton of coal can be put in, and there is an extra charge of fifty cents for making these small deliveries. In view of the fact that permanent houses have been built in many of these centres at much lower cost it does seem to me that it would be a great mistake to terminate the activities of the national housing administration. I understand that since the commencement of the war that agency has assisted in the construction of over 12,854 houses, at a cost to the treasury of Canada of approximately $9,700,000. I should like hon. members to remember these figures. According to the information given by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, we are committed to a spending programme of over $20,000,000 for something like six thousand houses, under the wartime housing programme. I know the answer will be given that these houses have to be built in a hurry, and that necessarily the cost is higher.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just to keep the record
straight, I should say the fact that they are built in a hurry has nothing to do with it, but I would point out that under the housing act the services are furnished by the city, and a tax is put on the property to cover the cost of those services. On the other hand Wartime Housing build their own services, the cost of which is distributed among the houses, and there is no tax against the buildings of Wartime Housing.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am aware of that, but still it does not explain the cost of $3,379 for houses of this type across the river in Hull. I would urge hon. members to go and see those houses, and then draw their own conclusions as to whether or not the taxpayers of Canada have received good value for the money that has been spent. What the minister says is true with regard to arrangements under
the national housing administration; but in Canada there are a great many cities which would be quite prepared to encourage the administration to undertake a building programme. Of course it must be remembered also that the figures I gave represented only the government's investment, not the total cost of those houses. The average cost of the permanent houses is given as $3,250. I think hon. members will agree that if permanent houses can be built for anything like the cost of the temporary houses, we should encourage the construction of permanent dwellings as far as possible at this time.
I realize that the whole question of supplies must be taken into consideration. It is quite conceivable that we may have to use very different methods of construction; that we may have to abandon the installation of bath tubs, and that houses may not be wired for electricity if the shortage of copper becomes more acute. We might even be required to get along without central heating. But I submit that the government should take into consideration the raw materials and manpower that will be available for the construction of permanent houses, so that the promise given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) some time ago that we are not going to be governed by dollars and cents but that whatever is physically possible will be made financially possible, may be implemented. That policy should be carried out in connection with housing. It will be a great calamity if the national housing administration is compelled to fold up, with the personnel obliged to go into private industry or leave the country, so that the only building activity will be carried on by Wartime Housing Limited.
I should like to remind hon. members that it is estimated that ninety per cent of the 12,000 houses which have been built since the beginning of the war by the national housing administration have been constructed in centres where we consider there is a definite war-time housing shortage. According to the order in council which was passed when Wartime Housing was established, the places in which construction should be carried on were centres where the production of munitions of war and supplies, or defence projects, would be affected by the lack of housing. There are a great many places in Canada where training centres and military establishments are located to which men of the armed forces bring their families, and if it is physically possible we should be prepared to provide them with housing accommodation. I make this final plea to the government that it give the most careful consideration to providing an appropriation for national housing and that national housing be given consideration in the matter
War Appropriation

of priorities. It would be unfortunate if all the bathtubs, heating appliances and wiring were directed exclusively into wartime housing so that the national housing administration would find it impossible to carry on. I hope the government [DOT]will give careful consideration to the argument I have presented, so that our munitions production may not be seriously handicapped in the months to come because of adequate housing not being available.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate until the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) last evening brought out a circumstance which, I think, demands reiteration of the rights of parliament. Some time ago an address was delivered in this house by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) in reference to the like matter, in which he stressed the situation to-day prevailing in the parliament generally speaking, indicated the trend away from democratic practices. I find it hard to understand why so important a measure as the war appropriation should have been delayed in being brought down to the house until a day or so before the Easter recess. This is not the first time this has occurred. This is one measure that gives us as members an opportunity of placing our viewpoint before the house and the country and of obtaining information with regard to the position of our war effort. I cannot understand why a measure such as this should not have been introduced earlier in the session. Various explanations may be given, but the fact remains that in the last two or three days before the Easter recess we are asked to deal with an expenditure of many millions of dollars and to vote supply to enable the government to continue during the period of the Easter recess.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the hon. gentleman would permit a question, does he think we should have deferred the discussion on the address and the discussion on the plebiscite until after this discussion was completed?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; but it should have been run on a different basis.


John George Diefenbaker: What I do think is this, that it is strange that each year and each session millions and millions of dollars of estimates are brought before the house toward the very end of the session without giving the members an opportunity to debate or consider them fully.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is not the end of the
session.


John George Diefenbaker: The same thing
happens year after year. That course may
. fMr. Nicholson.]
have been all right during the routine days of peace; but my submission is that with a war on-I reiterate what I have said before-committees of the private members of this house should be set up along the lines of the committees which the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) is having set up at the present time, to enable members to recommend to the government the cutting down of unnecessary expenditures because, Mr. Speaker, the thing the government should do to-day-and it would thereby secure the unanimous support of the country is to reduce non-war expenditures to the limit.
Donald Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, speaking in the city of Montreal, outlined the position of Canada to-day and emphasized the necessity for action. He stressed the terrible urgency of the situation to-day and said:
Selfish or private interests must he ruled out completely. The competitive system must go, to be replaced with one which is based entirely upon the criterion of maximum production, with the most efficient use of labour, machinery and materials to operate steadily without cease except for necessary rest or maintenance.
Then he used these words:
Regimentation and more regimentation was coming for Canada, he continued, hut "let us develop it without the ugly meaning which it has been given in gestapo land and by the Japanese imitators."
He points out that regimentation is coming in ever-increasing measure. I realize, as all of us must, that during a period of war it is necessary that the freedoms, which are ordinarily accepted as inherent in democracy be controlled in the greater interest of the safety of the state-the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of association and the like. As Lord Baldwin said:
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, eternal knowledge, eternal sympathy and eternal understanding.
In Great Britain the rights of parliament have been restricted as have the rights of individuals, the rights of the whole people throughout the nation; but, Mr. Speaker, they are doing it with the consent and under the control of parliament, and wherever there is an invasion of the rights normally enjoyed by the citizens of Great Britain the matter first comes before parliament and is debated. I point this out because the hon. member for Vancouver East last evening in his address showed that information, whatever its source may be, which is not being furnished to parliament, is being or has been furnished to private corporations. That is a flouting of the rights of the members of this house, but it is what has been going on in ever-increasing

War Appropriation
measure ever since the war began. I point out first the fact that until recently it was impossible for the members of any party other than the government party to go on the national radio network; yet day after day members of the government and members of its various boards are making speeches, many of them tinged by political considerations. It is through the instrumentality of the radio- and it is at least one of the main methods

that public opinion can be created to-day. The other method is through the press, and the government is trying to control the press. Prosecutions are taking place from time to time; and while up to date none of them has been successful, the fact remains that the taking of the prosecution, unjustified though it was proven subsequently by the finding of the court, has a tendency to restrict the freedom of the press.
I am not going into any detail, but I would point out the tendency on the part of this government to do that which has been condemned by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) over a period of years. I refer to the almost universal ruling by decree, by order in council. This has been so to such an extent that in May, 1941, the Prime Minister stated that statutes had been changed or suspended in their operations since the outbreak of the war, but that the government had no record of the statutes that had been so changed. So general has this trend become that statutes passed by this parliament, such as the War Exchange Conservation Act and the excess profits tax, now allow the governor in council to discriminate in favour of one individual as against another. In other words, the rule of law that provides for equality before the law and allows each and every citizen of this country an opportunity to take his case to establish that equality before the courts is denied, when in statutes we allow the government to suspend or amend them by order in council.
If we as a parliament continue to receive the answers that we have received during the last few days-this practice is ever-widening in its scope-we shall find ourselves, unless we protest, where the government will proceed to say to us, regardless of what the matter is which we ask about, that it is not in the public interest that information should be given. If our right to secure information is denied, we are meeting here as a parliament for one purpose only, to vote supply. Other than that there would be very little justification for our being here. Everything that we pass by way of law could be passed by the instrumentality of orders in council, and even
the few bills that do come before parliament appear to be merely fillers in between votes of supply and supply.
From time to time the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) has replied to questions about production in a way that I suggest is not considerate of the rights of parliament. It would appear that the answers were prepared by a bureaucracy, by the rule of desk, instead of by a responsible minister answerable to parliament. On February 6 I asked how many licences had been granted for the erection of buildings other than those required for war industry since construction control had been adopted. In other words,
I wanted to find out whether, during a time when all materials were required for war purposes, certain materials were being allocated for civilian or domestic purposes. The answer I received is a revelation of the attitude of certain bureaucrats to this parliament, the representatives of the people. The answer was as follows:
There have been issued up to February 5, 1942, a total of 3,150 licences for the erection of buildings. Records covering these do not differentiate between war and non-war industries. A clear line of demarcation is not possible.
Thaf means one of two things. Either the answer is evasive to conceal that permits are being given for non-essential purposes, or permits are being issued by the board in charge without regard to whether or not they are for war purposes.
I would direct attention to the answer given to-day by the Minister of Munitions and Supply to the effect that the British government does not want information given out. I realize that in connection with particulars of quantities and details of that kind, it might be dangerous to give out information-not one of us wants any such information. In a recent speech the minister said that we now can equip a division in six weeks, but when we want to cross-examine him and find out the production in order to ascertain whether that is a statement of fact or merely a statement to make us all feel good, we receive the answer that it would not be in the public interest to give the information.
True, it would not be in the public interest 'to give out information that might be helpful to the enemy, but I think that is an excuse which is being used by this government to an ever-increasing extent as a latch-key to shut the door against information. That is the attitude they are taking. We want information; we want particulars. If the particulars and information cannot be given to us in the house, then let it be given in a secret session. We are asked to look into the expenditures of
War Appropriation

millions of dollars, and yet no information is given to us except in general terms. We are asked to vote millions and billions of dollars when we realize, as do the people of Canada, that it is not expenditures of themselves that will preserve freedom; it is tike result that follows that will achieve its preservation.
What is being done with the money? Only a few short months ago the system that was followed previously of issuing monthly lists of contracts awarded was done away with. To-diay no member of this house, unless he is a member of the government, has any idea of what contracts 'have been let since (the issue of this information was discontinued. What expenditures have been made? Who have been the recipients of contracts in the different provinces? All we know is that money has been spent and no information has been given as to the nature and the particulars thereof or the results. The people are willing to sacrifice, but they want to know what use is being made of the money being expended.
Within the last few days a number of articles have appeared in the western press by Mr. Dexter, one of which was referred to the other evening by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). In one of these articles Mr. Dexter discussed the whole production situation. We have had no information on this. No information is being brought before parliament." No information is being made available to parliament. This series of articles points out that we have not yet achieved all-out production in Canada, that we have not to-day a nearly all-out production. All we have in fact is promises of future action, of what will happen in 1943. This parliament representing the people of Canada is concerned with what is going to happen in 1942 and have the right to know the present position.
I think we have a right to know where we are going and what is the plan in reference to production. Can time run forever in our favour? The record in the far east in the last four or five months has been terrible in its implications. Defeats, glorious defeats; retreats, glorious retreats, all because of the fact that there has been a need, not of manpower with courage but of sufficient manpower; a need, not of proper machinery but of sufficient amounts of proper machinery.
To-day in this country there should be a stop to the construction of buildings for civilian purposes. It is not being stopped: the answer to which I referred a while ago shows this. Is it not about time that the increase of man-power in industry due to enlarged demands for civilian requirements should be restricted? Since the beginning of this war there has been an additional employ-
ment of one million men, of whom the increased demand for consumer goods accounts for 339,000. Why has this flow of consumer goods production not been stopped? The people are willing to accept a reduced standard of living; yet to-day we have more men producing goods for civilian and domestic uses than in 1939, and I would point out that one of the orders in council which the Prime Minister placed before parliament yesterday. starts with the admission that there is a shortage of man-power in the country for war and industrial purposes. I shall allude to that again in a moment. In the meanwhile let us see what this increased employment has, in large measure, done. Here are the comparative index figures showing the increases:
	September,	December,
Trade	1939	1941Furniture	.. 84-2	118-4Musical instruments....	.. 59-9	86-1Beverages 	.. 181-8	235-2Heating appliances	
Street railways and	.. 135-1	163-8cartage 	.. 130-6	149-5Hotels and restaurants.	.. 151-7	162-7Retail trade	.. 139-0	177-8Wholesale trade	.. 124-1	138-5There must be a	reduction	in civilian
demand, and the services of many men who to-day are engaged in industries of this kind must be diverted to war purposes.
I suggested a while ago that we reduce this year to the very limit both public and domestic expenditures for the ordinary ways of life. It can be done. Place our estimates before members of this parliament who are business men; give them the authority of the government - to pare down and reduce, and they will do it. I notice that Saskatchewan, which in this respect is no different from any other province, is expending to-day several million dollars more than ever before in its history, and twice the amount expended twelve years ago, although it has no relief bill to speak of. To-day too many of us are trying to take advantage of the war situation to ask the government for this and that. I suggest that a message be given by the Prime Minister to the people of Canada, who are willing to listen to it, to desist from being what I choose to call "gimmes" until the war is over: " 'Gimme' appropriations for my province or my city or my constituency, for industry; 'gimme' patronage, 'gimme' shorter hours, higher profits, more business, and higher prices." Away with that for the period of the war. Once you have established, as regards agriculture as with all other war industries, a fair and reasonable return, that can be done.

War Appropriation
We remember what happened two years ago, prior to the fall of France. We little thought then what would occur in the next two or three months. "France had her 'gimmes' then. They were fighting among themselves; they were asking for appropriations; they were doing all the things which we are doing all over this dominion to-day. They did it until the French army was forced to retreat toward Paris. Then, everybody got to work on production. But the determination to work and to do was too late. To-day France has her 'gimmes' too, but the 'gimme' to-day is not the 'gimme' of two years ago. To-day it is 'gimme' my lost liberty; 'gimme' even death rather than what I am passing through."
The challenge comes to us to-day. It is a challenge to this parliament, the institution in which resides the hope, the aspiration and the determination of the Canadian people. I speak without sentimentalism; I sincerely believe what I say. The Canadian people are asking us to give them that leadership without which they can do nothing; they want us to do our part regardless of any lesser considerations.
Last week I had the honour to be one of a party which went to Hamilton, upon the invitation of the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross). We had an opportunity of seeing something of the munitions factories, those great industries which have sprung up or been greatly enlarged during the past two years. Having been there a year ago to a day, I could realize something of the development which has taken place there, as I did in certain other industrial centres which I have had an opportunity of visiting recently. But I would be remiss in my duty as a member if I did not say that, while great advances have been made, they are far below what they should be having regard to the fact that almost two years have gone since their establishment.
I believe that a committee of this parliament should be set up to look into production. There are among our members manufacturers and business men who would willingly serve on a committee which was empowered to look into the whole situation, go to the root of to-day's problems, and offer solutions or suggestions. I believe that the Minister of Munitions and Supply has done a very great work, but he has not been able to coordinate all the various production agencies under his control. It is too large a job for a man to come before parliament as a minister and at the same time put into effect a complete organization and correlation of the war industry of this dominion. The time has
come when this government, instead of having different heads of the various departments of munitions production, should appoint one supreme head, a czar if you will, a man who will be able to coordinate production.
I have in mind production in one particular line, wherein I think the people should know what the turn-out is and what deliveries overseas have been. I realize, however, that to furnish that information by making a statement in parliament might be of service to the enemy. The people do not believe the government in everything it says. The government issues statements that all is well, everything is fine, no major mistakes are being made-only one minister has ever risen in his place in this chamber and admitted a mistake-and the people, looking at the situation in the east, realizing that Japan is at our gates in the west and that submarines are attacking on the east coast, are asking whether the information they have received has been unreal. These things were believed to be impossible a few months ago. The time has come for the Prime Minister, with the tremendous influence and prestige which his position commands, and which his service in public life demands, to tell the people of Canada the true story, what it is we have to face, what sacrifices have to be made, in a particular way and not by generalizations promising total war-often generalizations with regard to future action.
In the United States a committee of the senate was set up one year ago. The other place, so far as parliament is concerned, is not being used. Many of these problems could be submitted to that house and an opportunity given to the people of Canada to take advantage of their experience, business acumen and ability. The United States' senate set up a committee for the purpose of looking into the whole position of production. They were not satisfied that everything was being done. They had been told the same stories that we in Canada had been told. The committee set up was not partisan; it was composed of Democrats and Republicans, and I believe there was a farm labour representative and functioned under the chairmanship of Senator Truman. It met off and on for the period of a year, and its recommendations changed the picture in regard to production in the United States. It placed the United States in the position where the United States is producing 2,000 war planes a month, a little less than the axis is producing to-day.
The same committee brought out the fact, in regard to production of certain lines, that though there were potential possibilities in the
War Appropriation

War Appropriation

there is no France that can call itself its own, and the French empire, as such, 'has virtually disappeared. So far as it exists, it exists in large part to carry out the wishes of Germany in different parts of the world.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And yet we have the Vichy ambassador here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I will give my friend an answer in regard to that later. When the war commenced all the strategy of the war was planned on the understanding and belief that the close alliance then existing between France and Britain would be maintained throughout. The dispositions of armed forces and of naval forces were made in accordance with a plan of joint cooperation. France being defeated at an early stage of the war has altered all that situation, and altered it very, very much for the worse.
Not only has France ceased to be an ally, but as I have pointed out her possessions in other parts of the world have come to serve the purposes of the enemy rather than the purposes which they would have served under the alliance between those two countries. Indeed, as I have said, there has virtually ceased to be a French empire. There was also at the beginning of the war another empire of considerable importance and significance, the empire which Holland had in the far east. That Dutch empire has been overrun. The Netherlands themselves are overrun by the enemy and their possessions have been taken from them. The United States had its possessions in the far east, and in part those possessions have become the possessions of the enemy. The British empire existed in part as an empire in the far east. To-day part of that empire has been taken by the enemy while other parts of it are threatened as they have never been threatened before. In Africa, where there were large and important French possessions, Britain at the commencement of the war had hoped and expected to find the bases from which operations might take place which would serve effectively to meet any enemy whose forces had to be met on the Atlantic ocean or on the African mainland. There again the enemy has possession in large measure to-day, and one	cannot	say	what the outcome of subsequent conflicts	may be. No	one can saywhat the word may be twenty-four hours hence of the increasing gravity of the situation	in any	part	of the world.	It is knownthat	Britain	has	had to move	many of her
forces from one part of the empire to other parts of the empire and of the world in order to meet the situations that exist there. All

along the way there has been to some extent a thinning of the defence forces of the vast British empire.
I mention and bring together these facts, just in the way one would gather them from the press of the day, in order to illustrate how wrong it would be that anyone should get the impression that the government, or this parliament, has in mind the possibility of an early termination of this war. The war has to be won before there can be any thought of reconstruction; and if the winning of the war is to include, as we hope it must, the restoration of freedom to those parts of the world from which freedom has been taken away by aggressor nations, there is yet a vast task that lies ahead of the free nations of the world.
I stress this because I should like to remove altogether any impression that in constituting a committee of this house to study the problems of reconstruction, the government or anyone on this side of the house-or for that matter I hope I may say anyone in this House of Commons-entertains the illusion that at the present time we are anywhere within sight of the termination of the present war, or by any means certain as to its course, at least for the immediate present. I have not any doubt that if this year goes by successfully, as I believe it will, with the increased production of munitions and the increased power that will be brought together from the different united nations, ultimately the free nations will triumph. I believe they will; but before that moment is reached there is going to be a vastly different world from what we have ever known in the past, and, I believe, a world even vastly different from the world as we know it at the moment. That being the case I hope no impression will exist anywhere, either in this house or in this country, that the government entertains other than the most serious views of the very critical situation that exists in the world to-day.	.
I had another reason for rising this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. The night before last, when the present resolution was introduced, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) said that he thought the ministry should make some statement with respect to its war policy, particularly in relation to the territorial defence of Canada; the necessity for that defence has manifested itself in larger measure since the outbreak of the war with Japan. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has spoken particularly of the situation as it has changed since the entry of Japan into the war. Since the opposition have stated their feeling that

War Appropriation
this particular resolution should not be allowed to pass until some further statement is made by the ministry, I thought it might facilitate the progress of the debate if I were, on behalf of the government, to make a statement this afternoon. But may I say at once to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who has just spoken, that I do not think the government should be taken to task for having brought down the war appropriation measure, and begun to discuss it immediately before the Easter recess. As a matter of fact, I think, had we brought the measure down at an earlier stage and then attempted to crowd the measure through before the Easter recess, we might have been open to some degree of censure for failing to give the house more time and opportunity for full discussion on the most important measure the government has brought before the house. As matters stand, it seems to me that we have pretty well taken the right ground in the circumstances. We have brought to the attention of the house all the large financial measures of which the house will have to take cognizance during the session. Hon. members are in a position to know the entire programme; and they will have the benefit of the time afforded by the Easter recess to familiarize themselves with the various features of the proposed legislation, and also to consider the points which they think should be further discussed when we reassemble after Easter.
Speaking in the debate on the address, I outlined, I thought very fully, the war policy of the government, going into considerable detail with respect to the armed forces overseas-indeed, ail forces on land, in the air and at sea. I outlined the progress that has been made in the production of munitions and supplies, as well as the government's programme with respect to the supply of food. In fact, as I recall it, I covered the entire field fairly comprehensively. I had thought that what was said at that time, and what was subsequently said by my colleagues, might have furnished sufficient information to have justified the passing of these interim supply resolutions without at this time any further detailed discussion. However, the request that the government should, if possible, give members before the Easter recess further information in regard to the development of its war policy is I think a reasonable one, particularly in so far as it relates to the defence of Canada itself, as the need of that defence has become more evident within the recent past. I shall accordingly now make a brief statement to the house of the further progress made by the government in the
44561-104*
carrying out of its programme. May I say, however, that I did this in part yesterday when I spoke on the government's policy in respect to national selective service. I also at that time answered some of the questions which had previously been asked and I anticipated others. I hope that with what was said yesterday and what I may now say, hon. members of the house will have a fairly comprehensive understanding in their minds of the programme which the government has under way at this time.
The phenomenal successes of the Japanese in the southwestern Pacific have done more than all the nazi successes in Europe to bring home to the people of Canada the reality of the danger to our own country in the present war. No one should seek to minimize that danger or the new sense of urgency it has brought with it. At the same time, it should not be permitted to destroy a true perspective. In actual geographical distance, in thousands of miles, the Japanese menace is much farther from Canada than the nazi menace. In strategic terms, the probability of attacks upon our Atlantic coast and upon Newfoundland is as great as it is upon our Pacific coast. But for the shield which Britain constitutes, the danger to Canada from Europe would be far greater than the danger to Canada from the far east.
One of the most difficult decisions in waging war is the decision which must be made as to the disposition of fighting strength. Over and over again it is necessary to decide what proportion of total fighting strength should be sent to the front line to engage the enemy, and what proportion should be held in reserve to secure the base of operations and protect the lines of communication.
From the outset of the war the government has been attacked on this score from opposite extremes. At one extreme are those who would send every trained man and every available weapon overseas, without regard to the risk thereby incurred of exposing our own country to direct attack which nothing could be done to repel. At the other extreme are those who would keep every able-bodied man and every available weapon in Canada, without regard to the risk of allowing our allies and friends to be defeated, and thus exposing ourselves to the full fury of a triumphant enemy.
Both extremes are perilous. To adopt either might be fatal to the very existence of our country. Unless we take every reasonable precaution to maintain the territorial security of Canada, the enemy- might, by sudden surprise attacks, do incalculable damage to the country. On the other hand, unless we take our full share of the combat and do our full part to
War Appropriation

defeat the enemy before he reaches our shores, we may be left practically alone to face his onslaughts.
Before the Japanese attacks were made on British and American territories in the Pacific, the insistence of the government upon the maintenance of a foundation for the actual physical defence of Canadian territory aroused in some quarters a good deal of impatience. The opposite tendency has been more in evidence since December 7. Canada will never enjoy permanent security until the axis powers are defeated, and the spirit of aggression is uprooted and destroyed. That can never be achieved by keeping at home all our men and resources in an attempt to build an iron wall of defence on our coasts. That, indeed, would be the best way of making sure we should have to fight the war on Canadian soil.
So long as the international gangsters are plundering and marauding at large in the world, we can never make Canada so secure that there will not be somewhere some danger of attack. But, as I have repeatedly pointed out, we cannot on that account afford to neglect reasonable precautions. In certain strategic areas we must be prepared to meet sudden raids from sea and air. The maintenance of the security of the base of operations is the most elementary rule of warfare.
To meet the increasing menace of attack on both coasts, the government has taken many important steps to strengthen Canada's capacity to resist attack. For obvious reasons I cannot give to our own people precise information concerning these measures without giving the same information to the enemy.
I am prepared, however, without being so precise as to reveal specific details which might assist the enemy, to give some indication of the steps being taken to strengthen our territorial and coastal defences. What I am about to say on this subject refers mainly to land and air defences. Concerning naval defence, I can add but little, if anything, to what I said on January 26 last. However, there is something that I can add.
Since that date, attacks by many submarines have been made in coastal waters of Canada and the United States. In many cases these attacks have occurred within sight of the shores of this continent. There is no reason to believe that these attacks will not continue and probably become more intensive. Officers of the Canadian naval service have expressed the view that within a few months submarines may well be found operating within the gulf, and even in the St. Lawrence river. It is known that enemy submarines can leave their bases on the European continent, voyage to the shores of this continent, seek their prey for some days or weeks and return to their 
bases without the necessity of refueling. If enemy submarines do operate in the gulf and river St. Lawrence, an additional burden will be thrown on the Canadian navy. Not only will our navy have the duty of assisting in escorting Atlantic convoys, but it will also have to assume the task of escorting convoys in the river St. Lawrence and in the gulf as well as along our coasts.
The Canadian navy has a share in the primary responsibility for our territorial defence. In the midst of world-wide conflict, warfare on the seas is indivisible. Any Canadian ship of war, wherever it may be operating, is engaged in defending Canada. How or where our ships are employed cannot, of course, be disclosed with exactness. It is, however, common knowledge that the major strength of the Canadian navy is in the Atlantic, sharing in the burden-and bearing a large share-of escorting convoys. This does not mean that the naval defence of the Pacific is being neglected. Inevitably the naval tasks of the united nations are so apportioned as to secure the maximum advantage from their total naval strength.
As I said on January 26, save in so far as the number of available ships necessarily sets the limit to the number of men who can be enlisted for training, no limitation so far as our navy is concerned has been placed upon the number, either of ships or of men.
There is no lack of recruits for the naval service. Indeed there is a considerable waiting list. But in addition to the limitations which have been mentioned as to the number of available ships, there is the further limitation imposed by the difficulty of training men, particularly officers and petty officers. In the nature of things, naval training takes a longer time than the training necessary for either of the other two services. After men have been given all the instruction in the art of naval warfare that can be given on shore, there still remains the long path of varied experience over which they must pass before they are thoroughly equipped for positions of responsibility at sea.
Up to the present the building of naval craft and the training of men to man these craft have proceeded at an almost equal pace. Most of the ships of Canada's navy have been built in Canada, and they are, of course, manned by Canadians. The achievements of Canadian corvettes, named after Canadian cities and towns, have captured the admiration of Canadians generally and have won the praise of naval authorities in other countries. What is true of Canadian corvettes is true also of every other type of craft in the Canadian navy. Officers and men of the Royal Canadian Navy, of the Royal Canadian

War Appropriation
Naval Volunteer Reserve, and of the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, manning armed merchant cruisers, destroyers, minesweepers, patrol boats and other naval vessels have acquitted themselves ably and honourably over wide expanses of ocean. It can be truly said that with every month that passes, Canada's contribution to naval warfare is growing in extent and effectiveness. As that contribution grows, our security increases.
The programme for the army overseas, announced on January 26, is already under way. At that time, I also gave a resume of what had been done with regard to the territorial defence of Canada, following the outbreak of war with Japan. I stated that new units were being mobilized in accordance with anticipated deliveries of equipment. I can now say that, in accordance with that policy, nearly a dozen new battalions have already been mobilized, together with a considerable number of additional anti-aircraft and coast defence batteries. These formations are being given an active role in connection with territorial defence.
I also indicated that the organization of additional formations would depend on developments in the war situation, and mentioned particularly the mobilization of another division. Since that time the war situation has further deteriorated, particularly in the far east. In consequence of this fact the government has authorized the mobilization of two additional divisions, the 7th and the 8th. The additional formations will add depth to our existing and contemplated defences. They will be given the role of mobile reserves, with special reference to the east and west coasts.
I will not repeat what I said in January as to the special steps and special dispositions which had then been made to meet the conditions resulting from the outbreak of war with Japan. Those measures have been implemented. The new mobilizations which I have just indicated are by way of additional security. Our coast defences and anti-aircraft defences are being strengthened week by week as new equipment becomes available, and as new units already authorized complete their mobilization.
The house will understand that, for reasons of security, I cannot give the disposition of these new formations. It has, of course, to be recognized that the ultimate disposition of all troops necessarily depends upon circumstances which determine the course of the war. I can say, however, that both the troops and the equipment available will be disposed of to the very best advantage to meet any anticipated forms or scales of attack.
In the outline I gave of the war programme for the present year, I referred to the fact
that the air force, like the navy and the army, had its part in the territorial and coastal defence of Canada and Newfoundland. I added that the responsibilities of the air force on the Pacific coast had been increased by the outbreak of war with Japan. I stated that, in consequence of the increased responsibilities of the air force for territorial and coastal defence, some increase in the home war establishment of the Royal Canadian Air Force must be anticipated. While there are obvious reasons why precise details of the expansion of our air defences cannot be made public, it can be said that this expansion will involve marked increases in the number of combat squadrons, for reconnaissance, anti-submarine, striking, and fighter operations.
Some indication of the scale of expansion of the home war establishment of the R.C.A.F. is revealed by the rise in expenditures on air defences in Canada. These expenditures are exclusive of the cost of air training. The expenditures were:
In 1939-40 over $28,000,000.
In 1940-41 over $50,000,000.
In 1941-42 approximately $115,000,000. .
The estimates for 1942-43 were originally fixed at $233,000,000. Events since December 7 have led to a new survey, as a result of which this estimate has been raised to $315,000,000. Long range commitments have been made of an additional $120,000,000.
I might indicate some of the factors which have made this substantial increase possible. More aircraft are becoming available. Canadian production of combat aircraft is reaching its zenith. Orders placed some time ago in the United States are now being filled. It might be of interest for me to point out that by far the largest proportion of the aircraft will be provided by Canadian plants. The air crew and ground crew required for the expanded programme will be readily available. The British commonwealth air training plan is training pilots, observers and gunners in numbers sufficient to meet all our commitments to our partners in the plan, and, in addition, to provide fully for our home war establishment. Our requirements of ground crew are readily filled by voluntary recruitment. The technical ground crew training facilities are easily able to meet the additional demands placed upon them.
The construction of air fields and other defences presents no difficulties. The experience acquired during the years 1940 and 1941, in the construction of home war establishments, as well as air training schools and establishments, has made of the departments of transport and munitions and supply highly efficient and highly expeditious construction agencies. Most of the essential developments
War Appropriation

connected with the basic defence of our coasts are either completed or in process of completion. The projects this year will provide mainly for defence in greater depth, and for the development of satellite and auxiliary aerodromes.
The last thought or desire of the government would be to lull the people of our country into any false sense of security. No matter how complete our defences may be, we can never be sure of preventing the enemy from attempting some form of attack. To defeat such attempts we must utilize to the best advantage possible the men and equipment we have and are able to obtain.
It goes without saying that in any attempted attack on the north American continent, the joint United States-Canadian plans for defence would come into immediate operation. What I have said is, I trust, a sufficient indication that the security of our Canadian coasts is not only not being neglected but is being constantly increased and strengthened. I can assure the house that, keeping in mind strategic conditions elsewhere, the government is endeavouring, practically and vigorously, to strengthen Canada's defences by sea, land and air to meet any situation which is likely to arise.
Something has been said during the course of the present debate about the possibility of Canada sending a force to Australia. In connection with the utilization of the Canadian army there has been one principle which the government has invariably held to, and that is that our troops should serve where and in whatever way they can do the most good to the common cause.
We consulted with those with whom we are associated in the war effort as to how best we could help, and we undertook a programme accordingly, which I announced in January. We had full consultation with our military advisers, and in view of the obligations to which we had committed ourselves overseas, and having regard to the other factors involved, it did not appear to be in the interests of the combined war effort that Canada should undertake at this time the sending of an expeditionary force to Australia. There was the further important circumstance that such dispositions were properly the subject of consideration, not by Canada alone but by the combined chiefs of staff committee of the united nations. It goes without saying that we are most anxious to cooperate with our sister dominion in every practicable way at this time of danger, and we have examined and have communicated with Australia, respecting other forms of assistance.

What I have said does not mean that Canada, as far as the army is concerned, withdraws one iota from the attitude we have taken, namely, that Canada wants its troops to be used in whatever way and in whatever theatre it is considered they can make the most useful contribution. That has been and will continue to be our position. In addition to other statements on the subject, I, myself, have personally made that purpose abundantly clear to the United Kingdom government.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Prime Minister a question with regard to the latter part of his statement? He did not say anything about the Pacific council for which Australia has been pressing so strongly. Is the Prime Minister in a position to state whether Canada will ask that such a Pacific council be set up, and will ask for representation on that council?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The subject to which my hon. friend has just referred is a part of a larger subject, which is, the most effective kind of cooperation that can be arranged between the united nations, and in particular, between the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States.
As the house is well aware, the foundation of that cooperative effort was laid at the time of the visit of Mr. Churchill to Washington. Since then, very careful consideration has been given to what is likely in the long run to be best in the way of boards or councils on which the different parts of the empire, the United States, and the other united nations may be represented. There are advantages and disadvantages with respect to having all these boards or councils located in the United Kingdom; advantages and disadvantages in having them all located in the United States. What the countries concerned have been seeking to do is to weigh carefully, in the light of all considerations which should be taken into account, the best arrangement for furthering a common, cooperative effort.
In regard to the Pacific council, it was felt for some time that, having regard to strategic considerations in particular, the area which was immediately concerned was the southern Pacific and the far east, and that the nations which should be called into consultation in reference to matters likely to arise there, should be the nations that were more immediately concerned with that particular area.
May I say this, in a general way, that sometimes an individual achieves most, not by asserting himself too much, but by effacing himself, by taking into account the difficulties which others have and which have to be met,

War Appropriation
and by seeking as far as possible not to emphasize and increase those difficulties, but rather to minimize and lessen them and, as far as it is possible, overcome them. In that regard it is much the same with a nation as with an individual. One of the difficulties which presents itself respecting the appointment of a board or council which relates to any part of the British commonwealth is, that the commonwealth is composed of several self-governing nations and, where one part seeks representation on a particular board or council, unless it is possible to give the best of reasons why every other part of the commonwealth should not be similarly represented, a difficulty immediately presents itself.
I give that as an illustration of the kind of thing which has presented itself to the Prime Minister of Britain and his colleagues in deciding upon representation of certain nations of the commonwealth in Britain and the kind of thing of which we here have had to take account in considering whether we should be represented on a board or council in Washington rather than in London. Hon. members will see at once that, the minute Washington is preferred to London in the matter of representation on some board or council that has to do with war strategy and war policy, a question arises in the public mind, as to why Washington was chosen in preference to London.
Up to the present, and may I say, right along, we have taken the position as a government that, where we saw that Canada's interests were likely to be prejudiced in any particular, we have made strong protest and strong representations as to why we should be given representation which up to that time we had not had. But where we have had reason to believe that our position was such that it in no way was being prejudiced or impaired, we have sought, as I have said, not to raise or press matters which were likely to make a difficult situation more difficult, but rather to watch the situation and at the right moment gain the representation we wished.
That is, I think, pretty much the situation with regard to the matter of Canada's representation on a council at Washington at the present time, that the final arrangements in respect to that council have not yet been made as between Britain and the United States; but both know that Canada expects to have full representation, and we have no reason to believe that we shall not have the needed1 representation at the moment that it may be best to bring it into being.


Howard Charles Green: I raise the point because the Australian minister who is now visiting in
the United States is reported as having expressed the wish that Canada should have representation on that council; and for a Pacific coast Canadian it is of vital importance that we should be on that council. The situation has changed so much now, with the Malay States and Java gone, that I think Canada comes fairly into the Pacific picture and should be represented on that council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. But may I say to my hon. friend that I hope it will not be assumed, because we are not actually represented on any council, that we are not kept very fully informed with respect to all that is taking place and that Canada's interests in every particular are not being closely watched. We have our liaison officers at Washington; we have there the representatives of the different departments; we have our minister. We have similar representation in London. We are, I can say, kept informed day by day as to any matters of vital concern, The matter of the formal representation, in the long run, is something which relates only to the question of the right moment.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a fact that Australia and New Zealand, in addition to Great Britain, are already represented on the Pacific council?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the moment I cannot answer my hon. friend's question, because I am not sure whether both countries are being represented. I know that both expect to be represented, and they may be


Richard Burpee Hanson: The position in relation to the Pacific council as explained by the Prime Minister may be described as one of watchful waiting. I gather that so far Canada has not been asked to become a member of this council; and with that, I think, at the moment we shall have to be content. But there is no doubt that a large body of public opinion, especially in western Canada and of British Columbia-which opinion the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has presented in this house-thinks Canada as a Pacific power should be represented on that council. Whether or not that is possible at the moment, I do not know, and I do not propose to explore the position any further this afternoon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I hardly think the expression "watchful waiting" describes it, because our position has been strongly presented to the United Kingdom and the United States governments. They both are
War Appropriation

informed of our attitude and of our desires. Governments do not all move as rapidly as some people would like, and it is just a matter of the right moment of adjustment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Have we asked to be represented on the Pacific council, or how far has Canada gone? I will make that inquiry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will say we have, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Prime Minister did not make that clear in the statement he made. I am not saying it to be critical. I know that anyone in his position must speak with great care. Now I think we have had some clarification of the position.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When I say we have, I do not say we have pressed for it at this very moment, because we realize that there have been situations in England which require our point of view to be given there rather than in .the United States. But we have made it sure that we expect to be represented on the council in the United States if it is finally decided that the council is to continue there.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: 
James Layton Ralston: Or a post-war period.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or even a post-war period. After all, when you come down to the final analysis of this whole situation the winning of the war is the only thing that matters now. It is popular among certain classes in this country to cry out, "Oh, you must plan for a new world order." We have all given lip-service to that theory, but what kind of world are we going to have if we do not win this vrar?	,


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Slavery.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If we do not win this war, if Britain falls, if we cannot defend ourselves, if the United States cannot defend us, what kind of order are we going to have in Canada? There is only one answer to that; the Canadian people, irrespective of class, race or creed, must get right behind any and every effort that it is possible to make to win this war. And the government must give the leadership. I think the government is trying to give some leadership. I do not want anyone to believe that I am indulging in carping criticism. But I am glad to have the opportunity to unbosom my soul this afternoon on this matter, because it is borne in upon my conscience that this war situation as it affects Canada, as it affects the united nations certainly, has grown steadily worse. I was almost going to use the language used by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) the other day, that only a miracle can win this war. I do not say that, I say that the united will and purpose of the united nations can win this war if they and we will face the situation realistically. It would be all very well to set up committees on rehabilitation and talk about planned economies for the future if you knew that there was to be a future. But from the bottom of my heart I say to hon. members all over this house, let us win the war, and then see what kind of blueprint the best minds of this country can produce for the post-war period. Let us not be too sure that our opinions of to-day are the best opinions. We may all have to change our
War Appropriation

views. No nation, none of the united nations, were ever confronted with a situation which seems to change so rapidly, almost overnight. Economic changes will come, but who can say what they will be when the time comes that we can give practical effect to our ideas based on conditions that may then obtain?
When I came into the Chamber this afternoon I had no idea of making the statements I have just uttered. I intended to rise to call the attention of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) to some changes which I think should be made in the national war regulations. But I have no apology to make to this house or to the Canadian people for what I have said. I should like to commend to this house and to the people of Canada the thoughtful, able and challenging address made here earlier to-day by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenb&ker). I agree 100 per cent with nearly everything he has said. I know that there has been a sense of frustration in connection with the examination of the war expenditures of bygone days. I think it would be wise if these committees are to be reestablished, that they be open to the public, and that the whip should be taken off. I am told that the whips are there and that when the danger point is approached the lid is closed. That ought not to be, in the present situation.


Mr. GOLDING:: That is not true.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right;
I have not first-hand information. I was not present, but that is the report given to me by those who represented us on those committees. I am not going ito say anything more about it now.


Mr. McILRAITH:: Mr. Speaker-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wish to go on with my speech.


George James McIlraith: On a question of privilege in that connection, some hon. members here, and I was one, sat on that committee. No such pressure was exerted in any manner whatsoever on me as a member of the committee. I wish to make that perfectly clear. In saying what he has said I feel that the leader of the opposition tends to cast a reflection on the members who sat on the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, if the hon. member takes it that way I cannot help it, but does he say there was free wide-open discussion?


George James McIlraith: Yes, he does say so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not my information. I am content to leave it there.

My intention was to rise to-day in connection with what I am informed and believe are certain anomalies in the national war service regulations. I regret that the minister in charge of that department is not at the moment in his seat, because my remarks will be largely directed to him. He was here earlier in the afternoon, but is not here now.
It will be recalled ' by members of this house that the National Resources Mobilization Act was passed in June, 1940, after the fall of France; and that upon that act being passed a national registration was held, in August of that year. In my understanding, that was predicated upon the theory of a national stock-taking of the man and woman power of Canada at that time, and their availability for service. The cost of that registration was upwards of $900,000; and I am bound to say that so far the evidence of the results flowing from that registration has not been anything like commensurate with the expenditure involved and the effort expended, much of which was given to the country gratuitously. So far as I have been able to ascertain, practically speaking the only use that was made of the national registration was to draw out the cards of the men of military age. There may have been other uses; if there were, they have not been brought to my attention.
I pause here to direct the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the members of the government and the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) himself, to what to me is a rather astonishing answer to a question placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl) and answered in this house by the minister on March 9. If hon. members will turn to page 1115 of Hansard, they will see exactly what I mean. On that occasion the hon. member asked the government these questions:
1.	Has the government used the information obtained in the national registration to compile statistics which will show, (a) the number of skilled man-hours of work which are available; (b) the extent to which these hours of work are being utilized; (c) the manner in which they are being utilized; (d) the number of unskilled man-hours of work available; (e) the manner in which and the extent to which they are being utilized; (f) the extent to which the unskilled labour is being trained?
2.	If so, what statistics are available?
The answer brought down by the minister was "no", repeated seven times. Not only have they not used the information available; they have no statistics about anything. There is one thing to be said about that answer; it is frank; I assume that it is true, and there is no ambiguity about it. But it is an astonishing answer.

War Appropriation


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It deals with the matter of man-hours.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that; I read what it meant-man-hours, based on a statistical review of the registration, and nothing has been done with respect to that. It asks what is the available man and woman power in this country, in terms of hours, and nothing has been done about it. To me that is just an astonishing situation.
At the same time that the mobilization act was passed the Department of National War Services was created and set up; and on August 27, 1940, the national war services regulations were established. Later on they were consolidated and further amended and approved by order in council P.C. 1822 of March 18, 1941, and I think they have been further amended from time to time. As originally set up, the regulations provided for the military training of unmarried men within certain age groups for a period of only thirty days, which, as we all know, was later increased to four months. I shall refer only briefly to the reasons given at that time by the then chief of the general staff as to why the training was limited to only thirty days. Several reasons were given. The two important reasons were, first, that there was no equipment available for further training and, second, that the young men of Canada had to be taught a *sense of their national obligation. The only observation I desire to make with respect to that is that to me it was a very strange Teason to advance. I have made other observations in that connection, but I am not going to pause to repeat them to-day.
The set-up adopted in August, 1940, had to take into account the existing methods of military service in Canada, such as those furnished by the reserve militia units for the men and the training given at various Institutions under the officers' training corps. I am assuming, without being a student of military matters, that the regulations as then set up were appropriate to the conditions as they existed then, qua the thirty-day training period. Men carried on the strength of the *reserve militia units were considered as receiving the equivalent of thirty days of training at the different centres to which the age groups from twenty-one to twenty-four were to be called up.
Then came the extension of the war in practically every theatre and on almost every *continent which, of course, as conditions in the Department of National Defence *expanded and improved, led to the replacement of the thirty-day training plan by the four months plan, which, as everyone knows, was subsequently extended to training and
service for the duration of the war, but within Canada. As I stated before, the national war services regulations, first established in 1940, have been amended on several occasions, in particular on February 24, 1941, as approved by order in council I think in March of the same year. The dates are not very important. They were amended to deal with the additional service required.
This is the first point I want to make to the minister, and I hope what I have to say will be constructive and will receive the attention of himself and his officers. It has been represented to me that many of the rules and regulations which were reasonable at the time they were adopted in August, 1940, have no place under the existing system as it is now extended. The suggestion that is made to me in this connection is that many of these out-of-date regulations, if that is a proper term to apply to them, are now being used as loopholes which it is alleged encourage or enable persons to evade their responsibilities.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not think that is true.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the allegation that I get. In support of that allegation I received the other day a com-* munication from a gentleman whose patriotism and knowledge of military affairs are of the highest order. He was a soldier in the last war; he comes from a family which is perhaps noted for its patriotism. He served, and I believe is still serving, as the head of the citizens' recruiting committee for military district No. 4, which is Montreal. Recently he wrote a letter to the Montreal Star, a copy of which I hold in my hand and which I have no doubt has been brought to the attention of the minister. In this letter he points out that at present there are no less than seven training centres in military district No. 4, and that at these camps the young trainees called out for service in Canada are urged from time to time to join one of the active service units of their own selection. We know that is so, and we have heard on several occasions in this house of some of the methods used to attain that objective, but it is not my intention to pursue that topic at the moment.
It is alleged that the esprit de corps and spirit of sacrifice among these trainees would be immeasurably strengthened if the Department of National War Services were to rescind all those portions of the 1940 regulations which permit a way out for dodgers and slackers.
This gentleman goes on to point out some of the most important weaknesses in the regula-
War Appropriation

tions, and I am going to deal with them seriatim. I am not doing it in any spirit of criticism. I think this may be helpful to the minister.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I should like to assure
the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) that any constructive suggestions which will make the regulations more workable, more adaptable, for the purposes for which they were framed will be cordially welcomed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So far so good-we are met on common ground. This is the first suggestion made.
1.	That men of the trainee ages who were on the strength of a reserve unit on August 15, 1940, have not been made liable for service in Canada for the duration if they have been attending parades of their reserve units.
I understand

the minister may correct me- that this position is still recognized; and if this excuse still obtains, the position should be changed. It is not good enough.
2.	As I understand it, the exemption and postponement provisions of regulation 17, headed "University and College Students," enables students attending a university Canadian officers' training corps to avoid full-time compulsory military service in Canada. In
* fact, subsection 4 of regulation 17 goes so far as to give complete exemption from service to a student who is qualified by training in this corps to be a commissioned officer in the naval, military or air forces of Canada; that is, unless he has agreed to go on active service in consideration for the special training he has received at the country's expense. It is represented that young men are now taking these courses at the expense of the public without undertaking to serve Canada either here or anywhere the authorities may need them. That is the allegation. That would seem to me to be a wrong position, and if it is the situation it should be corrected. I want to follow that a little further.
In addition, it is represented that the existing regulations permit a partial student in a special course-after all, that may be only colour-or a post-graduate student in a profession not connected with any war activities to be taken on the strength of a university officers' training corps and claim similar exemption privileges. I believe that is true. Why? I ask that question. I suggest that that position is capable of great abuse.
All this, I am told, tends to cause resentment among those called out for the duration who are not able to bring themselves within these special provisions, and it is suggested to me that these rules permit those who are better off financially and who are indifferent to their

obligations to escape from doing their duty at this time of national peril. I suggest to the minister, therefore, that the time has passed when this country should go to the expense of further qualifying young men as officers unless they are prepared to join up in the active service forces. This would appear to be just to those in the ranks of the Canadian active army in Canada and abroad which is full of men who have earned the right to be selected and trained for commissioned rank.
It is further suggested that the presence of potential officer material in the ranks of the various training centres would act as a stimulus to the morale of the men.
I suggest to the minister that regulation 17 can be and has been abused. It should be tightened up, for otherwise, as time goes on, it will be more and more abused. I am not going to fathom the whole depth of the abuses. We can use a little of our imaginations. The appropriate department should take the necessary steps to correct this -position and make the thing airtight.
3.	I suggest to the minister that it is a recognized principle that in all compulsory wat- regulations, in so far as humanly possible, everyone affected by an order should be treated alike, and in calling out -men for service in the armed forces the medical -category into which a trainee is put is -a matter of the first-rate importance.
Under regulation 12, which deals with medical examination, the decision is left in the first place to the judgment of a single -civilian medical practitioner. We -have heard of abuses in certain parts of the country where treatments -have been handed out so as to lower the categories of those called up. I do not know whether that is true or not.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Will the hon. gentleman give any instance of that in respect of trainees?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I only know what I read in the papers and what the minister himself and his department must have read. I simply state that there are reports to that effect, but I have no specific instance and I am making no charge.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There is no truth in the report.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hope there is no truth in the report; but how did it get abroad? The Canadian Press is a reliable organization and it gives credence to this report. I suggest to the minister that where there is smoke there is some fire. I am going to leave it at that. The minister gives the report a flat denial. I wonder just how he

War Appropriation
knows there is no truth in the report. He cannot possibly know. He can only say what somebody else has told him.
I am dealing with the first examination of a trainee. He goes to a single civilian medical practitioner of his own choice. I am afraid that in certain and, I hope, isolated cases that power has been abused.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: If there has been any abuse on the part of doctors, I, as minister of the department, would welcome any particulars. Charges have been made with regard to some practising physicians, and these charges have invariably been investigated. I am glad to be able to say that the investigations of these charges show that there is no foundation for them and that the physicians of this country are discharging their duties in an honest manner.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister can make his statement when I am finished. I am going on with my statement and I do not care what the minister says. This is a charge made by a responsible civilian recruiting agent who had probably more first-hand information than the minister can possibly have.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is he?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not mentioned his name, but he is well known to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) who could vouch for his character. It is true that if the registrar is not satisfied he may order a reexamination. In the days of the thirty-day training period, the regulation was of no particular consequence because of the short period of training; but now that the period of training and service has been extended for the whole duration of the war, and the men are retained in the service, I suggest to the minister that the regulation puts too much power and responsibility in the hands of one civilian physician. I think it would be a good thing to abolish this practice and appoint medical boards made up of three full-time army officers to decide whether these men fall within categories A, B, C, D or E. That is a specific recommendation I make. I suggest to him that as things get tighter and more men are required, if we are to follow up the present practice of recruiting, they will have to come to that. Why not face the situation now?


James Layton Ralston: So far as I know, this comes under my colleague's department, but I have inquired about the same thing. I think the only reason given-and here I may be wrong-was that men are located in individual communities all over the place.
If they had to come to a training centre and then were turned down and had to go back, it would be a lot of trouble for nothing. This principle was adopted, as is said, under the thirty-day plan.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think there could have been so much objection under the thirty-day plan, but I heard over the radio the other night an announcement made in connection with recruiting for the Royal Canadian Air Force, and it was stated that they were carrying along with them an army doctor. The man is examined right on the spot.


James Layton Ralston: That is different.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There may be some difference, but the principle is just the same.


James Layton Ralston: For the men called up for training you would have to have the boards acting all at once.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know it is not quite the same. I was suggesting that the theory upon which this was set up no longer serves, and that proper medical boards should be appointed.


James Layton Ralston: You will find no objection from the army.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You mean to say, if that recommendation is carried out?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister ought to back me up. He is not doing it very strongly. Apparently he supports the theory I am advocating.


James Layton Ralston: It is really a matter of practical ability to carry it out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know, but what is money between friends in this war effort? Money does not mean a thing in this war effort. I do not mean to say that we approve extravagant expenditures; we do not. We stand for the principle of equality of service. A man should not be put in a lower category when he ought to be in a higher category. We should see that he is put in the right category.
My fourth question is in reference to the interpretation section, or that part having to do with key men, training period and war industry. I have often wondered how a man between the ages of twenty to twenty-five years could be considered a key man in industry. He may be a key man on the farm, but I doubt very much if any twenty-year-old man can be a key man in industry. I suggest that consideration ought to be given to this. Then "training period" is defined to be such
War Appropriation

period as may be ordained by such proclamation. That may have been all right when the period was thirty days, or even when it was four months, but it does not fit the facts to-day when we are dealing with service for the duration. I am going to omit some of the comments I had intended to make.
The next definition is that of students. I suggest that a new definition to cover bona fide students is required. In drafting this new definition regard should be had to those students proceeding to take medical degrees as opposed to those taking other professional courses. The announcement of the Minister of National Defence of aid to medical students who will go into the army indicates that the department is alive to the necessity of more doctors for national service, but I do not suggest that we need more lawyers or architects or engineers or preachers. I do not know whether I should include other professions, but we certainly do not need any more lawyers in this country.
To sum up, it is represented that because of some of the anomalies to which I have referred in the present regulations, and certain deficiencies in the rules, inequality of service results, and that acts as a deterrent to enlistment in the three fighting forces. I call upon the minister at this time of grave national emergency and necessity to remove all existing anomalies, inequalities and loopholes. These reforms are long overdue.
I should like to say a word or two about the regulations generally. There does not seem to be any elasticity in the regulations. There is no flexibility and I think the whole position should be reviewed. I know there are grave dangers, but if the proper boards are set up I think the advantage of flexibility will out-weight any other disadvantages.
I had intended to say something about the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister on man-power mobilization. This is a huge subject matter which requires a great deal of thought and much more knowledge than I possess at the moment. I have not even been able to read the Prime Minister's statement, let alone study the orders in council. But I will say this: what I understand of the announcement does not nearly measure up to the advance press notices. I am convinced now that government propaganda is not factual, but is propaganda pure and simple. The statement made by the Prime Minister, as opposed to the advance notices, indicates that the policy has been whittled down to a degree. Considerable teeth have been taken out. That is the first observation I want to make.

My second observation is that it is apparent that the government is approaching the problem of man-power for the army and other services by the indirect route rather than by the direct approach. According to the Prime Minister, we are to have an extended national selective service plan, designed to accelerate Canada's war effort through application of what he terms the "negative compulsion of restriction". I am not going to pause to analyse what that high-sounding phrase means, but it is opposed to the positive compulsion of allocation. The young men of this country between the ages of nineteen and thirty-five are in effect told definitely that they are to join the army or starve.
Then there is a policy with respect to farmers, which I have not quite analysed yet. But I shall say this, that the steps announced by the Prime Minister yesterday fall far short of complete national selective service. They are steps in the right direction, and good steps, but they do not go the whole way. Food production is being taken care of, and of course that is very important, not only to sustain the morale of our civilian population but also the armed forces, and to feed our gallant defenders overseas.
Employment in a restricted list of nonessential occupations is to be curbed-what the Minister of Labour is reported to have termed the "golden slipper" jobs-a striking phrase, and one which sounds well, though I do not know how much it means; nobody knows. Authority is given to the Minister of Labour to obtain skilled technicians for war work. But this I say, in criticism of the plan, and in the hope that it will stimulate the government to go further: the plan appears to fall short of making provision certain that every job which has to be filled will be filled by the most competent man. Without this, any plan fails.


Thomas Vien: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Carried.


Thomas Langton Church: I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Vien in the chair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, it is not earned. The debate was adjourned by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). He has been waiting to speak.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or by one hon. member. The motion is not carried. I object.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Angus MacInnis: Will not the two billion dollar resolution also have to go into committee if we are to make an interim appropriation of $500,000,000?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Angus MacInnis: That will put all the
resolutions in the same category?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, that is not necessary. It is necessary that the resolution should be before the house. It has been before the house and is before the house on the order paper for consideration in committee of the whole. We could not have got the proportion voted if the resolution itself had not been introduced and a motion made to have it discussed in committee.


Thomas Langton Church: I cannot make my speech in committee. I gave way this afternoon to two or three other speakers, to let them go on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest to you that there was in the hands of Mr. Speaker a whole list of speakers. The balance has been upset by the intervention of the Prime Minister this afternoon-which was quite right; he should speak-and perhaps I spoke longer than I should; but I do not think that we should rush through this debate. We shall get through on Friday by six o'clock.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.	But there is the
senate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh! Well, I should not laugh at that. The hon. gentleman is concerned for the senate!


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not concerned with the senate, but I am concerned with the money to carry on the war, and I cannot get it unless I get a bill through this house and a bill through the senate. What I would suggest-if this would meet the convenience of the house-is that this $135,000,000 measure be carried through all stages to-morrow, and also that the $500,000,000 interim supply, which is No. 12 on the order paper, and the supplementary estimates which are before the committee of the whole, and the interim one-sixth of the main estimates, go through all stages to-morrow. If those are all through by to-morrow night they can go to the senate and the senate can pass those bills on Friday. Meanwhile no one will be prejudiced in the slightest degree, because there will still be the two billion dollar resolution, which is in committee, and discussion can go on upon that all day, every day. I am not asking the house to do anything which prejudices any single hon. member or prevents any hon. member from making a speech which he desires to make. But I suggest that that would be a businesslike way of dealing with this matter, and I am merely asking the house to carry out the programme which I suggested a little over a week ago it would be necessary for us to carry through before Easter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So far as I am concerned, I promised the minister a week ago that I would help him to get these measures through before the house adjourned. I am in honour bound to help him do that; and if the government wants to do it this way, why, I am content. I cannot, I should not, do anything else.


Howard Charles Green: Is there not to be any statement made by the Minister of National Defence? We can sit in committee to-morrow on this resolution.


James Layton Ralston: I am prepared to make the statement at any time, but really I may be pardoned if I suggest that the Minister of National Defence will endeavour to make a statement at such time as may be opportune. I do not think that it is up to any hon. member to bid him at any time to make a statement. The leader of the opposition suggested the other evening that a statement be made by the ministry. The statement has been made by the Prime Minister. As the Minister of Finance has
War Appropriation

indicated, there will be ample opportunity in connection with the two billion dollar resolution to make any statement and to discuss in full the matter of the carrying on of the war; but I do suggest that it seems to be a waste of valuable time to do that twice-on this resolution and on the other one too.
I have talked to my hon. friend a good many times and he has heard me make a good many statements. I do not know that my voice is so pleasing to him that I should get up just for the purpose of making a statement; if I made one, there are three ministers of national defence, and all of them should make statements if one did. But we thought that in connection with this war appropriation bill we would endeavour to proceed in some order, for the convenience of hon. members and of the ministers, too. Last year, you will remember, the three ministers sat here day after day. Questions were asked one minute with regard to air, another minute with regard to the navy, and another minute regarding the army. It meant' that we could not have our officers here at any particular time, and we had to be prepared for almost anything, and I must admit that, so far as the army was concerned., I felt that the matter was not presented in the form which was most satisfactory either to the house or myself. This year I did hope that we would arrange in connection, with the two billion dollar appropriation resolution to have one department taken at a time and exhaust the subject as nearly as possible, in the manner which would be adopted if departmental estimates were under consideration. That would apply to the minister of munitions also. If we have to get into a general discussion of the three departments in connection with the supplementary bill with regard to last year, and have to do it all over again on the new bill, we do not have the same order nor do we get an opportunity of presenting the matter in as logical and orderly a fashion as otherwise, and I do not think it would be as convenient for the members. If the citizens read the reports, it would not be as satisfactory to them either. My hon. friend suggested that I might make a statement at the moment. I do not see the need of making a statement on this resolution. I have heard two speeches, the speech delivered by my hon. friend, and the speech made by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough, and certain suggestions have been mad$ with regard to reserve units, home guards and some other matters. I shall deal with those at the proper time, but is there any hurry about dealing with them before Friday?


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister deal with
them before the house adjourns on the 27th?

Mr. -RALSTON: It depends upon what the questions are.


Howard Charles Green: The minister knows what
suggestions have been made in the house in this debate and I want to know whether or not it will be possible for him or some other minister to deal with them before we adjourn on the 27th.


James Layton Ralston: I shall endeavour to deal with matters that I think should be dealt with before the 27th. I say this with all due respect to my hon. friend, who made a very constructive speech indeed, that most of these things he spoke of are being dealt with in one shape or another. He talks about home guard; we talk about coast guards. It is the same thing. If it is necessary that I make a statement with regard to a matter of that kind I shall be glad to do so, but I shall have to reserve the right to decide what I think is important enough to be dealt with at this time, particularly in view of the fact that we shall be coming back shortly to be engaged in a discussion in connection with the whole matter all over again.


Howard Charles Green: Will there be an opportunity for discussion to-morrow?


James Layton Ralston: The Minister of Finance will answer that question.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the three ministers of defence make statements to-morrow I shall never get these interim supply bills through. I suggested a week ago that they should, go through quickly by consent and that we could go into the two billion dollar bill and the ministers could make their statements, so that we could have an orderly discussion. The hon. member for Vancouver South would not agree to that course because be wanted to make a speech with the Speaker in the chair on this supplementary appropriation. I had no power to dissent from that. He made his speech and a great number of other speeches were made with the Speaker in the chair, and I had no power to .prevent their being made, nor did I desire to prevent these speeches being made.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: And they were all within the rules.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. But I asked the house -and I gave ample notice-to have these important supplementary and interim measures go through parliament before the recess, and that means that they will have to be through before to-morrow night. I do not think my hon. friend can get the advantage of both courses of procedure which he is asking. He has insisted on making his speech with the Speaker in the ohair, rather than follow
MARCH 25, m2
Questions
my suggestion of putting these interim supplementary measures through by consent. If he had agreed to that course we could have gone on with the two billion dollar measure and the ministers could have made their statements and have been questioned if that were desired. But if the ministers are to make their statements on this, then we shall not get through. I am asking the house to let me get this through to-morrow night, and when the two billion dollar bill comes on such statements can be made as there is time in which to make them.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention of the Minister of Finance that his resolutions and bills shall go through by consent to-morrow and following that, and for the rest of the sitting until we adjourn on Friday, the two billion dollar resolution will be under dis-cusssion with the house in committee of the whole? Is that the intention?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps we could make some arrangement about one minister coming on at a time.


Thomas Langton Church: Why were these war items not given precedence by the Minister of Finance, instead of taking up grain and the plebiscite? War is primary; these others are domestic and secondary.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
It being twenty minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 26, 1942