Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have been notified by two members of the vacancy caused in the electoral district of Winnipeg North Centre by the death of J. S. Woodsworth.
And I have sent my warrant to the chief electoral officer for the issue of a writ for a new election.



THE PLEBISCITE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware the voting with respect to the removal of restrictions on the government aris-

The Plebiscite
ing out of past commitments as to the method of raising men for service overseas takes place on Monday of next week.
I believe hon. members generally feel it would be of assistance to others if they were privileged to be in their constituencies on Monday, at the time the vote is being taken. I am sure it would greatly facilitate the work of organization if they could be present in their constituencies not only on the day of actual polling but as well a day or two in advance. As the house does not sit on Saturday or Sunday, and as the sitting on Friday is only for a half day, in the opinion of the government it would be of real assistance if hon. members could be in their constituencies one or two days immediately preceding the taking of the vote, as well as on the day on which the actual vote is taken.
We realize of course that in provinces which are some distance from the capital it might not be possible for hon. members to return to their constituencies. However if the house were to adjourn on Thursday evening, after concluding Thursday's proceedings, only half a day in the present week would be lost, and the only day in the next week would be Monday, the day of polling.
In those circumstances during my absence the acting leader of the government communicated with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and the leaders of the two other parliamentary groups with respect to ascertaining their views as to adjourning for the time indicated, and I am informed there appears to be general agreement that an arrangement of that kind would be satisfactory.
If I were to make a motion at this time unanimous consent of the house would be required. If unanimous consent were not given I would give notice of the motion in to-day's Votes and Proceedings, and if discussion were desired it could be discussed later. But I believe it would perhaps be to the advantage of all if a decision could be arrived at immediately.
The leader of the opposition has, I understand, been kind enough to intimate that he is prepared to second the motion I may make in this connection, and I wish to thank him for so doing. In the circumstances, with the consent of the house I move, seconded by the leader of the opposition:
That when the house adjourns on Thursday, the 23rd instant, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, the 28th instant.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I had not understood that I was to second this motion, but I shall say at once that when the matter was brought to my attention late last week I agreed with the substance of the proposal
now before the house. I am so strongly impressed by the urgent necessity of an affirmative vote by the people of Canada on Monday next to release the government from its commitments that I think it of very great importance that all hon. members who think as I do should be in their constituencies for the vote, and should exercise all the influence they can through personal contact with the voters in those districts.
I regret that the idea did not germinate sooner, because some hon. members from western Canada would like to participate as well. Obviously that is now impossible. However, for the reasons I have given, those outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and others which must be obvious to every hon. member, I suggest that unanimous consent be given.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I too gave approval
to the suggestion when it was telephoned to me by the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty). But in doing so I had considerable misgiving. I felt that some hon. members adjacent to this city might be able to assist in bringing out an effective vote, and that we should place nothing in their way if they were so disposed. But we had had a very long recess, during which we had all been in touch with our constituents, and it seemed to me that we should have done everything then that we felt it necessary to do to this end.
I also regret that the intimation was not given until Friday of last week, which made it impossible for those coming from western Canada to remain in their constituencies. I feel that paihament at this session has been lagging in the work that has to be done. So far no war expenditures committee has been appointed. The committee on radio has not met, and we have a large amount of committee work ahead of us. I believe the general feeling throughout the country is that we are not making the progress, with regard to measures relating to the war, that we ought to be making. It is my view that this feeling of dissatisfaction with this parliament may be reflected in the vote on Monday next. I urge the government to see to it that we do not further delay our proceedings, that the committees which ought to be sitting be appointed forthwith, and that we get down to the business of the session more expeditiously than we have done during the past two months.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I have no particular comment to make upon the short adjournment, but I am wondering if it would not be in order for the Prime

The Plebiscite

Minister to make a statement as to where the members of parliament are to vote in case they do not happen to be in their constituencies on voting day.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): I am not opposed to the motion that the Prime Minister has moved, seconded by the leader of the opposition, but I do object strongly to the words the Prime Minister used in explaining this motion. He said that the vote was to be taken for the purpose of deciding on the recruiting of men for overseas service-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. HOMUTH:: -or getting men overseas. Yes, the Prime Minister said that. If the Prime Minister will have Hansard read his statement he will see that he referred to the raising of men for overseas service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Unless my
memory has failed me completely, I think my hon. friend will see that the words I used were the words of the question that is being asked.	[DOT]


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I beg the Prime Minister's pardon, he did not use the words in that way. For three weeks hon. members of this house, and particularly members of the opposition, have been going out, not only organizing their own ridings but trying to organize other ridings where there was not the same enthusiasm for a "yes" vote by members of the government as there is by members of the opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: They have been out
organizing these ridings with the idea-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: -of getting a "yes" vote.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nobody wants you in his riding.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I would not go into yours anyway because you would not be of any help to anyone. Let me say this: the very words of the Prime Minister will do a great deal to defeat what we have been telling the people, that it is not a question of voting to raise men for overseas service or for conscription, that the purpose of the vote is to release the government from a pledge which it made and that the question of overseas service is entirely a question for the House of Commons. I say in all sincerity that I think the words of the Prime Minister were not the best words to use in bringing forward this motion.
{Mr. Blackmore.J


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that the words that I intended to use, the words that I thought I had used, were the words that will appear on the voting paper on Monday next. If I did not use substantially those words I was entirely unconscious of not having done so and I thank my hon. friend for drawing my attention to it. I assure him that those are the words I intended to use and that I would wish to have used.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Stella Kathleen Marguerite Winnall Barwick.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Joyce Elizabeth Blackburn Gordon.-Mr. Hanson (Skeena).
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Kate Elizabeth Laidlaw McNiven.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Margaret Livingstone Turnbull Woodard.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Dorothy Sunsheine Steirman Cooke.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Doris Golt Rosner.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Anna Pohopoluck Yacobchalc.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Myer Levine. -Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of George Sutherland Cameron, junior.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Fred Caflow.- Mr. Hill.

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

Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	What proportion of (a) the officers, (b) the ratings of the Royal Canadian Navy are serving at sea?
2.	What proportion of (a) the officers, (b)
the	ratings	of	the	Royal	Canadian	Naval
Reserve are serving at sea?
3.	What proportion of (a) the officers, (b)
the	ratings	of	the	Royal	Canadian	Naval
Volunteer Reserve are serving at sea?
4.	How many officers without previous naval experience have been granted commissions in the naval forces as lieutenants or lieutenant-commanders ?
5.	What are the names of such persons?

Questions


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: 1.	R.C.N. permanent (a) 43-8 per cent; (b) 48-2 per cent. R.C.N. temporary (a) 8-5 per cent; (b) 26-4 per cent.
2.	R.C.N.R. (a) 58-3 per cent; (b) 54-6 per cent.
3.	R.C.N.V.R.,	(a)	44-7 per cent; (b)
38-4 per cent.
4.	R.C.N.R. (lieutenant-commanders), 8; (lieutenants), 149. R.C.N .V.R. (lieutenant-commanders), 8; (lieutenants), 613.
The above officers include many officers who are employed in special branches, eg., surgeons, technicians, accountants and many other special forms of work. Many of them while without formal naval experience have had nautical experience.
Royal Canadian Naval Reserve Lieutenant-commanders
Robert McGregor (E.), Allan Reddock (E.), Albert R. Francis, Archibald Hunter (E.), Andrew E. Shott (E.), Andrew Russell (E.), Walter L. Styring, Joseph L. Dunn (E.).
Lieutenants
Samuel Hermans (E.), James B. Kieran, William Mahan, William S. Webb (E.), Samuel Seymour (E.), Bent G. Sivertz, Alexander V. Wells (E.), James F. Douglas (E.), James W. Carter, Frank Roberts, William E. Simpson, Thomas Fife (E.), Gordon E. Fleetwood1 (E.), Richard R. Teasdale (E.), Andrew L. B. Alexander (E.), Henning E. Christensen (E.), Harold L. Purcell (E.), Harold S. C. McComb v(E.), Andrew R. Fleming (E.), Fred Burton (E.), James R. Ross (E.), Thomas S. Wilson (E.), Victor H. Torraville, Marcus H. Roberts, Roy M. Mosher, Aubrey W. Ford, Richard Jaskson, Henry N. Bonnell (E.), George P. Fowlie (E.), Edmond W. T. Surtees, John W. Dowling, Matthew Russell, Charles G. Sauter, William Turner, William B. Crichton (E.), Walter Hichens-Smith (E.), Svend A. Keat (Pay.), Walter Russell, Frederick J. Day, John A. McKenna, Dermot T. English, Michael J. Strous (Pay.), John Bulmer (E.), James R. McClelland (E.), Henry S. Salt (E.), John A. Forsyth (E.), William S. Creese, Arthur Moorhouse, Roy S. Kelly, Joseph S. Scott, Charles P. Balfry, John E. Clayton, Douglas N. Cameron, Francis O. Gerity, James F. Magill (E.), Fulton T.
(E.)-Engineer.
(Pay.)-Paymaster. (S.B.)-Special branch. (Surg.)-Surgeon.
44561-noi
Williams, Gordon C. Roberts, Clifford Winterbottom, John S. Horam, George M. Kaiser, William D. Brown (E.), Leslie P. Denny, William F. Wood, Robert F. Swain (E.), William W. McMurtry, Charles T. Brinkman (E.), John Harding, Eric R. Shaw, Harry G. Denyer, John Wallace, Alistair I. MacKay, Allan H. Easton, Augustus Tulk (E), John C. Littler, William W. Hackney, Gerald Lancaster, John W. Bonner, John H. P. Davies, William Black, Leslie L. Foxall, Colin J. Angus, James P. Fraser, James A. Tullis, Thomas B. Edwards, James M. Gillison, John H. S. McDonald, Alexander D. Landles, Edward M. More, Robert L. Inglis (E.), James Cuthbert, Antoine H. Cassivi, Harry Freeland, William E. Harrison, William
R.	Stacey, William Crowley (E.), Ronald J. Herman, James Bevan, Allan V. Taylor, John C. Barbour, James A. H. Stewart, Lewis D. Quick, John J. Hodgkinson, Thomas
J.	Bellas, Henry A. Russell, George S. Hall, Philip C. Evans, John B. Clarke (E.), John
C.	McCarty, John H. Newbigging (E.), George
F.	W. Hudson, Victor B. Glover (E.), Henry N. Renwick (E.) Harold M. Rosser (E.), Douglas
K.	Miller (E.), Frederick J. Rennie (E.), William Stuart (E.), Donald E. Holmes (Pay.), William E. Adamson (Pay.), Roy G. Everest, William Reay (E.), William A. Orwin, John G. Hughes, Douglas Trail, Herbert W. Draney, Leonard J. Nairn (Pay.), Frederick N. Eddy, Alexander Brown (E.), Douglas W. Main, Harold H. Rankin, Lachlan F. McQuarrie, Anthony H. G. Storrs, Raiffe D. Barrett, Wildred Davenport, John Morrison, Walter
G.	Johnstone, Richard Sullivan (E.), Ronald
0.	McKenzie, Henry M. Kennedy, Thomas D. Kelly, Alfred B. Arnison, William H. Koughan, Herbert L. Elliott (E.), James A. MacDonald, Ivor J. L. Palmer, Douglas K. M. Graham, (Pay.), Thomas F. T. Moreland (Pay.), Albert R. Ascah, John Evelyn, George E. DeWolfe (Pay.).
Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve Lieutenant-commanders Charles H. Best (Surg.), James Adam (E.), Alfred L. C. Atkinson (S.B.), Duncan K. MacTavish (S.B.), Kellogg S. Maclachlan, Pierre F. Boudreault (E.), Charles F. Wilkins, Robert P. Besant (E).
Lieutenants
Eric E. F. Loyd (S.B.), Albert Logette (S.B.), John J. Schull (S.B.), John D. S. Cromarty (Pay.), Alfred O. Tate (S.B.), Kenneth G. Fosbery (S.B.), Charles H. Little,
(E.)-Engineer.
(Pay.)-Paymaster.
Questions

Douglas W. Jackson (S.B.), William P. Wallace (S.B.), Earl R. Hope (SB.), Donald R. H. MacDonald (SJB.), Charles W. Skarstedt (S.B.), Reginald S. Strong (S.B.), Algy S. Noad (S.B.), Howard C. Aikman (S.B.), Eric J. Downton (S.B.), William H. Pugsley (Pay.), Guy C. DeWolf, Edward T. Sherwood, Ralph
S.	Simpson, Roy C. Denny, Ronald L. Denton (Surg.), George Carter (S.B.), John H. C. McClelland (Surg.), Donald Y. Solandt (Surg.). Lloyd G. Hisey (Surg.), John E. de Belle (Surg.), James Campbell (S.B.), Charles W. Donaldson (Pay.), William J. Bicihan, Alfred
C.	Bethune (S.B.), John R. Millard (S.B.), Alexander Brown (Pay.), Ernest G. Lay (S.B.), Hugh A. McIntosh (S.B.), Clarence
B.	Campbell (S.B.), James Carlisle (S.B.) William D. Nesbit (S.B.), Frederick W. R. Angus (S.B.), Harry S. Severs (S.B.), Stanley
I.	Comach (S.B.), Everard C. Mercer (S.B.), Beverley F. Macauley (S.B.), William Rhind (S.B.), Alfred E. Howe (S.B.), George Noble (S.B.), Reginald C. Barnsley (S.B.), William P. Kellett (S.B.), Albert E. Smith (S.B.), Robert G. Gavin (S.B.), George A. Boutilier (S.B.), William Freeman (S.B.), John A. Warr (S.B.), Frederick I. Dyke (S.B.), Francis L. Philpott (S.B.), James P. Barker, Albert H. Simmonds (S.B.), Thomas E. Leigh, John P. Singleton, Maurice S. Frayne (S.B.), Alexander T. G. Durnford, Gordon M. Tibtensor (S.B.), John S. Cooper (E.), Richard H. Scrivener (E.), Hugh Wallace (S.B.), Joseph Jeffery (Pay.), Keith C. Cooper (Pay.), James B. Smith (Pay.), Robert L. Bishop (S.B.), Ian N. MacKay, Russell C. Twining, William W. Chipman (S.B.), Victor E. Bissett (S.B.), Harold S. McNeice, Godfrey T. S. Archbold, Frederick J. Child, Walter A. Thomson (Pay.), Keith C. Sedgman (Pay.), Steven A. Clemens (Pay.), Kevin J. Meagher (Pay.), Louis D. Mahoney (S.B.), Colin D. Campbell (S.B.), Louis A. Bown (S.B.), Gerald T. Richardson (S.B.), Ronald L. Williams (S.B.), John B. Graham, James 0. Merchant, Aubrey E. Josey, Louis T. Morin, Walter C. MacKenzie (Surg.), Audley A. Giflin (Surg.), Walter M. Paton (Surg.), Herbert T. Collison, Claude M. Kirk (Surg.), Wilfred T. MacNicholl (Surg.), Stanley F. Blundell (Surg.), George E. Large (Surg.), Hewitt H. W. Brooke (Surg.), William B. Wallace (Surg.), Joseph J. Michon (Surg.), John H. Woodruff (Surg.), Hubert F. MacDonald (Surg.), John A. Lewis (Surg.), Isadore C. Pollack (Pay.), James L. Duncan (Pay.), Frank B. Barclay, Godfrey Harrison, Thomas D. F. Farmer (Surg.), Christopher
(S.B.)-Special branch. (Surg.)-Surgeon.

Ussher, John B. Oxner, Kenneth D. McAlpine, Horace V. Denyer (S.B.), John M. Constable, Andre M. J. G. Legendre, Frederick B. Barrow (Pay.), Archibald G. Hodge (S.B.), Louis de la C. Audette, Richard L. Nixon (Pay.), Douglas H. Craighead (S.B.), John W. Braidwood, John S. Davis, Thomas G. Denny, William Evans, Dudley G. King, Ian McLeod, Frederick R. K. Naftel, Edward
T.	Simmons, Ralph B. Warwick, John S. O'Neal, Kenneth Birtwistle, James A. Ramsay, John W. Frost (Surg.), Fred J. O'Connell (Pay.), William J. Riddiford (Pay.), Joseph P. Lee, Edward M. Deschamps, Gerald M. Hewlett, Louis O. Campbell, Julius E. Forster, Eric M. Lloyd-Young, Alfred M. Linkletter, WTUiam D. Flatt (Surg.), Rene Gervais (Pay.), Francis J. Kelly (S.B.), Thomas M. Sheehan, Richard J. Johnstone, Frederick W. Bogardus, Glyn Rees-Thomas, Philip C. Townsend, William M. Taylor, Alexander G. Smith (Surg.), James P. Robb (Surg.), Reginald N. Ripley (S.B.), Kenneth B. Blakey, Carl R. Sandey, Frank Willcox, St. Clair Balfour, Gordon T. Southam, Kenneth W. With, Frank
E.	Waterman, John H. B. Gann, Sydney B. Thomas (S.B.), James J. Smith (S.B.), Martin
H.	Ellis, John E. Horne (S.B.), Charles H. R. Fox (S.B.), Chesley M. Oake (Surg.), George E. Verity (Surg.), John W. MacLeod (Surg.), Donald S. Mitchell (Surg.), Frederick G. W. MacHattie (Surg.), John L. Johnston (Surg.), Ernest D. MacCharles (Surg.), Gaetan Jarry (Surg.), Roderick C. Ross (Surg.), Frederick M. Woolhouse (Surg.), John R. Smith (Surg.), Karl A. Garten (Surg.), John W. Rogers (Surg.), George A. Hendry (Surg.), James F. Elliott (Surg.), Adelard E. Trottier (Surg.), Marvin C. Wellman (Surg.), Charles M. Learmonth (Surg.), John R. Wilson (Surg.), Arnold L. Johnston (Surg.), Robert M. MacDonald (Surg.), Newell W. Philpott (Surg.), Duncan H. Starkey (Surg.), Lawrence P. Little (Surg.), Donald L. McRae (Surg.), William G. Breckenridge (Surg.), Alexander
D.	Campbell (Surg.), Morton B. George (Surg.), William R. V. Laing (Surg.), Charles
D.	Keeley (Surg.), James L. McGerrigle (Pay.), Jack R. Anderson (Pay.), Harold P. Connor, Alfred E. Zealley (S.B.), Daniel B. Angus (S.B.), George F. Poirier (S.B.), Leonard Kuypers (E.), James A. Falconer, Ross M. Hanbury, Esward M. Ryan, Bertram M. Tate, Frederick H. Toller, James Childs (E.), Reginald F. Hawley (S.B.), Carson E. Johnson, Donald C. MacKay (Pay.), Charles D. W. Rowlings (Pay.), Hugh R. Macklin (S.B.), Reginald F. Walsh, James
(E.)-Engineer.
(Pay.)-Paymaster.

Questions
M. Hendry (Pay.), Hugh C. Grant (Pay.), Arthur Stocker (S.B.), Thomas J. Brown, Clarence W. Warner (SIB.), William F. Gray, John D. Barbour, James P. Thornton (SJ3.), William Just, George Buckley, Denis Harvey, Charles H. Stuart, George R. Brown, John C. Conkey, Paul Simard, Joseph C. Dwyer, Emerson Abernethy (E.), George S. Dixon (Pay.), Harold F. Kent (E.), David M. Sutherland (S.B.), Mayo A. Harrigan (S.B.), Vernon C. MacCrae (S.B.), Ernest 0. Stockman (E.), Daniel Mabee (S.B.), David T. Dyer (S.B.), Lewis R. Rolland, Gordon M. Luther, John G. Burritt, Jerome M. Laughlin, Norman M. Galt, Henry G. Stairs, James G. Badcock, Sydney W. Buxton, Raymond M. Smillie, Frederick J. G. Johnson, Frederick W. Macbeth, George R. S. Mathews, Ledlie C. Patey, Louis J. T. Langlais, George S. Finlay, Victor G. Meakin, John D. Garrard, John P. D. Mackasey, Duncan C. Lennox, James Ferguson, Frederick L. Clairmonte (SjB.), John W. Marlowe (S.B.), William E. Carrick (S.B.), Reginald W. Wood, Duncan
B.	Fletcher, John R. McFarlane (Pay.), Donald
R.	McRobie (Pay.), Edmond C. St. J. Green, Thomas C. Darling (S.B.), Clifton R. Coughlin, Bruce A. Campbell (Surg.), Robert A. Fortye (Surg.), John L. Andras, George W. Chapman (Surg.), John M. Parker (Surg.), Robert S. Hart, James R. Dodds (Surg.), James S. Oppe, Lemuel E. Prowse (Surg.), John W. Hamilton, Donald M. Whitelaw (Surg.), Harry L. Bacal (Surg.), Lome S. Kyle, Frederick J. Tweedie, Edward L. G. Alford, John T. Lee, George B. Maughan (Surg.), Berkeley Hynes, Gordon H. Whee-lock (Surg.), Allan L. Chambers (Surg.), James A. Dunn, Freeman E. Burrows, Thomas
C.	McLaughlin, Edward D. Fraser, Ian Douglas, Anthony G. Osborne, Edward F. Fox, Walter A. Childs, Gordon H. Patterson, Charles Potts, Paul D. Taylor, Guy St. A. Mongenais, Frank V. Macdonald, Francis J. D. Pemberton, Lyle R. Hoar, Henry S. D. Bauld, John H. Ewart, Allan Boucher, Walter H. V. Thompson, James C. Pratt, John E. B. Riordon, Harold F. Farncomb, Allan R. Webster, Richard S. Williams, Frederick A. Beck, John C. H. Calland, Robert A. Jarvis, Colin
S.	Campbell, William J. Gilmore, Charles V. Finch, William A. Wilkinson, Charles E. Moore, Horatio A. T. Bird, Herbert A. Plow, Ian Ogilvie, George P. Manning, Herries S. Maxwell, John T. Sharp, Richard H. Angus, Kenneth B. Culley, Frederick B. Brooks-Hill, Anthony G. S. Griffin, Stuart B. Fraser, Claude
L.	Campbell, Theodore G. Sewell, Henry K.
(S.B.)-Special branch. (Surg.) -Surgeon.
Hill, Thomas E. Nichols, Francis B. Marr, Denis M. Coolican, Joseph J. A. P. Belanger, Harry B. Tindale, Robert A. Dakin, James
G.	Ferraris (S.B.), John M. Todd, Kenneth G. Clark, John S. Evans, Clifford Chilcott, Philip J. B. Watts, Avard E. Giffin, Charles
F.	Newell, Ronald A. Judges, Stuart D. Thom, Archibald M. Kirkpatrick, Roland F. Ast-bury, Herbert H. Hair, Jackson G. Fraser, William A. B. Garrard, Frederick C. Aggett, William G. Aird, Norman J. Alexander, Oscar B. Allan, Edward P. Ashe, Robert P. Baldwin, John A. Bennet, William H. Black, Charles
E.	Bonnell, Edward L. Borradaile, William
D.	Boulton, Ronald C. Breckenridge, William S. Brooke, Rodney J. Browne, Alexander Bruce, John A. Buchanan, Armour M. Bull, Gordon M. Butler, Herbert B. Camall, Gerald
M.	Coleman, Paul F. Collins, James S. A. Conklin, George D. Cook, Ralph H. Corbold, David R. Dattels, John A. Davidson, Wilfred
G.	Dolmage, Mortimer S. Duffus, Wilfred F. Duffy, Andrew P. Duke, Arthur A. Evans, Charles J. S. Farrand, Frederick G. Flynn, William S. S. Fowler, Ralph I. Freeman, Thomas G. Fuller, Rufus D. P. Gilday, James
L.	Gillanders, John H. Gillespie, George R. E. Gilmer, Kenneth G. Glass, Charles E. Godwin, Donald M. Grant, James L. Harries, Richard W. Hart, Harry B. Holland, James
G.	Humphrey, Robert L. B. Hunter, Gordon
E.	Kernohan, Zebulun R. B. Lash, John Lecky, Wilford A. Lemon, Donald M. MacGlashan, Douglas H. MacKay, Charles P. MacKenzie, James C. Mackintosh, Edward
H.	Maguire, Andre Marcil, Georges Marcil, Robert M. Milligan, Albert P. Morrow, Denis J. O'Hagan, George M. Oliver, Edward B. Pearce, James L. Percy, George H. C. Phillips, Hugh J. Plaxton, William W. Quay, Sydney P. A. Redgrave, James R. Sare, Joseph R. G. Schreiber, Lesslie W. Scott, George R. H. Sharps, Sidore B. Shore, Graham F. Shove, Thomas C. Skelton, Gerrard
H.	Smith, Richard L. Smith, Frederick
M.	Southan, Kelvin D. M. Spence, Gordon W. Stead, Archibald M. G. Stewart, Neil M. Stewart, Donald G. C. Stuart, Francis L. Stuart, Leonard D. Stupart, John E. Taylor, Ross C. Taylor, William G. Tellier, Cecil G. Trotter, George M. Wadds, Frederick G. B. Whitehead, Ross F. Wilson, Robert H. Wilson, Jeffrey M. D. Wood,' Owen H. M. Wright, Weir S. Wright, Jacques de L. Bourgeois (Surg.), Athol C. Church (Surg.), Albert W. Clark (Surg.), Robert L. Cook (Surg.), Everett F. Crutchlow (Surg.), Charles W. E. Danby (Surg.),
(E.)-Engineer.
(Pay.)-Paymaster.
Questions

Thomas G. T. Davis (Surg.), Malcolm Dingwall (Surg.), Gordon P. Fahrni (Surg.), Charles M. Fisher (Surg.), Warren R. Fry (Surg.), James C. Gray (Surg.), Ernest A. Hunt (Surg.), Richard A. G. Lane (Surg.), William Locke (Surg.), Leonard E. Lotimer (Surg.), William D. Love (Surg.), David L. Macintosh (Surg.), Alpin G. MacKinnon (Surg.), Allan C. McCurrach (Surg.), Jared V. McCutcheon (Surg.), John A. McLachlin (Surg.), Murray McLandress (Surg.), Murdo McRitchie (Surg.), Allan F. McRoberts (Surg.), Albert M. Pain (Surg.), John E. Powell (Surg.), John C. Rathbun (Surg.), Walter G. Rice (Surg.), John L. Silversides (Surg.), Henry G. Swan (Surg.), William M. Tait (Surg.), Norman A. Terwillegar (Surg.), Thomas P. Watson (Surg.), Chester C. Wilson (Surg.), William J. Winthrope (Surg.), Francis Amyot (S.B.), Donald R. Bentley (S.B.), Herbert B. Burchell (S.B.), John Convey (S.B.), Leon B. Leppard (S.B.), Lionel J. N. Mothersill (S.B.), John Schierbeck (S.B.), Melvin A. Wortman (S.B.), Hector C. McGowan, John D. Cameron (Surg.), Edwin H. Saunders, John W. Hackney, Colin S. Glassco, Harold M. Colter, Robert B. McKenzie (Surg.), Eric T. P. Wenberg, Sherman T. Hill, John A. Tucker (Pay.), MacKenzie R. Campbell, Philip S. Ross, Duncan M. Hodgson, Charles C. MacDonald (Surg.), George A. Herring (Pay.), Eugene F. Noel, Charles A. E. White, John P. Jarvis, William C. Mulvihill, Frank A. Bryan, Croft G. Brook, Edmond W. Wylde (Surg.), John M. Home, Renault M. S. St. Laurent, Edwin G. Chown, Norman C. Chivers, Frank L. Lovett (Pay.), Ralph B. Munroe, Quentin D. Jacks, William T. Cook, James T. McCormick, William H. Richardson, Ernest Grundy, Richard W. Underhill (Pay.), Kenneth D. Heath, Sidney R. Arber (Surg.), James G. Fyfe (Surg.), Robert Roberts, Neil E. Fraser, Peter F. Thornton, Thomas A. Stevenson (Pay.), George Armstrong (S.B.), Robert A. C. Douglas, George T. New (S.B.), George A. Lawrence (S.B.), Vernon L. Miller, Alfred E. Home (E), Studley P. Birley (S.B.), Maurice B. Lodge (S.B.), Frank C. Adams, John W. Ross, Philip H. Hughes (S.B.), Rodney L. Strina (S.B.), Francis R. Hall, Clarence W. MacCharles (Surg.), Francis P. McNamee (Surg.), Timothy B. McLean (Surg.), Alexander Marshall (Surg.), William J. Hart (Surg.), W. Elgin Crysler (Surg.), Herbert G. Baker (Surg.), Joseph D. Ross (Surg.), Robert K. C. Thomson (Surg.),
(S.B.)-Special branch. (Surg.)-Surgeon.

Eric H. Lee (Surg.), John D. Atcheson (Surg.), Morley A. Currie (Surg.), Robert D. Millar (Surg.), Allen Craig (Pay.), James E. K. Goldsmith (Pay.), Woodburn S. Thompson, Kenneth C. McRae, Temple H. Wright, Harry Powys-Herbert, John M. Murray (Surg.), Lawrence Fricke, George Goldsmith, Edward Hitchen (Surg.), Percy A. Hoare (S.B.), Robert E. Burns (Surg.), Arthur G. Handford (S.B.), Geoffrey N. B. Scott. Charles F. Draney, Kenneth T. Chisholm, Roderick C. Carter, Ivor R. Thomas, Cecil G. Brock, Elliott D. Woodlock, John F. Lloyd (E.), Frank J. Scully (Surg.), John B. Bracken, Edward P. Taylor, Gordon H. Grant (Surg.), James R. Genge, Robert L. Williams, Hugh E. F. Makovski, Douglas S. Gorrell (Surg.), Allen S. Raney, John L. Little (Surg.), Pierre C. Amox, John N. Cornish (S.B.), Albert J. Hogue (S.B.), Freeman Svenningson (E.), Charles G. Brister, Henry G. Farish (Surg.), Walter S. Archibald (Surg.), John T. M. Ashley (S.B.), Julien Savignac, Robert Carfrae, William G. Ross, Bert Edwards (S.B.), Malcolm G. McCarthy, Hial D. Seeley (Pay.), Adrien F. V. Levesque (Surg.), John R. Longard (S.B.), Hugh L. Crawford (S.B.).
(E.)-Engineer.	(S.B.)-Special branch. [DOT]
(Pay.)-Paymaster. (Surg.)-Surgeon.


PUBLIC DEBT
Mr HANSELL:: 1.	What was the total amount of our national debt as at March 31, 1919?
2.	How much had been paid on such debt up to the above date?
3.	What was the total amount of our national debt as at March 31, 1939?
4.	How much had been paid on the national debt up to the above date?
5.	What is the total amount of our national debt at the present time?
6.	How much of, our present national debt is attributed to (a) the last great war, (b) the present war?
7.	What is the total amount of interest that has been paid on our national debt since confederation, or as far back as our records of borrowings show?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	The net debt (total liabilities less active assets) of the dominion of Canada on March 31, 1919, was $1,574,531,032.44.
2.	Annual increases and decreases in the net debt of Canada since confederation are shown on page 65 of the public accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1941.

Questions
3.	The net debt (total liabilties less active assets) of the dominion of Canada on March 31, 1939, was 83,152,559,314.48.
4.	See answer to question No. 2.
5.	The net debt (total liabilities less active
assets) of the dominion of Canada on March 31,	1941,	(the latest date	for which	the
figure has been published), was $3,648,691,448,56.
6.	It is	not possible to	determine	withany degree of accuracy what portion of the net	debt	of Canada is due	to the last	warand	what	portion is due to	the present	war.
All loans issued during the last war have matured; in some cases maturing issues were paid off, in most cases they were refunded, and in some cases refunding issues were increased to provide funds for other purposes.
Expenditures due to war are charged to the consolidated revenue fund as are all other government expenditures.
All receipts, either from taxes, loans, or from other sources, are credited to the consolidated revenue fund. It is impossible, therefore, except by the use of highly hypothetical assumptions, to calculate the proportion of the present net debt attributable directly or indirectly to the last war, the present war, or to other specific causes.
However, because since the outbreak of the present war total government revenues have been in excess of total non-war expenditures, there may not be great inaccuracy in taking the total increase in net debt between March 31, 1939 and March 31, 1941, namely, 8496,132,134.08, as being due to the war.
7.	$3,509,928,986 has been paid by the dominion in the period July 1, 1867 to March 31, 1941, in interest on the public debt (bonds, stocks, trust funds, etc.).


MILLEDGEVILLE, N.B., AIRPORT
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Was a flag pole erected at the Milledgeville airport, New Brunswick, in 1940 or 1941'
2.	If so, when was it erected?
3.	Who erected it?
4.	What did it cost?


Mr. POWER:: In so far as the Department of National Defence for Air is concerned :
1.	Yes, in 1941.
2.	Erection completed 19th May, 1941.
3.	John Flood & Son, Saint John, N.B.
4.	$631.


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


Mr. GARDINER:: Stand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This
question has been on the order paper a long time. Undoubtedly the names are available in the archives of the Department of Agriculture, and the only question is: should the names be revealed. I want to make a protest here and now before this question stands. The names of any persons who get the money of the taxpayers of Canada should on request be revealed to the public of Canada. A refusal cannot be cloaked behind such a specious answer as the minister gave in this house before the adjournment.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question was up previously in this house on one occasion and at that time it was asked to be allowed to stand for further consideration. I have just arrived back this morning from the west and this question has not had that further consideration. I might say to my hon. friend that I do not think the reason given is any more specious than the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition a few days ago to the effect that anyone who is paying money into the treasury by way of income tax should not have the amount disclosed.
Question stands.


PRICE CEILING-SUBSIDIES
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	On what goods and materials, domestic and imported, are subsidies now being paid?
2.	What subsidy is paid on each kind of goods and materials?
3.	How much has been paid to date on each kind of goods and materials?
4.	What are the names and addresses of the persons or companies who have been paid subsidies and how much has each received?


Mr. ILSLEY:: I propose to make a statement on the subsidies being paid by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation at the earliest opportunity that offers on the war appropriation bill. I should like to ask that this question, as well as the first notice of motion for the production of papers, stand until that time. I ask this because a
Questions

question very similar to the one which has just been discussed arises, as well as certain other questions which can be dealt with only in a complete and full statement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will there be an opportunity to debate the principle?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall make the statement on the war appropriation bill.
Question stands.


NAVAL SERVICE-PUBLIC RELATIONS
Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	What are the names of all persons employed in the press liaison or public relations branch of the Department of National Defence for Naval Service?
2.	What naval rank, if any, does each such person hold and what previous naval experience, if any. did each such person have?
3.	What is the total annual salary and/or pay and allowances received by each such person?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: 1, 2 and 3.
Name-Rank	Annual pay	Previous naval experienceH. E. W. Strange, Lieutenant-Commander R.C.N.V.R	84,142 75	Service in Royal Navy duringE. H. Bartlett, Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R	2,920 00	war, 1914-18. Service in Royal Navy duringWm. Sclater, Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R	2,692 75	war, 1914-18. Disciplinary course in RoyalMr. W. J. Gilhooly	
Mr. Chas. Nelles	3,600 00 1,620 00	Canadian Navy. Close contact with R.C.N. forMiss F. Belyberg	
Miss A. Grenier	
Miss M. Goudy	
Miss M. T. Patterson	
Miss H. M. Merkley	
Mr. Maurice O'Heare	
Mr. P. E, Raymond	1,080 00 1,080 00 1,080 00 1,080 00 720 00 720 00 420 00	many years and service afloat in private capacity.


TAXES ON ALES, WINES AND LIQUORS
Mr. HATFIELD:: What revenue does the federal government receive from all taxes on, (a) liquors, (b) beer and ale, (c) wines?


Mr. GIBSON:: Excise duty and excise taxes collected during the fiscal year ended 31st March, 1941.
(a)	Liquors-matured spirits. .$16,587,986 19
(b)	Malt used in brewing	
16,801,739	80Dutiable beer	
324,003	60Home brew malt syrup_______	108,680	94(c)	Domestic wines	
658,032	87
In addition to the foregoing there is 8 per cent sales tax paid on the selling prices by the producers. This revenue is not, however, segregated from the total sales tax revenue.


CANNED LOBSTER
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	What is the total amount of canned lobster which has been sold during the last year (a) in Canada, (b) for export?
2.	What was the total cost incurred by the dominion treasury in the sale of canned lobster?
[Mr. Ilsleyd


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	(a) Information not available.
(b)	Exports in 1941 18,677 cwts., or 38,910 cases.
2.	1941-42 to March 31, 1942.
Lobster control scheme
Gross cost	 852,221 05
Sales	 37,512 85
Net cost	 814,708 20
Advertising
Which aided sale of canned lobster generally	 49,178 81
Total	 $63,887 01


TUG &quot;BALLY&quot;
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	On what date was the tug Hally chartered by the Department of National Defence for naval services?
2.	Was she released from service in September, 1941?
3.	If so, for what reasons?
4.	Was she subsequently re-chartered?

Questions
5.	If so, on what date?
6.	Has she since been released from service?
7.	If so, on what date and for what reasons?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The tug Bally was chartered by the naval service on the 8th December, 1939. As the vessel required extensive repairs to continue on the duties upon which she was employed and as the department purchased a more suitable vessel, the owner was advised to take delivery of the vessel at Halifax on the 9th September, 1941. The owner did not take delivery and was again notified on the 14th November, 1941, that from the 9th September, 1941, the department would assume no responsibility with regard to the vessel, its stores and appurtenances.
By letter dated 30th October, 1941, the owner advised the department that he preferred to loan the vessel to the department until the spring of 1942, if no other arrangement could be made, as he considered it unsafe to bring her to Charlottetown during the winter.
Charter fees have not been paid beyond the 9th September, 1941, nor has the department assumed any responsibility with regard to the vessel, its stores and appurtenances since that date.
Due to the expansion of the naval service, it is possible that the vessel would be suitable for other purposes without the necessity of extensive repairs required for her original duty. The possibility of utilizing the vessel for other purposes is under consideration, but a decision with regard to her re-charter has not yet been reached.


TUG &quot;PEGGY l&quot;
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	On what date was the tug Peggy L chartered by the Department of National Defence for Naval Services?
2.	From whom was she chartered?
3.	How many days did she actually operate under charter during each of the years 1939, 1940 and 1941?
4.	What payment per day was made in respect of her operations?
5.	What was the total amount paid to her owners in each of the years 1939, 1940 and 1941?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: 1.	The tug Peggy L has not been chartered by the Department of National Defence for Naval Services.
2,	3, 4 and 5. Answered by Number 1.


CARRIER PIGEONS
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Has the government purchased any carrier pigeons for use as message carriers?
2.	What action, if any, has the government taken to encourage the raising of carrier pigeons?


Mr. McLARTY:: It is not considered to be in the public interest to provide answers to these questions.


WOMEN AS METEOROLOGISTS IN R.C.A.F.
Mr. ORUICKSHANK:: 1.	Are women used as meteorologists, grade 3, in the Royal Canadian Air Force?
2.	If not, will their services be used to replace men now employed in this work?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	This question is taken to refer to meteorological assistants, grade 3, in which position it is not proposed, for the present, to employ women. Women are being employed as meteorological assistants, grades 1 and 2, to replace men now engaged in this work at forecast stations.
A considerable portion of the work of meteorological assistants, grade 3, consists in giving lectures to pilots in training for overseas duty, and in this lecture work, both in the air force in Great Britain and in Canada, it is believed that the instruction can best be given by men.
A large number of meteorological assistants are assigned to isolated stations where no provision is made for the accommodation of women. However, arrangements are being made by the meteorological service for training a class of women enlisted in the air force to assist in the preparation of weather maps and in taking weather observations at air training stations.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


WARTIME HOUSING
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	What contracts were let by the housing administration of the Department of Finance for wartime housing?
2.	At what locations were these contracts let?
3.	How many houses did these contracts cover?
4.	What are the descriptions of these houses, showing the number of rooms, construction, material, etc.?
5.	What are the conveniences at each location such as water, sewers, etc?
6.	What was the estimated cost of each unit at each location?
7.	What was the contract price at each location?
8.	Was it a lump sum, cost plus percentage, or fee?
9.	What was the actual cost of each unit at each location?
10.	Do the above costs include the cost of the land?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	None.
2,	3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Answered by No. 1.
Questions


NAVAL SERVICES-OFFICER TRAINING
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Is it the rule of the Department of National Defence for Naval Services that a person who never served in any army or navy or graduated from the Royal Military College, or naval college, and who now desires to join the naval forces with officer rank, must first join up as a rating and serve as a rating for several months before he will be put in training for officer rank ?
2.	Are there any exceptions or exemptions to this rule; and if there are, when were the exceptions and exemptions set up, to what classes of persons do they apply, in what parts of Canada are they being made effective, and what is the nature of the exceptions and exemptions and why are they set up?
3.	Are there boards to select prospective young Canadians both English and French to take officer training without first serving as ratings ?
4.	If there are any such boards who are the members of the various boards, what are the naval qualifications of each member, when were the boards set up, and where are they located?
5.	How many young men, (a) English-speaking, (b) French-speaking, have been selected by these boards to take officer training without first serving as ratings?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: 1.	No. Officer vacancies are filled both by advancement from the lower deck and by direct entry from shore.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	If possible boards are composed of at least one captain and itwo commanders, one of whom is an authority on educational matters. Naval qualifications are indicated by the senior rank held by officers on the boards. The boards are appointed from time to time as required by naval service headquarters, and sit in all the principal cities of Canada as required.
5.	It is not possible to give an exact reply without extensive review of records, but in 1941 out of approximately 1,000 officers entered after interview approximately 150 were French speaking.


PRICE CEILING-DAMAGE OR COMPENSATION CLAIMS
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Have damages or compensation been claimed under the Price Control Act?
2.	If so, what is the aggregate of the amount of damages claimed?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes, one claim. The claimant stated that after the passage of P.C. 8527 of November 1, 1941 (maximum prices regulations) but prior to the issuance of order No. 66 of the wartime prices and trade board dated Novem-

ber 26, 1941 (exempting fresh fruits and vegetables from the provisions of section 3 of the maximum prices regulations) he contracted to sell potatoes to the Department of Munitions and Supply without making any stipulation that the contract price was subject to adjustment in the event of an increase in the price of potatoes. It appears that during the currency of the contract the claimant was unable to purchase potatoes at prices which would enable him to fulfil his contract with the Department of Munitions and Supply without financial loss to himself. The board took the position that it was not liable for such losses.
'	2. $1,695.71.


MILITARY SERVICE
Mr. BRUCE:: In regard to the clerical staffs of the Canadian National Railways, has provision been made to exclude young men and women in category "A" who are fit for active military service between the ages of 18 and 45?


Mr. CARDIN:: The management of Canadian National Railways state that in the employment of men the railway will be guided by terms of order in council P.C. 2250, and instructions have been issued accordingly. Said order in council refers only to male persons.


PRIORITIES UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. CHURCH:: What steps are being taken by the government to aid the victims of priorities unemployment who are bearing part of the war burdens, as compared with the lot of munition and defence workers ?


Mr. MITCHELL:: The government has
established some 100 employment and claims offices across Canada, the personnel of which offices are charged with,-
(a) placement in employment of those who are seeking work; (b) the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act; and (c) securing workers to meet the demands of employers, especially those who are engaged in war work.
The managers of all those offices have been instructed to keep themselves informed as to possible "layoffs" due to changes in employment requirements brought about by causes such as shortage of material due to priority orders or other reasons and where any such "layoffs" occur to make special efforts to move those laid off into other remunerative employment and where this cannot be done locally to contact the regional offices in order that other arrangements to this end may be made.

Questions


BROADCASTS OP UPTON CLOSE OVER NBC
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to the offensive broadcasting for the NBC, of one Upton Close, and his tirades against Britain?
2.	Have any complaints been made to the NBC regarding same?
3.	What will be done to stop it, and also similar anti-ally broadcasts?
4.	Is there any censorship on NBC or on CBC broadcasts on matters of this kind?


Mr. THORSON:: 1.	The attention of the CBC has been called to the broadcasts mentioned.
2.	Yes.
3.	The NBC has taken action which, it is believed will be effective.
4.	The NBC is subject to US. censorship and the CBC to Canadian censorship. There is close and friendly cooperation between these broadcasting organizations.


MORATORIUM ON MORTGAGES
Thomas Langton Church: What action is the government taking with respect to a national moratorium on all mortgages on land, including homes and other buildings, under the War Measures Act, for the period of the war and two years thereafter, on (a) property owned by civilians, (b) property owned by members of His Majesty's forces?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No action has been taken. Whether such action will be taken in the future is a matter of policy, as to which an announcement will be made if and when action of the kind suggested is taken.


TORONTO DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	What was the salary paid the Toronto district director of postal services of mail, Mr. Gibson, in 1939, 1940 and 1941?
2.	What was the salary paid the Montreal district director of the same service for each of these years?


Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	1939, $6,000; 1940, $6,000; 1941, $6,000;
2.	1939, $5,475; 1940, $5,775; 1941, $6,000.
The amounts shown for 1939 and 1940 in
the answer to question No. 2 are explained by the fact that the present incumbent was promoted to the position effective 1st September, 1938, at the minimum rate of the class, viz., $5,400. He received a statutory increase effective 1st October, 1939, raising his salary from $5,400 to $5,700 per annum, and1 a further increase effective 1st October, 1940, from $5,700 to $6,000 per annum, the maximum salary range of the position.


WAR EXCHANGE TAX ON IMPORTED FARM IMPLEMENTS
Mr. WEIR:: 1.	Has the Department of National Revenue any knowledge of any farm implement company adding the war exchange tax to its prices on farm implements imported and cleared through customs before this tax was applicable?
2.	If such information is not available, will the department make the necessary inquiry to ascertain if such practice has been followed, and if it is found that such tax has been added, will the department take steps to, (a) secure such amounts as so added for the benefit of the treasury, (b) require such companies to reimburse the purchasers who may have been overcharged?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	Representations have been made to the Department that this has occurred.
2.	(a) No.
(6) No.


CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON WAR OPERATIONS
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	Is all capital expenditure on war operations charged to current expenses of the government?
2.	How much did the British government spend on capital investment or in furnishing working capital for war production plants in Canada, (a) prior to the declaration of war, (b) since the declaration of war?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) No information.
(b) We are requested by the British government not to divulge any information regarding war contracts placed by them in Canada.


R.C.A.F.-WOMEN'S DIVISION
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	How many women have been enlisted in the women's division, Royal Canadian Air Force?
2.	How many have replaced airmen?
3.	How many have replaced civilians?
4.	How many have gone to new jobs?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	2,825 as at March 31, 1942.
2.	1,523.
3.	21.
4.	479.
Note-Of the total enlistments of 2,825 indicated in answer No. 1, 781 are under training or on leave without pay and 21 have been discharged.
Questions


SHELL CONTRACTS-ALBERTA
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	Has the Department of Munitions and Supply a contract for the making of shells with a company located in Alberta?
2.	If so, what size and quantity of shells does the contract call for?
3.	What actual deliveries have been made to a recent date?
4.	Did the government advance money for the building of the plant to make such shells, or for the purpose of providing working capital?
5.	If so, how much was advanced in each ease?
6.	In what place or places was the shellmaking machinery manufactured for such plant?
7.	Where was such machinery tested?
8.	What is the cost per shell, according to size or type?
9.	What is the lowest cost of such shell, or shells, manufactured in Canada for the government ?
10.	Could the plant turning out such shells at the lowest cost to the government have turned out an additional quantity of shells equal to the amount turned out in the Alberta plant, at such lesser price or even at a still lower price?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes, the Alberta Foundry and Machine Company Limited, Medicine Hat, Alberta.
2.	3-7" shell-quantity 150,000-machining only.
3.	As of March 20, 1942, shells delivered 81,937.
4.	The government advanced no money
for the building of the shell plant nor for the purpose of providing working capital. The government did provide capital assistance for:	Alterations to buildings, $5,850;
jigs, tools, dies and gauges, $7,158.75; machinery and equipment, $135,201.85; total $148,210.60.
Title to the above, except the alterations of $5,850, is vested in the Canadian government and may be removed at the government's discretion.
5.	Answered by 4.
6.	The greater part of the machinery was made in Canada by the John T. Hepburn Co., specialists in the manufacture of shell machinery. Smaller items were bought from the Williams Tool Company, Brantford; W. R. Perrin, Toronto; Gray Foundry and Forgings Company, Toronto; Standard Machine Tool, Windsor; and Hanson Van Winkle, Toronto.
7.	All machinery was tested before it left the manufacturer's plant, and was subject to rigid performance specifications.
8.	The cost of the shell has not yet been determined, being subject to a government audit which has not yet taken place.
[Mr. Power.!
9.	One other contractor is operating on the same basis as the Alberta Foundry and Machine Company Limited, but no audit has been completed in this case.
10.	It is possible other plants could turn out shell at a cost equal to that of the Alberta Foundry and Machine Company Limited. The head of this company machined shells in the last war and is a highly competent machine shop operator. The contract is a target price contract and the production is running considerably ahead of rated capacity.


PERSONAL INCOME TAX-GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. JACKMAlN:
1.	Is any officer or employee of this government or any government-owned corporation, or other emanation of the crown, in receipt of any salary, remuneration or other emolument, on which such officer or employee does not pay personal income tax?
2.	If so, what are the names of such officers or employees?
3.	How much does each receive annually?
4.	How much is the tax assumed by the payor in each case on the income paid to such individual for the calendar year 1940?
Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	(a) Those who receive less than the exemptions provided' by the act.
(b)	The service pay and allowances of non-commissioned officers and men of the Canadian active service forces.
(c)	Commissioned officers of the Canadian naval, military and air forces on active service beyond Canada, or on active service in Canada, whose duties are of such a character as are required normally to be performed afloat or in aircraft.
(d)	Diplomatic representatives of the government residing abroad on their official salary only.
(e)	Pensions paid to non-resident pensioners by the government.
(f)	Retiring allowances as distinct from superannuation allowances paid to retired government servants.
2.	Information not available.
3.	Information not available.
4.	Information not available.


R.C.A.F.-LACHINE MANNING DEPOT
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	What was the original estimate for the erection of the Lachine manning depot of the Royal Canadian Air Force?
2.	Has the estimate been exceeded, and by how much, and for what reasons?

Questions


Mr. POWER:: 1.	$1,584,000.
2.	The original estimate has been exceeded in the amount of $1,009,160, due to an increase in the accommodation capacity from 2,000 to 3,600.


PLEBISCITE-CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	What arrangements are being made for the taking of the plebiscite among the eligible voters in the British West Indies, (a) in the army, (b) in the navy, (c) in the R.C.A.F.?
2. How many voters are included in the personnel of each of these services in the British West Indies?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	A special returning officer, a chief assistant, and two scrutineers have been appointed with regard to the taking, receiving and counting of votes cast by Canadian Service voters stationed in Jamaica, B.W.I., and they have been provided with a sufficient number of ballot papers, envelopes, and other necessary plebiscite supplies.
2.	For service reasons, it is not in the public interest to indicate the numbers of Canadian soldiers, sailors and airmen in the area mentioned.


NATIONAL INCOME-PROPORTION TO PERSONS IN CERTAIN WAGE CLASSES
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	What was the national income for the years 1939, 1940 and 1941?
2.	(a) What amount of the national income went to individuals receiving $3,000 per year or less in each of the above years; (b) how many individuals were in that class?
3.	(a) What amount of the national income went to individuals receiving over $3,000 per year but not over $5,000 per year in each of the above years; (b) how many individuals were in that class?
4.	(a) What amount of the national income went to individuals receiving over $5,000 per year in each of the above years; (b) how many individuals were in that class?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Canada's national income was provisionally estimated for 1939 at $4,862 million, while the estimate for 1940 was about $5,400 million. The total for 1941 is not available.
2.	(a) No information is available as to
the distribution of the national income by income classes during the years 1939, 1940 and 1941.	(b) No estimate has been made as
to the number of income recipients by income classes.
3. (a) and (b). See answer to question 2.
4. (a) and (b). See answer to question 2.


INVENTORY OF PRODUCTION MACHINERY
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Has the government taken any steps towards having a complete inventory made of our entire production machinery?
2.	If so, what steps have been taken in this regard?
3.	If not, will this be done?


Mr. HOWE:: Since the inception of the department, a reasonably complete survey has been made of Canada's production capacity, 3,122 surveys having been made. Of this number, resurveys have been made of 1,486 plants, 516 of these having been resurveyed by department engineers during the first three months of this year. In addition to this, a survey of production capacity involving 4,986 plants has been made by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Chambers of Commerce who have co-operated very fully with the Department. This combined information is now in charge of the .Industry and Subcontract Coordination Branch. These files are in constant use and are continually being revised.
Small plants are urged to make sure that their facilities are on record with the Department. This can be accomplished by writing or telephoning to the nearest district office of the Industry and Subcontract Coordination Branch. These are located in Saint John, N.B., Montreal, Que., Toronto, Ont., Winnipeg, Man., and Vancouver, B.C.


CAPITAL ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. O'BRIEN:
1.	What is the total amount of capital assistance given by the Department of Munitions and Supply to, (a) private industry, (b) wholly owned government corporations, since war was declared?	.
2.	What is the amount of capital assistance so given private industry and/or to wholly owned government corporations, whose plants are situated in New Brunswick?
3.	What is the total volume of all orders given by the Department of Munitions and Supply to all Canadian industry?
4.	What is the amount of all war orders given to private industry in the province of New Brunswick?
Mr. HOWE:: 1.	(a) $498,766,451; (b) $71,464,857; as at December 31, 1941, for United Kingdom account and January 31, 1942, for Canadian account.
2.	(a) $1,135,172 as at dates given above, (b) There are no wholly-owned government corporations in New Brunswick.
3.	$3,602,707,875 as at March 31, 1942.
4.	It is impossible to give a breakdown by provinces that will properly reveal the extent
Questions

to which each province is participating in war contracts. A contract placed with a firm in one province may require manufacture or purchase of component parts from firms in other provinces. Also, contracts may be placed with companies whose head offices and administration are in one province and whose factories for production are in one or more provinces.


PLEBISCITE-VOLUNTARY SERVICES
Mr. WARD:: 1.	Will volunteer workers be used in connection with the coming plebiscite?
2.	If so, what method will be adopted to enlist such services?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	So far as may be possible, advantage will be taken of offers of voluntary services.
2.	Subordinate plebiscite officers are nominated by two candidates of different and opposed political interests who received the highest and the next highest number of votes in the last general election. In some electoral districts services of volunteer workers have been recommended.


CANADIAN INSTITUTE OP PUBLIC OPINION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. O'BRIEN:
1.	Is the Canadian institute of public opinion a body corporate under laws of the Dominion of Canada?
2.	If so, who are the incorporators and where is the head office?
3.	Is any control exercised to determine that a truly diversified public opinion is obtained on public or allegedly public questions?
4.	May such an organization privately conceive and inaugurate any such series of questions ?
Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	There is no record of the grant of incorporation under the Companies Act (Canada) nor dominion statute to any organization under the name "Canadian Institute of Public Opinion."
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	Such an organization would be subject to dominion, provincial and municipal laws and regulations in force in each place where its operations are carried on.
4.	Answered by 3.


NEW BRUNSWICK COAL DEPOSITS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. O'BRIEN:
1.	Has the government made any investigation regarding the coal deposits in the province of New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what are the findings?
3.	If not, will investigations be inaugurated in order to supplement Canada's fuel supply?
[Mr. Howe.l
Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Published maps of the Geological Survey, Canada, show the areas in New Brunswick where the presence of coal is considered possible. Investigations of the survey from 1866 to present indicate the strong probability that workable coal in New Brunswick is restricted to a single seam (18 to 26 inches thick), the one already being mined. Results of a special investigation of the Grand Lake coalfield accompanied by geological maps of the field were published in 1926 and formed the basis of further detailed investigations by the provincial geologist of New Brunswick from 1935 to present. Because the workable coal is confined to a single seam within a nearly flat-lj'ing thin surface rock formation, there are no outstanding problems of geology remaining to be solved that would further exploitation; nor has the government of New Brunswick made any requests for specific investigations upon which action has not been taken.
Systematic drilling is the main requirement as a preliminary to further production. By its use present producing companies have extended the workable areas and increased coal production in 1940 by 82 per cent over the average production for the past ten years.
The fuel laboratories of the Department of Mines and Resources have made many tests on New Brunswick coal. The results of this work demonstrated that New Brunswick coal could be materially improved by washing and sizing and that a substantial reduction in ash took place. It was also shown that not only could a good coke be prepared by utilizing a low temperature carbonization process but also that an excellent coke could be produced when the washed coal was processed in the Curran Knowles by-product coke ovens.
3.	No investigations are presently contemplated during the fiscal year 1942-43.


WARTIME HOUSING-HULL, QUE., AND WELLAND, ONT.
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	Did wartime housing call for tenders in connection with the building of houses in Hull, Quebec ?
2.	If so, what firms submitted tenders?
3.	What firms were awarded contracts in connection with the building of these houses?
4.	Were tenders called in connection with the beautifying of the wartime housing plots in Welland, Ontario?
5.	What will be the total cost of this work?

Questions as Orders for Returns


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes, by advertisement in the Ottawa Evening Journal, the Ottawa Citizen, and the Daily Commercial News, on July 31 and August 1, 1941.
The following were also invited to tender by letter: Bertrand & Paquin, 5830 rue Chabot, Montreal; L. O. Trottier, 633 Bonaventure St., Trois Rivieres, Que.; Ed. Brunet & Son, 35 Aylmer Rd., Hull, Que.; Abitibi Trading Agencies & Supplies Ltd., 219 York St., Ottawa; A. Amyot & Sons, 275 Blvd. St. Joseph, Hull, Que.; Doran Construction Co., 78 Bank St., Ottawa; A. I. Garvock, Regent Theatre Bldg., Ottawa; Ross-Meagher Ltd., 7 Echo Drive, Ottawa; G. A. Crain & Sons, 285 Clemow Ave., Ottawa; Concrete Construction Limited, 1082 Decarie St., Montreal; Theo. Lambert, 168 Laurier Ave., Hull, Que.; G. Archambault Ltee., 726 Atwater Ave., Montreal; Victor Bernier, 3968 Ontario East, Montreal; J. L. Guay Freres Ltd-437 Guy St., Montreal; Dominion Construction Corp. Ltd., 217 Bay St., Toronto; Marien-Wilson Ltee., 1434 St. Catherine W., Montreal; Canada Flushwood Door Co., 3170 Maplewood Ave., Montreal.
2.	Bertrand & Paquin, 5830 Chabot St., Montreal; G. Archambault, 726 Atwater Ave., Montreal; H. F. McLean Ltd., 917 Keefer Bldg., Montreal.
3.	H. F. McLean Ltd., 917 Keefer Bldg., Montreal.
4.	Tenders are now being received on this work.
5. Tenders have not yet been opened and no contract has been awarded. It is not possible, therefore, to state the total cost of this work.


SHIPMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA LUMBER TO BRITAIN
[Stage Direction]
Mr, O'BRIEN:
1.	What quantity of lumber (b.f. measure) has been brought across Canada from British Columbia for shipment from eastern Canadian ports to Great Britain and/or other theatres of war?
2.	Has this movement of lumber been investigated in order to determine if similar lumber could not be purchased in eastern Canada?
3.	What was the cost of railroad freight on said lumber so moved?
4.	What sizes of lumber are so moved?
Clarence Decatur Howe: The lumber covered by this question has been purchased direct by the British timber control board from the regular British Columbia exporters of lumber. The information requested would require to be obtained from the British timber control board, the Canadian exporters, and the Canadian railways.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. ISNOR:: ,
Will persons -wholly or mainly employed in fishing enjoy the same exemptions from military services as persons wholly or mainly employed in agriculture?


Mr. THORSON:: Return tabled.


ORDNANCE DEPOT BUILDING, OTTAWA
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Is the government planning the immediate erection of a permanent building as an ordnance depot on the Booth property by Plouffe park, Ottawa, for the Department of National Defence?
2.	What will be the size of the building?
3.	What type of construction?
4.	What is the estimated cost?
5.	How much steel will be required?
6.	What is the time estimated for the construction of this building?
7.	What are the estimated quantities of copper, brass, zinc, aluminum, tin, galvanized iron, sheet metal, wrought iron pipe, and cast iron pipe, to be used in the construction?
8.	What is the estimated cost of the building without the land?
9.	What is the cost of the land?


Mr. RALSTON:: Return tabled.


CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	What is the total number of men who have been discharged from, (a) the navy, (b) the army, (c) the air force, since the outbreak of war? .
2.	How many men have been discharged from, (a) the navy, (b) the army, (c) the air force, during each month since the outbreak of war?


AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS-ARMY FIRE MARSHAL- EXTINGUISHERS AND ALARM SYSTEMS
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	In making provision for the office staff of the fire marshal of the Canadian army, is use being made of the experienced help now in the department?
2.	Have any been engaged independent of the civil service commission?
3.	Has a new type of fire extinguisher, not heretofore recommended by A.R.P. officers, been ordered?
4.	If so, were the previous types considered obsolete or unsatisfactory?
5.	What type of hand alarm was recommended by the A.R.P. officials?
6.	Has this been changed to an electric alarm, and if so what is the reason for the change?
7.	What additional expense will the change involve ?

Questions as Orders jor Returns


CIVIL SERVICE AGE LIMIT REGULATIONS
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Is there any ruling affecting the age limit at which new employees are taken into the civil service?
2.	If not, will future appointments exclude men and women between the ages of 18 and 45?
3. In the case of the R.C.M.P., has any change been made in respect to the age limit of new men taken on since the war began, (a) if so, what are the present limitations; (b) if not, is it the intention of the government to exclude men from this service who are in category "A" between the ages of 21 and 40?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Return tabled.


MILITARY SERVICE-EMPLOYEES OF BEAUTY PARLOURS
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	How many beauty parlours are there in Canada?
2.	How many in each of the provinces?
3.	How many men between the ages of 18 and 50 are employed in these beauty parlours?
4.	How many women between the ages of 18 and 40?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to prohibit the employment in beauty parlours of women between the ages of 18 and 40, who are otherwise physically fit for some form of useful w ar w'ork?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Return tabled.


DECENNIAL CENSUS-NORTH BATTLEFORD
Mrs. NIELSEN:: 1.	Who wrere the persons employed in the taking of the 1941 census in the constituency of North Battleford?
2.	Where do they reside?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Return tabled.


DRAFTEES FAILING TO REPORT
Mr. MacNICOL:: 1.	How many draftees, (a) by provinces, (b) by cities having a population of 25,000 or over, have failed to report for service after notification?
2.	How many prosecutions have been taken, (a) by provinces, (b) by cities having a population of 25,000 or over, against persons who have failed to so report?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Return tabled.


EMPLOYMENT OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What is the government's position in respect to the employment of conscientious objectors in wartime industries and government wartime projects?
2.	If such men are employed in such industries and projects, do they receive the regular rates of pay?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Return tabled.


NATIONAL INCOME-WAGES AND SALARIES
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	What was Canada's national income for the years, (a) 1939, (b) 1940, and (c) 1941; (d) what is the estimated national income for the year 1942?
2.	What proportion of the national income went to wages and salaries in each of the above years?
3.	What proportion of the national income wrent to investment income in each of the above years ?
4.	What is the aggregate of salaries and other earned income of $5,000 or more and how many taxpayers were included in that class during the last available designated year?
5.	What is the aggregate of the salaries or other earned income of $10,000 or more and how many taxpayers were included in that class during the last available designated year?
6.	What was the increase in the national income during the year 1940 as compared with the year 1939, and during the year 1941 as compared with the year 1940?
7.	(a) What proportion of this increase went to salaries and wages during 1940 and 1941; (b) what part of this increase was taken by dominion taxation; (c) what proportion of this increase went to investment income during 1940 and 1941; (d) what part of this increase was taken by dominion taxation?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Return tabled.


CANADIAN FORCES PERSONNEL ON MINISTERIAL INQUIRIES
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1. What is the number of personnel engaged in following up ministerial inquiries in, (a) Department of National Defence, (b) Department of National Defence for Air, (c) Department of National Defence for Naval Services?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Return tabled.


CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS SUBSEQUENT TO WAGE CEILING
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	How many persons have been taken on as temporary or permanent civil servants, or on behalf of government-controlled agencies since the order in council of November 15, 1941, froze salaries?
2.	What was each person paid in the last position held by him or her?
3.	What was each person paid on being employed by the government?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Mr. Speaker, I am
advised that the answer to the second question cannot possibly be made as it is not available, but subject to the hon. member's withdrawing that part of the question I would ask that this be made an order for return.


Georges Parent: Order for return, as
indicated.

Motions /or Papers


WAGE CEILING
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	What is the basis of exemption of civil servants from the wage ceiling?
2.	What statutory increases in salaries were given to civil servants in January?
3.	What is the basis for exemption of civil servants under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


NATIONAL INCOME, PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	What is the estimated excess of the amount of national income for 1942, (a) before taxation, (b) after taxation, over the estimated amount of available goods for civilian consumption?
2.	What is the total estimated production of Canada for 1942?
3.	What amount will be withdrawn as war production?
4.	What amount will be available for civilian consumption?


Colin William George Gibson: Return tabled.


CANADIAN FORCES-TELETYPE MACHINES
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	How many teletype machines are being used by the army, navy and air force?
2.	How many teletype operators and how many teletype repair men are employed in the army, navy and air force?


CAPITAL ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY-NEW BRUNSWICK
[Stage Direction]
Mr. O'BRIEN:
1.	Are any grants by way of capital assistance made by any department other than the Department of Munitions and Supply?
2.	If so, what departments?
3.	How much has been granted by each such other department?
4.	What is the amount of capital assistance so granted by each department to private industry in the province of New Brunswick?

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	How many men in category A are in the ordnance branch of the army?
2.	How many men in category A are in the administration branch of the air force?


NEW BRUNSWICK OIL DEPOSITS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. O'BRIEN:
1.	Has the federal government investigated the oil and/or shale oil deposits in New Brunswick in order to relieve oil and gasoline shortages ?
2.	If so, to what extent, what sections have been investigated and what reports have been received?
3.	Have any monetary grants been given to the province or private enterprise for such investigations ?
4.	If not, are such considered?
5.	If any report is available from any source, to what depths have test borings been made?
Mr. CRERAR:: Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: For a return showing the total cost of advertising the sale of canned lobster (1) in Canada; (2) in other countries, together with a statement showing the names of the advertising agencies through whom this advertising was placed and the total amount paid to each such agency.


LOBSTER CONTROL
Gordon Knapman Fraser: For a statement showing the names of all persons engaged in the work of lobster control during the past year and showing also the salary, allowances and travelling expenses received by such person, the duties in which each such person is engaged and the previous experience of each such person.
TUG "bally"


Mr. McGREGOR:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, charter-parties or any other documents in the possession of the government, dated since the 1st September, 1939, relating to the leasing of the tug Bally or to her operation or her subsequent release from service, and including any reports which were made on the condition of the said vessel.


TUG &quot;PEGGY l&quot;
Robert Henry McGregor: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, charter-parties or any other documents in the possession of the government, dated since 1st September, 1939, referring to the lease and operation of the tug Peggy L.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Robert Henry McGregor: For a return showing the name, date of appointment, salary, manner of appointment, duties performed, travelling expenses incurred during the past year, previous occupation, in the case of each person employed directly, or indirectly, in the work of the national film board.


Robert Henry McGregor: For a return showing the name, date of appointment, emolument, and ordinary occupation of each member of the national film board.
Motions for Papers


AIRCRAFT-CORRESPONDENCE WITH CURTISS-WRIGHT AEROPLANE AND MOTOR CORPORATION
Karl Kenneth Homuth: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Curtiss-Wright Aeroplane and Motor Corporation and the Director of Aircraft Supply, the War Supply Board and the Department of National Defence, during the years 1938, 1939 and 1940, offering to manufacture aeroplanes and aeroplane products in Canada; also a copy of memoranda submitted to the Director of Aircraft Supply during December, 1939, in connection with the subject.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the documents referred to in this motion are in my opinion privileged. They refer to an investigation made within the department as to certain aspects of this production. Nothing came of it, and no good purpose would be served by bringing down the correspondence. Communications between officers of the department are privileged in any event.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: It is a little late for the minister to be taking that attitude with respect to this motion. May I call his attention and that of the house to the fact that on May 22, 1940, this house unanimously passed this same motion, and the following motion, in identically the same words, without exception and without reservation, and the house ordered the production of these documents. They were not brought down, which is contempt of parliament.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not through yet. Surely I have the right to make my statement. I say that, not merely an utter refusal, but disobedience of an order of this house by any department for two years is contempt of parliament.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: No, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My language may be a little strong, but I say that on the face of it, it is contempt of parliament. I entirely disagree with the reasoning of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). There is nothing in this motion about interdepartmental correspondence, but there is a request for copies of all letters, telegrams, and other memoranda between the corporation and the Director of Aircraft Supply. These cannot be considered, in relation to public business, as privileged communications. I do submit to this house that we should and must have this information.
The same is true with respect to the following motion, No. 11 on the order paper,

which also was passed as an order of this house on May 22, 1940, and to my surprise I find that the return to this order has never been brought down.
This sort of thing should cease. By no stretch of the imagination could the documents asked for be construed to be privileged documents or interdepartmental documents, although that principle has been carried quite a long way in this house in recent days. These two motions call for correspondence between corporations and government departments and this house has the right to that information and to have copies of the correspondence brought down.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has been in the house longer than I, and he should know the rules of the house better than I do, so just why he needs to exercise his forensic abilities on this question I am not sure. As I understand it, orders of the house for the production of documents are subject to the reservation that the documents be not privileged documents or such that it would be against the public interest to bring them down.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have examined the files, and I take the ground that these are not documents which should be produced in the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The rule does not go to anything like the extent the minister has stated-absolutely not. If it were so, this parliament might just as well fold up so far as the production of correspondence is concerned. I am not prepared to take that position; I do not believe the country wants me to take that position, and I do not think the minister himself ought to take it.


Major James William Coldwell: I want to support the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) in this matter. It has been said too frequently in this house that the production of documents or other information is not in the public interest. If it is not in the public interest to place these documents publicly before the house because of some matters contained in them, then, it seems to me, they should go to a committee of this house and be examined. It is intolerable that documents relating to the public business of this parliament should not be produced to some responsible committee or to the membership of this house. I warmly support the leader of the opposition in his

Motions for Papers
protest. Too many questions asked here are being answered, "Not in the public interest".
In regard to this particular motion, I notice that the minister-and I am glad he did- changed his ground, admitting that this correspondence is not privileged in the sense that it is correspondence between departments of the government; because by no stretch of the imagination can the Curtiss-Wright Aeroplane and Motor Corporation be regarded as a department of the government, and I hope that the government has' not become a department of the Curtiss-Wright Aeroplane and Motor Corporation.
I cannot, therefore, see the force of that argument. I believe there should be some method by which such documents could be placed before a committee of this house if for some specific reason it is not in the public interest that they be tabled here. Documents relating to contracts between a corporation and the government ought surely to be subject to some supervision by parliament.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but may I point out that no contract arose out of this correspondence. I reviewed this morning the correspondence with the Curtiss-Wright company. It deals with some matters relating to licence and the price of services. We did not purchase either the right to manufacture the motors or the licence; and it seemed to me quite obvious that to lay on the table the business of the Curtiss-Wright company, which never was consummated, would not be in the public interest.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Speaker-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Where do you come in?


Georges Parent: Dropped.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, it is not dropped.
I want to protest against the answer of the minister. The very fact that these deals were not consummated is what brought about this question, because we want to know why they were not consummated or why something was not done about them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There
was the offer of war service which was not accepted by the government. Why?


Georges Parent: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


AIRCRAFT-CORRESPONDENCE WITH UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
Mr. ADAMSON:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between officials of the United Aircraft Corporation or any of its subsidiaries in Canada, more particularly the Canadian Pratt and Whitney, and officials of the National Defence Department and the War Supply Board, during 1938 and 1939, in regard to the manufacture of aeroplanes aerial motors and other aeroplane products in Canada by the said companies.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The same remarks apply to this motion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
remarks?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let me proceed, if you please. The same remarks apply to this as to the former motion. A large part of the correspondence relates to business that has not been consummated and also to certain business that was consummated, which latter is a proper subject of investigation for the war expenditures committee. The war expenditures committee have full authority to investigate any expenditures for war purposes, but the correspondence in question is not such as can in the public interest be brought down in the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wish to register the same dissent. Which set of reasons is applicable to the minister's position on this motion? He shifted his ground not less than three times in connection with the last. I have no desire to prolong the discussion or to hold up the house, but the very closing sentence of the minister's statement is an admission that there are at all events certain documents that should be brought down. If the government is going to take the position it has takenj it must assume the responsibility.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: On division.


Georges Parent: Dropped, on division.


VOCATIONAL TRAINING
Humphrey Mitchell: That a special committee consisting of Messrs. Bruce, Donnelly, Edwards, Fraser (Peterborough West), Lafontaine, Leger, McCulloch, Marier, Martin. Mitchell, Noseworthy, O'Brien, Reid, Shaw and Winkler be appointed to consider a bill intituled: "An act to assist in the
[Mr. Speaker.l
carrying on and coordination of vocational training" and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister and the leader of the government that this motion is at least premature. If hon. gentlemen will turn to page 17 of the order paper it will be seen under order No. 8 that this measure has only reached the resolution stage preceding the introduction of the bill. To set up this committee, or to consider the notice of motion to set up such a committee, before the bill is actually before the house, is most unheard of. I do believe there is no precedent for it in the history of this parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my hon. friend did not hear, but when the motion was called I said "stand".


Richard Burpee Hanson: Somebody called "stand", but the minister in charge indicated that he wished to proceed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order I should like to inform my hon. friend that during this very session we passed a resolution setting up a special committee on land settlement, while the measure itself was still in the resolution stage.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know that. That is a double reason why we should not go on with this motion to-day. There have been more things done in the name of expediency in this house under this government than in the whole of our previous history since confederation.


Georges Parent: Do I understand that the motion is to stand?


Humphrey Mitchell: Stand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard to the question of setting up a committee to which a bill may be referred, I believe it is quite in accordance with the rules of the house that a committee should be set up at any time; then the existence of the committee makes it possible, once a bill is p'assed a certain stage, to have the bill referred to the committee at once.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
usually done after second reading.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That would be the case with some bills, but it might be

Vichy Representation
done in the resolution stage, or at any time when the bill is before the house. The purpose of appointing a committee is to have something referred to it, and it really facilitates matters in the end to have a committee in existence, in a position to immediately receive any measure that may be referred to it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To me that seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Suppose the bill does not receive second reading?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Then it will not go to any
committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then why have the committee? I am just looking at it from a logical point of view, though I do not suppose it makes very much difference one way or the other.
Motion stands.


VICHY REPRESENTATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister what is the position of Canada with relation to the Vichy government, in view of recent developments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to my hon. friend that we have been in communication with the goVernment of the United States and the government of Great Britain with respect to recent developments at Vichy, with a view to considering, in the light of opinions expressed to us, the course it would be most advisable to adopt with respect to the continued presence here of the French minister. I have not thus far received all the information which would enable me definitely to reply to my hon. friend's question, but I assure him that the matter is being considered in the light of what will prove of greatest service to all the governments I have mentioned.


THE PLEBISCITE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): During an earlier discussion this afternoon the leader of the social credit group
asked the Prime Minister a question, to which no reply was made. Might I ask the Prime Minister now if some arrangement cannot be made whereby those hon. members who are unable to get home for the plebiscite vote may be permitted to vote in the city of Ottawa, in view of the fact that they have really established residence here?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that the Secretary of State has been going into the matter, and I believe he intended informing the house to-morrow that arrangements would be made to have a polling booth established somewhere near the front entrance of this building.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think perhaps I might add one word to that. At the moment the matter is purely tentative, but we are endeavouring to work out some arrangement that will facilitate voting by members of this and the other house.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: I was going to suggest that it might be interesting if we could have a recorded vote right here, to indicate how hon. members will vote on this very interesting question.


INQUIRY AS TO ACTION BEING TAKEN TO RELIEVE SHORTAGE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, arising out of the shortage of beef in the butcher shops throughout Canada. Will the minister tell the house what is being done by his department to relieve that shortage?


James Garfield Gardiner: The matter is under consideration, and possibly I will be in a position to make a statement in a day or two.


WAR RISK INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 56, An act to make provision with respect to insurance of property against war risks and the payment of compensation for war damage.-The Minister of Finance.
Richard Burpee Hanson: In the communication which I
War Risk Insurance

received this morning from a member of the ministry this order was given as No. 3 on the list. I assumed that we would go on first with the notice of motion in the name of the Minister of Labour, which has been referred to, and then with order No. 4, concerning the reinstatement in civil employment of individuals who enlist for service, which has been on the order paper for a long time. I may tell the Prime Minister that I have had a great deal of difficulty in studying Bill No. 56, which of course is of a very technical character. I understand it is to be sent to the banking and commerce committee, where of course it will receive intensive study; but I should prefer that we do not proceed with this business to-day, unless there is some reason that has not as yet been indicated. It will be recalled that this was one of the matters to which the Minister of Finance referred when he said it was desirable that they should be advanced a stage before the Easter recess, because of certain specific reasons he had then in mind. But I did not know it would be coming on to-day, and I suggest that if possible it would be advisable to adhere to the programme which was intimated to me.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is quite all right to let it stand for the moment, but could I have it understood that it will be proceeded with promptly? I should not like it to stand for a number of days, because it is rather urgent that we get ahead with it. Mr. Leonard, who was of great assistance in the drafting of the bill, is coming here to-night; and if we could go on with it to-morrow or the next day it would be very much better than if the matter were to stand further. It has stood for a long time now, and I made a statement on it before the Easter recess in order that hon. members might become familiar with the matter, and also more particularly so that the public would understand what the government had in view. Now I should like to get it to the banking and commerce committee at the earliest possible moment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well,
perhaps we can take it up to-morrow.
Order stands.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House again in committee of the whole on Bill No. 5, an act to provide for the reinstate-

ment in civil employment of individuals who enlist for service in His Majesty's forces or who perforin essential war employment.-The Minister of Labour.
Humphrey Mitchell: I desire to move:
That the order referring Bill No. 5 to the committee of the whole he discharged, and that the said bill be referred to the special committee set up to -deal with the disposition of canteen funds.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, before this motion passes I suggest that in justice to hon. members who took part in the discussion on previous occasions when the bill was before the house we should have some explanation from the minister with respect to the present motion. I have not before me the dates on which the bill was debated, but it is my recollection that it was the subject of a long discussion. Various aspects of the bill were considered, and many constructive suggestions were made to members of the ministry having charge of the measure. A considerable amount of redrafting was to be done to meet the suggestions made.
During the recess a number of discharged men came to see me, and I was forced to tell them that this legislation and the order in council it follows date back only to July 1, 1941, thereby leaving out a substantial number of discharged ex-service men. Before the motion passes I suggest the minister should give the house a statement of reasons for the present move, and he should explain the import of the motion. Is it to take away free discussion on the floor of the house?


Humphrey Mitchell: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) will recollect that many suggestions were made, and notes respecting those suggestions were taken by the government. There was the suggestion that the matter should be referred to some committee. In view of that suggestion the government felt that the discussion would be expedited if the matter were sent to a committee on which returned soldiers were serving. When the subject returns to the house there will be no objection to the freest discussion hon. members may think necessary or expedient.


Mr. GREEN:: I take it there will be several amendments to the bill as it was presented to the house.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Many hon. members who are not on the special committee to which it is

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
being referred took part in the discussion on the bill. Under these circumstances would it not be well for the government within the next day or so to provide each member with a copy of the bill as it is to be amended, so that they may know what is proposed?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear any opposition to the resolution of my colleague.


Howard Charles Green: I was not opposing it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I know that; but I thought the leader of the opposition was inclined to oppose it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wanted an explanation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If hon. members will read the debate which took place in committee of the whole before the recess he will find that the request was practically unanimous, from every party, to have this particular measure referred to a special committee of the house. One reason for proceeding in this way is to meet the request of hon. members opposite.
The other reason is that for years past a practice has grown up in the house of referring to a special committee all matters affecting ex-service men. All the amendments suggested in the debate can be considered carefully by the very able committee already set up to deal with the question of canteen funds. That committee in due course can make its report to the house, and the matter could then be further considered. Surely that is a fair suggestion, and one which will expedite the progress of the measure and the proceedings of the house.
As was mentioned by the Minister of Labour, and without any specific allocation as to personnel, the committee is composed exclusively of ex-service men of the great war and members serving in the present one.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There was one exception; I do not know how it happened, and I have taken steps to have it corrected. It was the fault of the whips, no doubt.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Surely men who served in the great war and who are serving in the present one can give this measure the very best consideration.
They will have the benefit of the debate which took place on two or three occasions in committee of the whole house.


Howard Charles Green: Is the government in a position to state what amendments are proposed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That will come up before the committee.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I am not objecting to referring this bill to a committee. When it was before the house it appeared to be very unsatisfactory, and it was quite apparent that the matter should be referred to a committee. It seems strange, however, that it should be referred to the committee appointed to investigate canteen funds rather than to the reconstruction committee. It is true that returned men are serving on the canteen funds committee, but this measure has to do with after-war rehabilitation and reconstruction, and in my opinion it should be referred to the committee set up for that purpose. If we are to deal with matters of reconstruction and rehabilitation in a piecemeal manner, obviously there will be no order or coordination in our reconstruction programme.


Humphrey Mitchell: I see no objection to its going to either committee.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Why is it going to the canteen committee?


Humphrey Mitchell: The members on the canteen committee are men returned from the last war, or engaged in this one. I see no objection to dividing the work. This matter more or less stands on its own feet. Personally I can see no objection to using both committees, so long as the hon. members doing the work have some knowledge of the conditions confronting returned soldiers, and particularly the conditions which confronted them after the last war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My understanding is that this order is to be discharged and the bill is to go to a special committee. In this instance it is to be sent to the canteen fund committee, although it would seem logical to send it to the committee on rehabilitation. I do not believe however that there will be much difficulty about that, nor do I think that one committee would not be as satisfactory as the other. It is my understanding that the bill was last before the house on March 9. It received second reading and was considered in committee of the whole. A certain number of sections were passed and others were allowed to stand. I have no great objection to the course indicated
Vocational Training

by the minister, so long as there is an understanding that there will be an opportunity to discuss the report of the committee.
There is one aspect of the matter however to which I suggest the minister should give careful attention. I refer to the suggestion already made that the proposed amendments should be printed and distributed to members of the house who have taken a substantial interest in the matter. It seems to me I had some correspondence with one of the ministers respecting proposed amendments, and I concurred in most of them. We all want to do a job here to the best of our ability limited though it is. Having now understood the position, I am not. going to oppose this motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the promotion of vocational training projects, the entering into financial assistance agreements with the provinces in connection therewith, the appointment of a vocational training advisory council and of such officers, clerks and other employees necessary for the administration of the act.
Hon.' R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition): As this is somewhat of a new matter, I suggest that before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, the minister at least should outline to the house what the government's proposals are.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: According to a previous decision of the present year, that cannot be done.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps that is so, but I do not recall the decision to which the minister is referring. It does seem to me that we ought to know the government's policy with regard to this important matter at some early stage before the resolution passes. Perhaps the minister will do this in committee.


Humphrey Mitchell: In committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That will be good enough.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not quite hear what the leader of the opposition (Mr. 
Hanson) suggested just now, but I understand it has been suggested that it is not possible to make a statement on this resolution. The resolution is important and I think we should be given some understanding of what is involved.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I referred to a previous ruling of Mr. Speaker to the effect that the merits or demerits of a bill cannot be discussed on the motion to go into committee. Of course all kinds of questions can be asked in committee, and with the indulgence of the chairman and of the committee, the minister could make a full statement on the merits.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What I suggested was that on making this substantive motion, the Minister of Labour should make a general statement of the government's policy. I cannot understand any other procedure being followed that would be logical.


Angus MacInnis: Do I understand that we cannot discuss the principle of the resolution on the motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair? It has always been the custom here to do that, and I am greatly surprised to learn that a decision otherwise was made this year. If we cannot discuss the matter, what is the sense in making the motion?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Discuss it now.


Angus MacInnis: The Speaker has left the chair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It should be done before the Speaker leaves the chair.


Mr. STIRLING:: I rise to a point of order and a question of privilege. Apparently a new doctrine has been accepted in this house that the first stage of debate on a resolution should be ruled out. In years past tremendous debates have taken place on resolutions when they were first presented to the house by Mr. Speaker. For us to be told that Mr. Speaker should leave the chair so that the house may go into committee for this reason or that, or to have some profound statement, or for some other reason, seems to me to be entirely different from what we have been accustomed to in this house. I can remember when the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) sat on this side of the house and the very skies shook with the debates as to the logic or illogic of the position taken by the government of the day in connection with certain resolutions. Because Canada is at war this opposition has kindly consented again and again to forego its right so as to facilitate the business of the

Vocational Training
house. Now we are actually told that some impediment stands in the way of discussion on the first stage of a resolution. Surely that is not right.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fournier, Hull):: At this stage of, the proceedings there is a definite resolution before the chair and it is now open for study and discussion. I do not think that what has been discussed up to now is relevant to the resolution; it should have been brought up while Mr. Speaker was in the chair. The chairman has no authority at this stage to decide as to what should have taken place before the house resolved itself into committee. At this stage discussion is open to all members, and I understand there is to be a statement by the minister concerning the principle of the resolution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, perhaps at this stage of the proceedings you are technically right, but my colleague has been trying to voice a matter of privilege and protest against the suggestion that on the resolution stage, while the Speaker is still in the chair, we cannot discuss the principle of the resolution. If that is the ruling of this house, let us get it changed at the earliest possible moment. I have great respect for Mr. Speaker, but if he has made an ill-considered decision on that point, let us get to work at once and revise the decision. I have been here quite a long time and I have seen many of these money resolutions brought in. I have never even heard it suggested that you could not discuss the principle of the proposals underlying a government motion, especially when it was a money bill. Let us retrace our steps if it is necessary to do so in order that a hard fought for privilege may not be taken away from the people's representatives. There is a great deal underlying this whole matter, much more than applies just to this resolution now before the house.


Major James William Coldwell: Was such a ruling ever made?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not recall that it was, but I do not like to question the veracity of anyone because I do not have it under my hand. I should be astonished if there was such a ruling; if there was, I do not understand how it would have escaped me. I know that things sometimes get by me, but if I let that get by me I shall not forgive myself very soon.


Angus MacInnis: I think the Minister of Pensions and National Health was quite in error about the ruling. As a matter of fact, the ruling was the exact opposite to what the
minister said. The point was raised by the Prime Minister on February 22 and the Speaker gave his ruling after the dinner recess, to be found on page 800 of Hansard. He said:
The next question is that raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who quoted standing order 00 and submitted that the resolution before the house is not debatable. With this standing order, however, must be read standing order 38, which provides, inter alia:
"(1) The following motions are debatable:
Every motion
(a) standing on the order of proceedings for the day."
The resolution is on the order of proceedings for the day. I would point out that standing order 60 was passed in 1867, while standing order 38 was passed on March 22, 1927. In other words, standing order 38 is remedial to standing order 60, and I must conclude that standing order 38 must rule, and decide that the resolution before the house is debatable.
This resolution is similar in character. We are told it is not debatable now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) will see that the ruling he has referred to bears out the construction I have placed upon it. The construction of Mr. Speaker was that whereas you could debate the principle of a resolution, you could not debate the merits or demerits or the details of a measure until you reach the measure.


Angus MacInnis: Can you read that into Mr. Speaker's statement?


Alphonse Fournier: I cannot see the usefulness of this discussion. We are now in committee of the whole on the resolution. The matter now being discussed should have been brought up while Mr. Speaker was in the chair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did
bring it up, but hon. gentlemen opposite would not listen to me.


Alphonse Fournier: This point should have been raised
before the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair was put and carried. I would ask hon. members now to proceed.


Angus MacInnis: The last words which the Speaker used on that occasion were:
In my judgment the debate should be general, with no reference to details, all of which can be discussed in committee, and on the bill which follows the resolution.
But the principle of the resolution is subject to debate at this time. There are no clauses before us, and consequently the debate must be general. It cannot be in detail because there are no details to discuss.

Vocational Training


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not believe there is any difference between my hon. friend and myself. If he will read the preceding paragraph he will find that the Speaker said:
The debate, therefore, must be directed to the negative of that motion, that the resolution should not be submitted to the committee of the whole, for, as I have poined out, no amendment at this stage can be in order.
The motion being that the resolution should be submitted to the committee of the whole and the negative that it should not be, Mr. Speaker says that the debate must therefore be directed to the negative of the motion, that the resolution should not be submitted to committee of the whole.


Angus MacInnis: In my judgment, and I
Delieve in the judgment of the Speaker, the debate should be general, with no reference to the details; for, as he says, all these details can be discussed in committee and on the bill which follows the resolution. If we cannot discuss the principle of the resolution, what in the world can we discuss on going into committee?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I hesitate to project myself into this discussion, but I believe there is some misunderstanding. The point taken by the leader of the opposition and by the member for Vancouver East is not disputed on this side of the house.


Olof Hanson: Then I
misunderstood.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Let me proceed. The
resolution before us reads:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the promotion of vocational training projects, the entering into financial assistance agreements with the provinces in connection therewith, the appointment of a vocational training advisory council and of such officers, clerks and other employees necessary for the administration of this act.
If there had been any differences of opinion in the house on the principle of this measure, then I would say certainly that the principle should have been the subject of debate with Mr. Speaker in the chair. The practice has developed in this house of perhaps too much discussion of details on many resolutions, and that is the practice to which exception was taken on the occasion referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver East. But as I understand it, no exception is taken to the principle of this resolution. While it would have been quite proper to discuss the resolution with Mr. Speaker in the chair, business is expedited, in view of the fact that there is general acceptance of the principle, by going into committee upon it where it can be dis-

cussed in more detail. That discussion would have to take place in any event. I can assure the leader of the opposition and other hon. members on both sides of the house as well that the last thing the government would think of doing would be to take away any of the privileges of discussion of hon. members on the principle of a resolution. I hasten to give hon. members that assurance. But as no exception is taken to the general principle of this resolution I see no reason why the minister in charge should not proceed to make his statement now. Then we can have a general discussion.


Major James William Coldwell: How can we possibly know what the principle of the bill is if the minister does not make his statement when we are about to deal with the principle?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I quite agree, but my hon. friend should have raised that point when the motion was made, before the house resolved itself into committee of the whole.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
brings us back to where we started. When this item was called the minister rose and read rather hurriedly a long resolution which I had never seen before, not having been favoured with a copy of it.


Humphrey Mitchell: Thait was the other resolution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps I am wrong. I take that back. When this item was called I thought that was the proper time for the minister to make his statement to the house of the principles upon which the government proposed to proceed, and I invited him to do so immediately. For no reason that I can see at all, except to be very technical, the Minister of Pensions and National Health said that that would be out of order, and I allowed myself to be dissuaded. If the minister who is leading the house wants to regularize this thing, he can move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day, and then begin de novo and have the minister make his statement with the Speaker in the chair. When we understand what the govemmenit's proposals are, debate may ensue upon them. I do not say that it will. But to say that because we allowed the motion to pass without any debate we therefore approved the principle is just too thin for anything. I am all in favour of vocational training, but I want to know what the government's proposals are at their initiation. That is when the minister's statement should have been made, ruling or no ruling.

Vocational Training


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The motion was made in the regular way to refer the resolution to committee of the whole and was adopted by the house. We are now in committee of the whole, and I do not think we should reverse our procedure. There can be no objection that I can see to the minister in charge of the legislation going ahead and giving the explanation he would have given with Mr. Speaker in the chair. The objection should have been raised on the motion to go into committee. But to reverse our procedure now -I am not sure of the steps that would have to be taken-


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is no trouble at all to do that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We are in committee and we cannot get out of it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You can move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But we cannot debate the principle of the resolution once it has been sent to a committee. We cannot send it back to the house to have the principle discussed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The house can rescind anything it has done. As a matter of fact, the whole thing was railroaded through before the house knew what was going on.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I take decided objection to that reflection on the house by the leader of the opposition. It was not railroaded through, and there was no desire to railroad it through. There is not going to be any lack of opportunity of discussion, and I cannot see anything that is sacrificed by letting the minister make his statement now in committee.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would it be in order for
him to make it now?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Quite in order.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He would be more in
order if the Speaker were in the chair.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If it were a resolution
upon which there was wide divergence of opinion, and there was definite opposition to the principle, I think the objection raised would be pertinent. But there is no such divergence of opinion, and I repeat that there was no railroading of the resolution into committee of the whole house. It was open to any hon. member to object to the passing of the resolution to put the house into committee of the whole to consider it. It never occurred to me that any objection would be taken, and so far as establishing any precedent is concerned, I say here and now that
no precedent is established. I can recall occasions in the past when the same thing has been done. The house is not sacrificing any of its privileges or its rights, as the leader of the opposition suggested in the remarks he made a little while ago.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I am satisfied if no
precedent is established. The matter was dealt with so quickly; the leader of the opposition spoke in a low voice and was replied to in a low voice, and I did not hear what was said. But I did hear the minister of pensions make a statement and say that this was not the place, and then I rose to ask what was going on. But if it is understood that no precedent is established-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: None whatever.


Major James William Coldwell: -and that the minister of pensions may be said to have given us information which we are not to regard as being authentic and correct, as far as we are concerned I am willing to let the matter go.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But not to happen again.


Mr. NEILL:: I am pleased to see that at last the opposition has awakened to the rapid disintegration of the privileges of private members on this side of the house. It has been going on for years, but they do not appear to have caught on to this until just now. I have been wondering when they would draw the line. They have drawn it on what is perhaps a comparatively minor matter which might be got around in a way that I will suggest. Last November we sat here for eight days and debated something with the distinct understanding and instructions that we were not to do anything, we were not to propose anything. This session I saw a lady member, whose constituency I have forgotten, bluffed out of her right just as cold-bloodedly as I have ever seen anything done. A year ago we spent a whole day debating something. It was a very intricate bill, quite a proper subject of debate. At ten minutes to six the minister who was then leading the house got up and complained that we were interfering with the progress of the war and he wanted the said bill to go to the senate which had been waiting all day for it, although the senate did not sit until eight o'clock that evening. This sort of thing has been going on all the time, and sooner or later it has got to come to a showdown. The practice has been pursued gradually, bit by bit, little by little, of taking away our privileges. The privilege of moving resolutions has been taken away from us, and we dare not protest at all, or somebody points the finger of scorn
Vocational Training

at us and says that we are trying to hold up the prosecution of the war. In regard to all proposals similar to the one we are now discussing, ministers have crept into the way of saying, "Don't hold up the progress of the war; let the bill go to committee, where we can explain it very much better", and when we get into committee the chairman-quite properly-enforces the rules, which say that in committee we can only discuss the bill section by section, and we cannot discuss the principle of the bill. That is the sort of thing which has been going on all the time. The hon. gentleman who at this moment is leading the house (Mr. Crerar), speaking with his proverbial air of innocence, says that he would not do anything nor think of doing anything to interfere with our privileges. The fact is, however, that we as private members have been doing nothing but lose our privileges for months and years.
We are in committee now, as the chairman says, and the point has been raised by an hon. member that we cannot now revert to the second reading. I suggest that we go on in committee and that we now ask the minister to make the statement which he should have made originally, upon the understanding that we have defended and defined our rights, and that this will not occur agian.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: The matter is now before the committee of the whole house. As I see it, there is no doubt that the motion to refer that resolution to the committee could have been debated, under standing order 50, referring to a motion to refer a bill to the committee of the whole. According to citation 427:
This motion is not debatable under S.O. 38 unless it be an order of the day.
This is an order of the day, and it is therefore debatable. But the house allowed the matter to go through without debate, and if the government is willing to let the matter be discussed in committee I cannot see any object in having the chairman report progress, followed by another motion that the resolution be referred to the committee of the whole house.


Mr. BOUCHER:: While that may be so, and we may get the information in the manner which has been suggested, the fact is, as the acting leader of the government has stated to the house this afternoon, that when the resolution is brought in, the principle should be discussed. That is quite clear. Then, he says, this resolution having been brought in, the principle not having been discussed, we, being in committee of the whole, can do now what we should have

done then. How can a person discuss the principle of a bill before that principle has been enunciated to the house? It is impossible, and, in the interests of every individual member, I say that if there is a way of reverting to the point at which the motion to go into committee was made and passed- erroneously, I submit, because of the false position taken by the Minister of Pensions and National Health, leading hon. members to believe that we could not discuss it then- I believe that the house should be big enough to undo its error.
Consider, for example, the situation where a bill is brought in to establish a bird sanctuary. What does the house know about the principle of the bill until the minister states how and where he wants to establish the sanctuary and what sort of sanctuary he wants to establish? Would it not be preposterous to require this house to pass a resolution with the mere title of a bill before them, before they know anything about what it contains or what its principles are? I do not agree that parliament, even in these days of strain, should be expected to discuss bills of this kind before they know anything about them. I contend, in the interests of the private member, that if there is any possible way of reverting to the resolution stage we should now revert to it, if only to keep the record clear and to maintain the rights of the private member which have been established and recognized in this house.
Mr. MaoNICOL: I want to support the suggestion made a few moments ago by the leader of the opposition, that the government permit the committee to rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again, and that the motion to go into committee be debated, and that the minister give an outline of what his proposals are. I was very much surprised to see how quickly the motion passed that Mr. Speaker leave the chair. I had intended to say something on this subject, but apparently discussion will nob be allowed in the committee except on the clauses as they are put forward. Therefore I recommend that the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition a few moments ago be acceded to by the government.


Humphrey Mitchell: If there is no objection, I will proceed with my statement. I regret very much that these technicalities have arisen. Hon. members may rest assured that I would have been quite willing to make a statement before the resolution reached committee. I think the most important thing is to get on with the work, and as a precedent

Vocational Training
is not established-as recognized by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar-I suppose no ill effect will have resulted.
The bill to be based upon the resolution is really a continuance or extension of the Youth Training Act which was sponsored by the late Minister of Labour, the Hon. Norman Rogers, and which set in motion the youth training plan of that day. From its inception until 1941, three hundred thousand persons have received training under that legislation. The act expired on March 31 of this year. The intent of the new bill is not only to maintain that system of training in which the provinces and the municipalities cooperate to the fullest extent, but also to extend its scope so as to make provision for a number of additional training schemes. The war emergency training programme must be carried on. It is fair to say that the groundwork laid by the youth training plan made possible the quick and extended war emergency training programme that exists at the present time. It might fairly be said of the late Minister of Labour that he planned better than he knew, with the result that at the outbreak of the war we had perfect cooperation between the federal government and the provincial governments and municipalities in order to set in motion an enormously extended programme that made possible the training of men and women for war industries as they exist to-day.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Was that before the war?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am referring to 1937.


John Ritchie MacNicol: At that time there
existed an unemployment condition which we have not got to-day.


Humphrey Mitchell: But we laid the foundation of a training programme, and had it not been for what was done prior to the war, as those of us know who have had experience in launching programmes of this kind, it would have taken very much longer to set in motion the war emergency programme which has assisted so greatly in manning the war industries of the country. Moveover, it has rendered very considerable assistance to the Royal Canadian Air Force, the navy, and the armed forces.
The purpose of the bill is so that the cooperation with the provinces and municipalities shall be carried on and largely extended as the need arises, with the inevitable expansion of war industry. It will provide training facilities for such unemployed workers as may require training under the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act. That act provides for the training of unemployed workers and it is the intention that the machinery set up
thereunder, and the training facilities, shall be made use of. That responsibility will be assumed for the unemployment insurance commission. Provision will also be made for vocational training for persons discharged from the armed forces in the present war, and in the post-war period the foundation will be laid and provision will be made for the training of returned men as they come back from overseas-that is, those who require training. In the last war, I may say frankly, a magnificent job was done without any previous experience in the training of men returning from overseas. I have a vivid recollection of having a number of trainees working under me at that time, and at the conclusion of training they all found employment with the firm with which I was working.
The framework of the bill allows of projects being undertaken either directly by the dominion or to be carried on by agreement with the provinces. At the present time, in some instances, the cost of the training programme is shared fifty-fifty by the federal government and the provinces, and in other instances the cost of equipment is shared on an equal basis. In still other instances the cost is paid wholly by the dominion. In connection with preliminary training for the Royal Canadian Air Force, the navy and the army, the whole cost is borne by the government.
No specific sum will be mentioned in the bill because of the uncertainties of the situation and the conditions that confront us. Estimates will have to be introduced every year for the purpose of carrying out training under the bill. As I have pointed out, inasmuch as training for the army, the air force and the navy is primarily the responsibility of the dominion, that is assumed in toto by the dominion. I think a great deal of credit is due to the provinces and the municipalities for the assistance rendered the dominion not only prior to the outbreak of war but since then. They have placed at the disposal of the government technical schools which in some cases have been operating on a twenty-four hour basis, and they have also provided teachers and teaching staffs. I need hardly tell hon. members that the dominion had not the facilities for creating immediately an organization of this kind. We have had that decentralization which in the final analysis is sometimes the best form of government when it is closest to the people.


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I say to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) that the contribution made by his province to the
Vocational Training

war emergency training programme has been a grand one, the equal of any other in the dominion.


John Horne Blackmore: It will always be that way.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think I have covered in brief the basis of the act. The committee can rest assured that after the bill goes to the special committee, if there are any suggestions which hon. members desire to make, provided they are sound from the point of view of the government, such suggestions will receive every consideration *when we are dealing with this most important problem.


Howard Charles Green: Does it cover training both for men in the forces and those in industries, as well as post-war training?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: It covers all training?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will not oppose the objective which the minister has in mind, but I must say I am a little at sea as to the method. The minister referred to the bill introduced a few years ago by one of his predecessors, the late Hon. Norman Rogers. I supported the bill at that time, but that bill was predicated on a great unemployment condition that prevailed then, and it was for the purpose, as the minister has pointed out, of training young men in vocations that would fit them to take their place in producing munitions or any other equipment that would be required either in peace or in war. That however was a time of depression. Now, apart from one remark which the minister made with regard to the purpose of the bill, to the effect that it would take care of those now returning, I do not see what else it will do. With that part of the bill I would be in hearty accord, because there are a great number of young men now returning from overseas, who, before they enlisted, were wholly untrained, not having had the opportunity to train for anything, having lived their youth in a period of unemployment. If therefore the bill does cover those young men coming back I am all for it.
But we have now, under the Department of National Defence-I am not sure whether I have the right department-fine schools at London, Galt and Hamilton. I have been in all of them. In these schools young men are being trained to do all the necessary work in connection with aeroplanes, engines and machines of one kind or another. I should like to know if this bill will have anything to do with these schools that are now operating,
tVfr. Mitchell.]
apparently under the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). At London there are perhaps a thousand young men who are being well trained. I was greatly impressed by that school being operated by the Department of National Defence in training young men for work in the army in connection with machines. This bill will not cover that work, because it is under the Department of National Defence. The same would apply to the Galt school, which is well operated, and also to the Hamilton school. So I am wondering just what is the scope of this bill, apart from providing for the young men who are now returning from overseas, who did not have training.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would point out that the Galt school is what is called a pre-enlistment school for the air force. Between April 1 and December 31 there were enlisted in the pre-enlistment classes for the air force some 10,113 men. They receive the preliminary training, the ground work, which my hon. friend understands as well as I do. In connection with the army and navy there have been 15,343 individuals enrolled in the various pre-enlistment schools in the several provinces.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In London they are
already enlisted.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is different; I am
talking about pre-enlistment training.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And in Hamilton they
are already enlisted.


Humphrey Mitchell: In addition, some 4,200
have been trained for other vocations in the pre-enlistment training schools; in the main that is before they reach the age of enlistment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is
the age limit in connection with pre-enlistment? I have in mind that under the government's policy with respect to man-power, as announced by the Prime Minister in this house and to some extent elaborated by the Minister of Labour himself, nobody dares hire one of these men. In other words, the government, instead of taking the bull by the horns and making a direct approach toward getting men in the army, are resorting to the worst back-door methods this country has ever witnessed in order to drive men into the army for compulsory service. Last week a woman, whose husband was ill, came to see me. She had a son eighteen years of age, who was the only support of her family, and he was being refused employment in New Brunswick under the provisions of the government's man-power policy. I have heard of some of the worst cases on record of men

Vocational Training
now in the army, enlisted for home service, who cannot get a furlough to go home and see their families unless they will sign up for overseas service. The whole thing is so disgraceful as to call for an explanation on the part of the minister. We had the words of the Prime Minister in announcing his manpower policy, establishing the indirect route toward military service. Never was there a more cowardly statement of policy in this House of Commons than that statement of man-power policy qua the war effort of this country. It was an absolute refusal to meet the situation by the direct route and a plain statement, after one analysed it, of the indirect approach in order to do something which the government had not the backbone to do directly.
That is the situation in a nutshell; yet the minister says this measure is to take young men in and give them vocational training. The minister knows that under the policy of his government these young men cannot get vocational training unless they enlist for overseas service. That may not be according to the letter of the law, but that is the spirit of the policy of the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, I
thought we would have some mention of some technicality.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The leader of the opposition a few moments ago, in referring to the Prime Minister's statement, said it was a cowardly statement. I refer you, sir, to page 97 of Beauchesne, citation 298, in which that is described as an unparliamentary term, and it should be withdrawn.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If that
statement is too harsh I shall withdraw it and use something else. Pusillanimous is a good word; you could use either one, but the public understand what is going on to-day. The public are now beginning to understand the effect of the government's policy with respect to this question of manpower. Then, in connection with vocational training, how many men will get vocational training under this proposed measure unless they sign up for overseas service? I put that question to the minister; he knows.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He knows in the bottom of his heart that none of them will get vocational training if they are fit to go into the army and have arrived at that stage. In other words, the young men of this
country have been told, "Enlist for overseas service or you starve. You cannot get a job and you will not get vocational training."
I am not objecting to the principle of vocational training; I am going to have something more to say about that in a moment. I want to know what the minister means by his statement in connection with the setting up of a vocational training advisory council. What are to be the functions of that council? Who are to compose it? I think he should give us that information. Are they to be a new set of paid public servants in the country? We have the spectacle of the Department of Finance, I think it is, sending Mr. McGregor, the trust buster, all over this country hiring young lawyers here, there and everywhere, paying them $4,000 a year to become public prosecutors in connection with the price control policy. Parliament never authorized that. Did we think we were going to have an army of young lawyers, who ought to be in the army themselves, going round prosecuting farmers, perhaps, because they sold maple syrup at a little more than the price level fixed by the board?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If I may ask a question, does the hon. gentleman think the maximum price regulation order should not be enforced?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, and I did not say anything of the sort. But who gave Mr. McGregor authority to go to Montreal and appoint a young lawyer at a salary of $4,000? Who gave him authority to go to Brockville and appoint another young lawyer at a salary of $4,000, to act as public prosecutor? Parliament knows nothing about it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just a moment; those.questions can be answered. The young lawyers who were appointed at less than $5,000 a year were appointed by the civil service commission pursuant to an order in council which was passed establishing the price ceiling policy, and that order in council was passed legally under the War Measures Act. I can assure my hon. friend that everything that has been done has been authorized and carried out under legislation. Some of it may have been done under the War Measures Act, but that is what the War Measures Act is for. I would ask my hon. friend not to make these sneering statements discrediting a great policy unless he goes more fully into it than he has by these collateral attacks. It is all very well to make these attacks during the discussion of a measure such as this, when his statements are not at all in order. It is all very well for him to make these glancing
Vocational Training

attacks against important policies. But I would ask him just to leave the discussion of this price ceiling policy to the proper time. It can be debated and will be debated fully in this house. In the meantime I implore him not to make attacks of that kind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was not attacking the policy.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But you are destroying the policy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh no, I am not destroying the policy. But if you do not look out, the policy will destroy itself.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, there you are again.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think hon. members have been most restrained in discussing this question, as I know I have. There have been injustices and inequalities perpetrated under the plea that we must avoid inflation, and we have refrained from advocating anything that would do harm to the objective. We have had a hit-or-miss, hit-and-run, trial-and-error system in regard to this matter. That is what it has been. We had the spectacle of the head of the price control board going to the country and telling the people-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order I suggest that the discussion of the price ceiling policy is not in order at this time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right; I accept that. Technically and legally the minister is quite right, and I shall reserve anything further I have to say to another time. Probably I have said all I want to say at the moment, anyway.
I now invite the minister to tell us what he proposes to do with respect to young men for vocational training who are eligible for military enlistment. Are they to be given vocational training before they actually sign up, and will they be compelled to sign up for overseas service in the active army?


Humphrey Mitchell: I can say this, that I served in the last war. If I were physically fit, and of age, I think I would sign up; I would join the armed forces to-day. I would not run to a war industry, or anywhere else, to dodge my obligations. But I would say that under the government's policy there is nothing saying that these young men cannot get jobs in war industries. The only thing denied them is a job in a non-essential industry.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who is to say what that is?
<Mr. Ilsley.J


Humphrey Mitchell: That is generally understood.


Angus MacInnis: Can they get a job in a war industry, unless they have a certificate of rejection from some branch of the armed forces?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have not heard anything about that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; they cannot get a job.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not believe they can. A young man came to me only two or three days ago. He told me he was in his eighteenth year, and implored me to assist him in getting a position in a munitions plant. I said to him, "Why can you not get a position there? They are taking on a great many men." He replied that when he went to the plant he was told that unless he had a certificate from the military authorities permitting him to accept a position, he could not have a position.


Angus MacInnis: I quite agree with the point raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), in regard to the government's instituting conscription by the back-door. The condition applies particularly to men between the ages of seventeen and twenty-one, but it actually includes men between seventeen and forty-five. The order calling up men between the ages of twenty-one and thirty for service in Canada provides that they will not be called until they have reached their twenty-first birthday. This means that for service within Canada the government is not using compulsion until a man has reached his twenty-first birthday. But with respect to service for overseas, in an indirect way, by making it impossible for men between the ages of seventeen and twenty-one to gain employment, unless they have rejection certificates, the government is driving young men into the army before they have reached their twenty-first year.
This is a most despicable way of putting conscription into force-economic conscription, because that is what it is. The same applies to men up to the age of forty-five years. I believe all hon. members receive copies of advertisements sent out by the civil service commission. These advertisements point out that persons between the ages of seventeen and forty-five must have rejection slips; otherwise their applications would not be considered.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is a non-essential industry; that is the reason.

Vocational Training


Angus MacInnis: It is not necessarily a nonessential industry. Surely the minister does not say the civil service is a non-essential industry?	.


Humphrey Mitchell: In many respects, yes.


Angus MacInnis: Is the Department of
Labour a non-essential industry?


Humphrey Mitchell: In some respects, yes.


Angus MacInnis: Then, why don't you resign, and tell the government to disband it- that your work is useless; that it is nonessential?


Humphrey Mitchell: We would not be
justified in taking from clerical positions men of seventeen years. Let us discuss this dispassionately. We would not be justified in taking these young men from the Department of Labour. There would be more criticism from that angle than from the other one.


Angus MacInnis: I am not raising the
question only as it applies to the civil service. It is unlawful and a criminal offence to give those men employment in non-essential or restricted industries. In essential industries they must have certificates of rejection from the armed forces. That applies to the civil service, as well as to other employments. What is the minister going to train them for? If they are between the ages of seventeen and twenty-one, after receiving training they must have their certificates of rejection before they can get into an essential service-a war service.


Humphrey Mitchell: You are wrong there- wrong again. They can go into a war industry without exemption.


Angus MacInnis: They have to have a
certificate of rejection.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, no.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: Oh, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Referring to the point as to what is an essential industry, I understand the minister had ruled that the textile industry is not an essential industry within the meaning of the regulations. I point out to him that 80 per cent of the textile industry of Canada is engaged in manufacturing war goods. If it is not so engaged, it should be, and the non-essentials should be cut out. Assuming that 50 per cent of the production of the textile industry is on war orders, how can it be said that that industry is not essential? We have just come through a cold winter, and no one knows it better than the soldiers who have to live in the sheds. I should like to see the minister standing on
the bleak reaches of Gander, Newfoundland, to see an Ontario regiment parading around there.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have stood there, with no shoes on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then the minister knows exactly what I am talking about, because they are chilled to the bone, even with their greatcoats on, even as I was. Surely the textile industry, at least in part, is an essential war industry. Under this proposal, who is to judge what is or is not an essential war industry? Is it to be the Minister of Labour? Will it be the Minister of National War Services? Presumably it is to be the Minister of Labour.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, the Minister of
Labour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That being so, the minister may declare that any industry is not an essential industry, and that therefore he can drive every young man in this country, by the back-door route, into enlistment for active service overseas. That is the absolute truth, and it is a shameful policy. If "cowardly" is not a parliamentary term, I shall use the expression "shameful policy"- and I believe I am stating the truth.
What has happened in connection with these young trainees? A young lad is about to attain the age of call. He is called by the Department of National War Services presided over by the minister from Selkirk. Before his call goes out, his name is given to the recruiting officer in the district in which he lives. Mark you, this is before he is called. This is another indirect approach on the part of the government to get recruits by the voluntary system-and we are told how wonderfully it is working! He gets a letter from the chief recruiting officer in- the area telling him that he is going to be called, and by a more or less polite paragraph in the letter he is advised that he had better sign up for the active army. He may do so or he may not, but I want to tell the minister and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) that so far as that recruiting officer is concerned, that young man is a marked man the minute he gets into the training centre.
I have evidence of the case of a young man in a county in Ontario who is in- the nonactive army. He has been approached repeatedly by the non-commissioned officers and asked to enlist for active service. He has applied for a furlough to go home to see his family, but this has been refused although his furlough is long past due. He has been

Vocational Training

told that if he will sign on the dotted line, for active service, he can go home on a double furlough. What kind of recruiting system is that? That is a travesty on British justice.


Humphrey Mitchell: Does the hon. member think it is a travesty on British justice to defend your country?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I do not; I am advocating something quite different. I am advocating a manly, straightforward system. I believe the Minister of Labour, if he were free, would advocate this also. In fact, within the week he probably has advocated it. How can he retain his selfrespect and remain in a ministry that will adopt such methods? I do not just understand why methods such as those to which this administration has resorted should be adopted in order to get recruits for the active army. While the objective is excellent, I want to say that the methods resorted to in order to obtain men for the active army for service anywhere are everything that they should not be. The methods vary. One method will be adopted in one recruiting area, and another will be adopted in another area. Much will depend upon the resourcefulness of the recruiting officer or the degree to which he is hard-hearted or hard-boiled. Some of these fellows are pretty hard-boiled and they will resort to anything. I have heard of cases where physical pressure has been applied, where a man was blackened because he would not sign up. I have heard of one recruiting area where they got 100 per cent of the trainees to enlist for the active army by methods which I believe could not bear the light of day.
Let us get away from this sort of thing. I think this has been admitted on the floor of this house. Let us not be extreme in our language. But I want to say to the minister that there are many things that I believe he would not approve. I think we agree as to the objective, that is, to get men into the active army to defend this nation, and I shall talk about that to-night, but we ought to revise our methods.
Just a word or two about these young lawyers appointed by the war-time prices and trade board. The minister stated that these young lawyers were appointed by the civil service commission, but I want to tell him that that is not the case. I have never seen an advertisement by the civil service commission advertising any of these positions. Were the positions publicly advertised, or were they just hand-picked lawyers?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They were hand-picked Tories, most of them.


Mr. McCANN:: I think the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has referred to special and isolated cases in an attempt to prove that the wrong methods of recruiting have been resorted to with a view to getting men to sign up for overseas; that it is not done on a voluntary basis. During the recess I had occasion to visit several sections of my constituency, and in one small village I found there had been 150 voluntary enlistments for overseas service during the course of the present war compared with twenty-five enlistments from the same part of my constituency during the last war.


John Ritchie MacNicol: One hundred and fifty enlistments from a small village?


James Joseph McCann: One hundred and fifty compared with twentydive in the last war.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It must be a pretty good sized village.


James Joseph McCann: It is a village of 1,500 people. I think that ratio of enlistments is highly creditable. Speaking more directly with reference to the vocational training, I can see where it can be used to great advantage in connection with men who have been rejected for military service. We must take into account the number of men who are physically unfit to be placed in category Al, either for service overseas or in our own country. The fact remains that we must be prepared to do something with men who cannot be placed in these categories. Last week I sat on an examination board examining voluntary recruits for the Lanark and Renfrew Scottish regiment. Of the number who came up that afternoon for examination exactly thirty-three and a third per cent were rejected on physical grounds. These men were given certificates to the effect that they were unfit for service, and on the strength of those certificates they could make application to certain industries for employment.
But what becomes of them if they have had no training or are not trained artisans? That is exactly where this vocational training could be used with excellent results. These men have done their bit by offering their services, although they may have known they were physically unfit and were likely to be rejected. It becomes the duty of the government to take these men and give them some training so that they can go into industry of some type or another. The men are doing this voluntarily in order that they may be put into the classification in which they belong. Having gone through the normal process of being examined and receiving certificates of physical rejection, they know where they belong. They

Vocational Training
can either find employment or take up vocational training as supplied by the government. This resolution, and the bill which will come after it, are in keeping with the policy previously adopted by the government and carried out for a number of years. At this time that policy should be speeded up and augmented as quickly and as much as possible.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon gentleman has just raised another point which has not been touched upon in the debate this afternoon. During the padt year the war emergency training programme 'has accorded the veterans of the present war and of the great war a preference in accepting candidates for training. Subsistence allowances have been paid to those selected for such training, and employment has been found for trainees in war industry. I am replying directly to the point raised by my hon. friend.
The war emergency training programme has developed from the youth training facilities, and is carrying on in conjunction with the provincial governments and in close association with educational bodies throughout the dominion. These arrangements in respect of vocational training have laid a useful foundation for cooperation between the youth training organization of the Department of Labour and the Department of Pensions and National Health in respect of vocational training of discharged men which will be very helpful, we hope, in the difficult period that lies ahead.
This committee will recall that last year the rehabilitation committee, in a comprehensive report to the parliamentary committee during the past session, filed a recommendation in respect of vocational training which goes far beyond the narrower view of vocational training established at the end of the last war. At that time vocational training facilities were restricted to those with pensionable disabilities who were unable, on account of disability, to resume their previous employment, and to minors. It is recognized, however, that many men now serving had little opportunity prior to enlistment to acquire a skill, and unfortunately many of them have not had the discipline or training of a job. The subcommittee on vocational training therefore recommended:
That training should be given those who on the recommendation of competent vocational guidance officers are considered by age, aptitude and inclination as likely to benefit from such training.
This recommendation, together with the recommendation of the subcommittee on interrupted education suggesting that provision be made for resumption of interrupted education, and reports of other subcommittees,
44561-112}
were given coherence in what is known as the post-discharge reestablishment order, passed on October 1, 1941.
The provision made for subsistence allowances in respect of vocational training is wide, and such allowances will be payable by the Department of Pensions and National Health. That department is now proceeding to establish a vocational training division with a competent and experienced director to carry on the work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To how far back in point of time is the last order in council effective? It does not go back to discharge earlier than July, 1941, does it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There were definite reasons for that. One of the main features of the order in council- there were about six definite and distinct benefits provided for by the order in council -was that it conferred upon those who had joined the forces the same benefits in regard to insured employment as were conferred upon civilians. Unemployment insurance came into effect on July 1, 1941, and for actuarial and -other purposes it was necessary to provide that limitation, although very few cases were discharged before that date. There were special cases which required special treatment. I quite appreciate my hon. friend's point.
As I was saying, we are establishing a vocational training division within the department, which will have the following functions:
1.	It will carry the responsibility of the Department of Pensions and National Health with respect to the training of special casualties such as amputees, the blind and others. These are our entire responsibility and -their vocational training will be carried on by the Department of Pensions and National Health. That is the recommendation made to us by those who are most competent to make it, and it was endorsed, I think, by the committee of last year.
2.	The department will endeavour to secure continuity in the various stages leading to the reestablishment of such special casualties. These various stages may include physiotherapy, occupational therapy, functional training, vocational guidance, and specialized vocational training for the seriously handicapped.
3.	It will approve the selection of those who are to be authorized to resume, with public assistance, the education which was interrupted by their enlistment. It will also generally supervise the continuation of their
Vocational Training

education, which will, of course, be actually received in the universities and institutions of higher learning.
Next, and this is important:
4.	It will select and give vocational guidance to those physically fit discharged men who are to pass into the vocational training classes operated under the Department of Labour as envisaged by the vocational training coordination bill which is to follow the adoption of this resolution.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will young women in the service be included as well as young men?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By a recent order in council all the privileges of the post-discharge order of October 1 were made applicable to women who have enlisted in the various forces.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does it say whether it is men or women?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The order in council making the previous order applicable to women was of fairly recent date.


Mr. HAZEN:: What does functional training embrace?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would not claim to be an expert on all the various aspects of it; but the intention of the department is to get experts in regard to special aptitudes and the best directional advice for each individual case based on the nature of the casualty, and, in the case of those who are discharged as fit, based upon their previous experience and to some extent upon their natural inclination and aptitudes.
The vocational training branch of the Department of Pensions and National Health will therefore be responsible for vocational guidance with respect to all ex-service men who may be considered eligible for further training courses. The Department of Pensions and National Health will also administer vocational training for the seriously handicapped.
It is proposed that the Department of Labour shall conduct the actual training of the physically fit men who are awarded training courses as a means of fitting them for civil life.
During the months that lie ahead steps will be taken to make a complete survey of the present facilities available for vocational training and to examine into methods of vocational guidance, aptitude testing, job analysis, types of training available, opportunities for training in industry, apprenticeship, and the

transfer value of training and skills in the armed forces and the cousinship of such skills with civilian skills and training.
The purpose is to correlate the condition after discharge, if the man is fit, with his natural aptitude for a particular industry or for special vocational training, and if a special casualty, with special training within the jurisdiction of the department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there not grave danger there of duplication?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think so. The subject has been carefully studied by the committee on special casualties and the committee on vocational training, and what I have submitted is very largely the result of their recommendations to the government.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that in my absence the leader of the opposition had something to say with regard to methods of recruiting. I did not know that that matter was related to this subject or would come up, or I would have remained in the house. Only a short time ago I arranged with my hon. friend that discussion of army matters would come on the discussion of the war appropriation bill, and I would have thought that that would be the time to bring up recruiting rather than when I did not happen to be in the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It arose only incidentally, and not because the minister was not here.


James Layton Ralston: But I understand that my hon. friend made a considerable point of it. I understand he had something to say with regard to methods of recruiting in training centres, and that he even intimated that he knew of a case or had had a case reported to him in which physical pressure had been used upon some individual to induce him to enlist.
I say for the benefit of the committee

I have not the orders under my hand because I did not expect this matter to come up to-day-that express orders have been given that no undue influence or improper pressure is to be used upon men in the training centres. I have no doubt that as the men are associating together men in the active army and men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act, there will be inducements from the active men to the others to go active, just as there are inducements on the college campus from time to time to get a fellow to come into a particular college fraternity. One would expect that kind of thing to go on. But so far as improper pressure is concerned or any unflue influence,

Vocational Training
I want to say distinctly that it is directly against the most positive orders which have been issued.
The only case brought to my attention was brought by a colleague of mine. It was said that an officer had been present in a certain camp when some physical influence was being used. I myself sent to the training centre and had the officer brought to headquarters and dealt with by the adjutant-general. I found that the report was completely erroneous in so far as the use of physical pressure was concerned, but that this man had said something which was contemptuous towards the recruit, and was dealt with by the adjutant-general.
I invite my hon. friend or any other member of this committee, if he knows of any case of undue or improper influence in this connection, to bring it to my attention. I may say that I have known in evangelistic meetings of a good deal of pressure and much fervour being used to bring in converts; and I know also that in connection with recruits ing meetings, quite apart from training centres, a great deal of emotional pressure is used. I would rather expect that, and I do not believe that anybody in this committee is finding fault with it. But so far as any physical pressure or violence or undue influence is concerned, that is absolutely against orders, and will be dealt with if cases are brought to my attention.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have
no objection to the statement made by the minister. There have been cases, but I would not assume that the department would give legal authorization to such methods. A great deal depends upon the recruiting officer. The point to which I was speaking hadl reference to vocational training and government sponsorship of young men, and the methods to which the government have resorted!-I call them "back-door methods"; the Prime Minister used the term "indirect methods"-of making it impossible, speaking generally, for any young man to get employment to-day if he is capable of going into the active army. I deprecate that sort of approach to military compulsion, and that is what we have in Canada to-day.


James Layton Ralston: I am very much surprised to hear my hon. friend take objection to that. All he wants to do is to go one step further and make it positive.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would
that not be more sincere?


James Layton Ralston: I would think that this
is an endeavour to put the round peg in the round hole and the square peg in the square
hole. I would regard it as an attempt to make available for military service the man who is physically fit and of suitable age, when some other man can do his job in civilian life. I am astonished to hear my hon. friend take any objection to that method. It is the only way whereby you can allocate the man-power of this country. The man who is physically fit and of military age can either be doing a military job or be in civilian employment. The man who is not physically fit and is not of military age cannot do a military job, but he may do a civilian job; and the method to which my hon. friend refers is intended to provide that the older and less fit man is put into that civilian job, and the other man is left free to do the job which his neighbour cannot do. I do not think my hon. friend) should take objection to that. I think it is part of any selective service system. To see to it that young men who are physically fit and of military age are not employed in non-essential industries is, I believe, a perfectly proper system. I would say the same thing with regard to the civil service. I notice on the order paper to-day a question on this subject. The hon. member who puts the question asks why the railways do not adopt the same method. I believe that is just a part of selective service-seeing to it that the man who can do the job is made available to do it; and I cannot concur in my hon. friend's criticism of that method.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Furthermore, I think the matter might be put in another way. One of the essential purposes of any sound national selective service system is that as far as possible every person in the country, whether man or woman, shall work in that field of war activity where he or she can best promote the total war effort. Another purpose of any sound selective service system is to avoid wastage of man-power in comparatively nonessential industries, in the case of men who are physically fit for active service and of military age. The purpose of passing this order restricting the entry of certain persons into a number of occupations was, in the first place, to prevent a wastage of manpower. These occupations have a very large turnover; and when any person who is at present engaged in one of these occupations ceases to be employed therein, it is intended that that person's place shall be filled either by a woman or by a man above military age or unfit for military service. That in a broad way is national selective service. The various regulations which were discussed by the Prime Minister on March 24, indicate the attitude
Vocational Training

of the government in this matter. There are two possible approaches to a national selective service system. One is to try to assess the individual qualifications of every man and woman in the country, and ticket them, and move them round from place to place. That task in itself would take an army of people who would be much better engaged ' in doing something else to promote the war effort. The other approach is a much more practical and realistic one. The government has announced its war programme; it has announced its programme for the armed forces and for munitions production, both programmes in terms of man-power requirements; the purpose of our national selective service system is to assist in meeting those requirements in a practical and realistic way, meeting situations as they arise by means of regulations, seeking also to anticipate by regulations situations which are likely to arise; in other words, meeting specific conditions by specific measures. I believe that is a much more practical and more realistic approach to the whole system of national selective service than the first approach would be. The order to which reference has been made is part of that system. It restricts the entry into a certain number of occupations of men who are of military age and physically fit for the armed forces. All the occupations are listed in the schedule. All are comparatively non-essential, or if they are essential they can be filled either by women or by older men or men unfit for military service. This is the kind of national selective service which every one has been urging, and this is a realistic and practical way of putting it into effect. The persons who are prevented from entering these occupations are not barred from entering essential war activities.


Howard Charles Green: Is that quite definite, because statements to the opposite effect were made earlier?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Then, with regard to the question which was raised regarding the war employers-


Angus MacInnis: Aha! What is the definition of "war employers"?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: -if a war employer does not wish to employ a young man who is physically fit, and who is either likely to enlist or will be subject to call under the war service regulations, that is a matter in which he is interested from the point of view of continuity in his war production.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But he cannot take such a young man into his employment.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Oh, yes, he can. There is nothing to bar him from employing such a man, but if he. is reluctant to do so, from the point of view of keeping his industry up to the maximum of production, that is something in which he and the country at large are deeply interested. There is again, if you like to describe it so, a situation developing whereby persons are being allocated either directly or indirectly to those theatres of activity where they can make the greatest contribution to the totality of the war effort and its maximum effectiveness. That, after all, is the important governing policy.


Howard Charles Green: Is there a government policy with regard to men between the ages of seventeen and forty-five going into war industry? As I read the order in council which has been under discussion, it applies only to non-war jobs. Apparently the government, with regard to war jobs, is leaving it all to the individual employer. Would it not be fair; is it not proper, that there should be a government policy? Either these men can go into war industry or they cannot. Why leave it to the individual employer? That is bound to mean great discrimination in different towns or in different industries in the same town. Surely the government should be in favour of one policy or the other. Why leave such an important question up in the air?


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to say frankly that I cannot get steamed up over an ablebodied, single man-


Angus MacInnis: Why don't you make that your policy?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am coming to it.


Angus MacInnis: Get steamed up the other way. Make it your policy.


Humphrey Mitchell: You have never been steamed up in your life, my boy. I can understand your stand.


Angus MacInnis: Get steamed up the proper way.


Humphrey Mitchell: If you had your way there would not be a House of Commons to-day.


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friend must withdraw that statement.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will withdraw it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Angus MacInnis: Don't make any more remarks like that. We can make statements over here too.

Vocational Training


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think the policy is clear. These men can go into war industry. They cannot go into non-war industries without a permit. That is perfectly clear. When my hon. friend says for me to look out, he started it. He sneered at me.


Thomas Miller Bell: When a member rises and makes the statement that if somebody had his way there would be no House of Commons, it is time to interrupt.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, you did.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, no, I did not say
that.
Mr. COLDW'ELL: Yes, you did. It is exactly what you said.


Humphrey Mitchell: If I said it I regret it. It is not the interpretation I meant to put on my own words.


Angus MacInnis: I do not know what interpretation to put on your own words when you do not know yourself.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think the policy is clear. If I were an able-bodied young man I would be in the fighting forces. They are the aristocrats of their day. If it were not for these young men, there would not be any House of Commons. I think that is perfectly obvious. I took that position in the last war and I take it in this war. I do not know why I should waste any time over able-bodied men of military age, single -men.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is saying in one breath that the policy of the government is that these men shall be able to go into war industry, and in the next breath he says that so far as he is concerned

and he is the man who has the administering of the order in council-these men have no right to go into war industry.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not say that.


Howard Charles Green: That is what it amounts to.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, no.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest to the minister and to other members of the ministry that the house and the country are entitled to know what "the government's policy is on this question. Let us know, and then let the employers comply with that policj\ Do not have this business of the government having one policy and winking ait the employer following another. We cannot expect to have a wholehearted war effort under such conditions. The country is entitled to better leadership than that.


Angus MacInnis: My good friend the
Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) put the case very nicely, as he always does, but it is no less economic conscription. Then -my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), who is not so particular about putting things nicely, asked why he should lose any sleep over an ablebodied man who is not in one of the services. Buit the government that he represents, the government whose policies he has adopted, took the position that they would not by law compel any man to go into the armed services.


Richard Burpee Hanson: By the direct route.


Angus MacInnis: But now they are putting him into the armed services through -his stomach.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not believe it.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There are plenty of opportunities for these men.


Angus MacInnis: There are not. Dozens of young men have come to me and said that they could not get into any service that is non-essential or otherwise. This is not a condition that has arisen since the orders in council were -passed; it has -been going on for many months. This is what it amounts to. The poor man who has no one to keep him will starve or go into the armed forces. He will starve unless he already has a job. Economic conscription applies to him, but it does not apply to the young, physically fit -man whose father can keep him, or whose father is in a position to keep him.


James Layton Ralston: Are there many of those?


Angus MacInnis: I imagine that if my hon. friend had a son of that age it would apply to him.


James Layton Ralston: I assure you it would not.


Angus MacInnis: It possibly would not, but the fact is there. I am not saying how many it applies to. I am telling my hon. friend that it is the government's policy at the present time to put the poor man into the armed forces through starvation, while the rich man's son is not affected. The government have not the courage to put another programme into effect.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like a little
further information. I listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of Pensions
Vocational Training

and National Health, who seemed to have right at his finger-tips just what he wishes to achieve along these lines. But I am trying to find out whether this bill covers what the minister has in mind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, definitely. As far as the physically fit discharged men are concerned, the machinery of administration will be under the Department of Labour. As far as special casualties are concerned, the machinery will be exclusively under the Department of Pensions and National Health, in which there is being set up a director of vocational training. He will deal with two things, in the first place the actual training and placement of special casualities, and in the second place the supervision of matters having to do with the guidance of those physically fit men who are placed in certain industries through the machinery administered by the Department of Labour.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I agree with the objective the minister has in mind, but the resolution refers to a measure to provide for the promotion of vocational training projects, and it does not specify returned men only. When I first read it over I was of opinion that it was very much along the lines laid down by the Minister of Labour when he first outlined the proposal, at which time he followed more or less the proposals of his predecessor, the late Mr. Rogers. Am I to undersand now that the bill does not cover any but returned soldiers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Department of Labour advises that preference for discharged men was embodied in the war emergency training programme regulations which became effective on January 1,1941. Since that preference was instituted, until February 25, 1942, discharged men have been admitted to training forces to the number of 3,002. The Department of Labour further advises that the number admitted to training in the month of February of this year was 282 men, discharged during the present war. The Department of Pensions and National Health paid the training benefits to discharged men under the post-discharge order, to which I referred, passed on October 1, 1941, to 285 veterans during March, 1942, involving an expenditure of $11,802.06. That is under the terms of the post-discharge order, one of which benefits is this vocational training, and these figures indicate how that is progressing even though at the present time it is only in its very early stages.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This afternoon a good deal was said about young men being trained

under this programme, and it was stated that in order to enjoy these benefits they would be forced to enlist in the army. That has not been denied. The matter was dealt with by the hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for Vancouver East; as a matter of fact hon. members from Vancouver seem to be in the thick of it to-night, between the Minister of Pensions and National Health and the two hon. members I have mentioned, who seem to understand the bill pretty well. Those two hon. members were under the impression that under the bill w'hich will be founded on this resolution, in order to obtain these benefits young men would be forced to join the active forces, whether or not they wanted to do so. I should like some further information along that line. I have been wondering just how the bill will fit in with the present scheme sponsored by the manufacturers of aeroplanes. In the vicinity of Toronto, for instance, the aeroplane companies secure a great deal of their help, many of their men and, I presume, their women also, since now they have thousands of women working in their plants, through the central technical school, where they send them to take courses lasting several weeks or several months before they enter the plants. Will this vocational training scheme fit in with that scheme which is now in operation?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. That is already
part of the scheme.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And it is a very worthy part of it. The board of education in Toronto have been in communication with the minister for some time asking for assistance in order properly to equip the large central technical school on Harbord street, which requires a new building which they propose to erect in front of the present building, in order that they may be in a better position to train those who will be engaged in the production and operation of aeroplanes. Will the scheme fit in with the construction of that building, and will the department assist in the construction of that building?


Humphrey Mitchell: That matter was taken up with my predecessor and myself. The view expressed by the department was that we could not subsidize permanent buildings, because the building suggested would take perhaps eighteen months to construct, and there is ample space available of a temporary nature that could be put to use almost immediately. The provincial government was sounded out in this connection also, and that was why the representations of the city of Toronto were not looked upon in a kindly way by the federal government.

Vocational Training


John Ritchie MacNicol: The representations were not looked upon in a kindly way by this government but they were supported by the provincial government, who said they would cooperate. That, however, is something quite apart from this bill, and perhaps I should not have brought up the subject. Let me conclude with this. Was the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Vancouver South correct, that in order to obtain benefits under the bill to be founded on this resolution young men will be compelled to enlist in the active army?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Could we clear up that point a little? We are told that those who attend these schools are not forced to enlist in the active army. They do enlist to this extent, that after they complete their training and pass the medical examination they are automatically in the army.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is so.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Then actually they do enlist, but their enlistment depends entirely upon the result of their medical examination when they finish their training. So they are enlisted men. It may be that the department does not recognize them as enlisted men, but they are, and if they pass their medical examination they go into the active army automatically.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think that is altogether correct. We have what are called pre-enlistment classes, and also classes for enlisted men. For instance there are preenlistment classes at Galt and many other centres in connection with the air force. Some of those men go into the air force and some go into industry.


Thomas Langton Church: We have a motion to appoint a committee to consider a proposed bill to assist in the carrying on and coordination of vocational training. Parliament has not been in session for the last three weeks. Primary things should come first. The war is primary; the appointment of this committee is secondary. We do not know where we are to-day, so far as the war is concerned. Since parliament adjourned for the recess, we have suffered heavy losses on the seven seas, and the very fate of civilization has been at stake. How will the appointment of a committee advance this vocational problem? I have been in the house for many years, and I have failed to see how any committee has made progress on any public question, so far as section 91 of the British North America Act is concerned.
The minister is new to the department, and no doubt he is anxious to do certain things. But I can tell the committee that the country wants parliament, now that it is back here in Ottawa, to act and to get on with this war, and not just to talk about it. In my opinion the appointment of committees to consider these domestic questions should wait, and it is the function of this government to handle this question and not just deal in windowdressing.
As a former member of a school board I have had some experience in this matter. It will be recalled that the Laurier government appointed a commission to investigate technical education, and to give special attention to technical and vocational training as applied to secondary schools and trade and industry. A report made to the government of that day pointed out that it was the function of the federal parliament to take that action, because it controlled trade and commerce. We control finance, banks and banking and matters of that kind, and for that reason vocational and technical training is a function for which this parliament is solely responsible.
There can be no doubt that, after the war, vocational training will be of great importance, and especially since it is applied to soldiers on reestablishment in civil life. 1 believe, however, that sooner or later we shall have to consider education of this kind. The report dealing with vocational training, as a part of technical education, showed the necessity of parliament taking on this task here.
After the war the wreckage will be so great that there will be nothing to salvage. No one will want to be in industry, or connected with trade. With all the bureaucratic boards established by orders in council almost every day we meet, how can any businessman deal with vocational training in his business or aid it after the war in his industry. I fail to see how it can it be done.
What has been done in England? They have not appointed committees, as we have done. Over there the government has accepted the onus of responsibility. While I have sympathy with the present proposal in principle, may I point out that Toronto was a poineer in matters affecting vocational and technical training. Technical and vocational schools were established in that city. Every day between 10,000 and 12,000 day and night students attend those schools, and in the evenings between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock students meet to study. All this is done at the city's expense. The government does not do a thing for those schools or give them any direct aid. Those technical schools in Toronto are doing a fine work in matters of vocational
Vocational Training

training and war work, and yet the government will not grant one cent, although war industries seek their graduates eagerly. Federal power should assist this work by grants and other aids.
I hold in my hand some pictures showing the wrnrk in Toronto's technical central school in connection with acetylene welding. I believe the first technical school in Canada was established many years ago in Toronto. Students from those schools are going to the industries engaged in manhfacturing munitions, and in canying out other war work. The schools have applied to the minister's department to obtain a grant for a new wing to the central technical school, because some of the students are now working in an old garage on Bathurst street on war work. The main school building in which all forms of technical work are now carried on cost about SI,500,000 with plant and additions. They are doing war work, and because of that the board of education came to Ottawa asking that it be given a small grant for a new war wing for these enlisted war workers and students. But the government turned a deaf ear to that application.
As I see it, after the war the wreckage in industry will be so great that there will be nothing left to salvage, and no one will want to be in trade and commerce. What has been done in England? A bill known as the trade and commerce bill has been passed by both houses of parliament. That bill has reestablished in Great Britain certain pre-war trade practices. Because of that action industry and trade and commerce know where they stand. On the other hand, in Canada we have the cart before the horse. Win the war first, and then take up all these domestic questions.
On an earlier occasion, when this matter was under discussion I asked the minister what the policy of the government was. I asked questions regarding all these bureaucratic boards which have been established throughout the country, placing impossible barriers and artificial burdens on business. A certain businessman told me he has three or four clerks who do nothing but get information and file these returns.
What is the function of government? We have been refused information by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) with respect to one board dealing with a feature of war work- the commodity price corporation. No doubt if this measure passes, some corporation or board will deal with vocational training, despite the fact that we have been refused information as to how this price corporation money has been spent, and the price paid. About a week ago the chairman of one of

these boards gave an interview to a reporter on the Toronto Globe and Mail in which he gave detailed information the Minister of Finance had declined to give to parliament two weeks before.
I have no objection in principle to a committee on vocational training. Although nothing has been said about it yet here in the house, I have no doubt that, after the war, commercial aviation will accord a great opportunity for vocational training to a great degree and provide work, because I believe it will constitute one of our most important transportation facilities. At the present time, however, I believe this motion is purely academic, and nothing can be accomplished by it at this time. It is based entirely on winning the war. While I am in favour of the principle of the resolution, I believe the onus is on the government to carry on this soldier education programme in conjunction with the provinces and the various boards of education across Canada and secure real vocational training at cost and avoid duplication and waste by coordination now absent.
It is all moonshine to talk about planning after the war when at this very moment Britain is fighting for her very life and existence. We do not know where we shall be. We were beaten in January and February, on the Pacific and on the seven seas. It is all very well to say that we are enjoying a party truce, but at present it is very much onesided. It may be that in some respects we are enjoying a party truce. However. I just came from one of the Toronto constituencies where certain gentlemen in one party have appeared and preached about this planning, and matters of that kind, in a purely socialistic way and do not observe the party truce to win the war. Let us deal with war problems first. It is all very well to talk about vocational training. I appreciate what it has done for the returned soldier, and I realize that after the last war it was most commendable, although very much delayed at the start. But at that time it was a non-partisan effort. In my opinion any action along this line in the future should be taken in conjunction with the provinces, and especially with the boards of education, to avoid overlapping and duplication, and federal power must aid post-war education.
The university of Toronto, through all her graduates, has been a pioneer in this matter. In my opinion the appointment of this committee will not do any good. The executive can do this work better. We must get on with the war, which is primary, and whioh is not secondary to these domestic questions.

Vocational Training
While I am in sympathy with everything done for the soldiers along this line, I believe there has been too much playing with this question, and unless we give it more careful consideration we shall accomplish very little. This committee will be like the war expenditures committee, which found out practically nothing. The report of that committee has not even been discussed here, and the report of this committee will be too late for any action till after the war.
I have had some experience with these matters, and in my view we ought first to lay down future principles with respect to industry, trade and commerce, and particularly agriculture in Canada. We must decide whether industry is going, after the war, as it is now, to be placed under all thes-e burdens and barriers in restraint of trade with which industry is now faced. Some of those regulations may be all right, but large portions of industry are affected by them all, and we know that many of the regulations will not help by one iota to win the war. We must first break the shackles of bureaucracy by which trade and commerce are bound now in Canada, hand and foot, before we shall be in a position to support vocational training in industry. We must break these shackles with which trade is now bound, hand and foot, by some such act as in England to restore pre-war trade practices.
There are legions of men sitting in offices who pass these regulations of price boards with respect to trade and industry, so that no man can conduct his business. The small, independent businessman is being driven out of business and cannot function or shift his industry to aid vocational training. All parties in the house have supported vocational training. At the close of the last war we were not properly prepared. In this matter of education we might very well give grants to the provinces and local school boards. Certainly before very long we shall have to go into education, on a very elaborate scale. Further, this bill must take care of these apprentices who have gone to the war, and place them back in their industries to continue on.
Labour and industry could be united; they are united. The contribution of labour has been most magnificent in this war as has that of industry and employers, and I do not think we would have been able to do what we have done had it not been for labour. Labour, agriculture and industry are united in a magnificent effort.
We should develop the resources of this country to their limit. In water-power, only 7,000,000 horse-power have been developed when we have 42,000,000 horee-power available. Next year Great Britain will face the
greatest coal shortage in her history, and we may be suffering here while our natural resources in coal and substitutes are allowed to lie dormant. I believe we should first lay down the principle of where trade and commerce are to be to-day and to-morrow, and where they will be after the war, if industry will be enabled to support the policy of the government which they want to do when the war ends, and after the war all bureaucratic boards should go.


Angus MacInnis: Despite anything that was said this afternoon, I am supporting this resolution, and I believe it will receive general support from the whole committee. We find ourselves at the present time with a pressing work to do, that is, war production, and not enough trained workers to do it. I imagine the first purpose of this vocational training will be to fit men and women for war work. That is most important. It is proper that we should consider questions of this kind now. Not only shall we need it to-day; we shall need it equally when the war is over. As the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) said quite rightly this afternoon, it is in line with the work initiated by the late Norman Rogers when he was Minister of Labour. I do not know, and possibly I shall not know until the bill is brought down, what age ranges will be covered by this measure. Will it be restricted to young people?


Humphrey Mitchell: No limit.


Angus MacInnis: I am glad of that. In my opinion our aim should be to fit every man and woman in Canada for some job, and provide a job for every man and woman in Canada. We should not be satisfied with anything less than that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A chicken in every pot.


Angus MacInnis: Yes; two automobiles in every garage. That was promised at one time, but not necessarily here. There is only one way of getting a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage, that is by getting our men and women producing those things. They do not fall out of the skies. I was always a little suspicious of the story about the manna. The minister has said that there will be no age limit. Our aim should be to train every man and woman in Canada for work. When we fit people for work, not only are we making them capable of producing useful things, we are recreating them. To the extent that this measure will perform that function, I am certainly in support of it.
Vocational Training

There is nothing that destroys everything that is worth-while in a man as quickly as unemployment and the feeling that he has no useful place in the community.


Howard Charles Green: To what extent are men and women over forty-five years of age being given vocational training at this time? There is a great need for the training of older men and women. That would be in line with the government's policy of restricting the entry into industry of men between the ages of seventeen and forty-five years. It does seem most important that the older men and women should be given this training. To what extent has that been done?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would point out to my hon. friend that I have been close to this war emergency training programme since its inception. I was one of those who helped to draft it. The emphasis has always been placed upon the training of older men. Those of us who thought we saw the development of this war were convinced that sooner or later young men would be drawn into the army, navy and air force and that there would be a shortage. At the moment I can tell my hon. friend that of those between the ages of thirty and thirty-nine years, there are 3,505 being trained; between the ages of forty and forty-nine, 1,915, and fifty years and over, 737. I met many manufacturers, as well as the manufacturers' association, and the emphasis was always placed on this point. We all appreciated that there was a spill-over from the depression to the war and that many young men were out of employment, but we felt that sooner or later the time would come when these younger men would have to go into the fighting forces, or at least would go into the fighting forces, and that then a demand would be created for the older men.
I am convinced that we must consider the woman problem as soon as we possibly can. Personally I do not think we have scratched the surface of the man-power available in this country. A year from now the women of this country will be doing things they never dreamed of doing in the past.


Howard Charles Green: What steps are being taken to get these people into war work or into the training classes? Are you advertising that these courses are available?


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, yes.


Howard Charles Green: For older men and women?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is well known through the employment services and other agencies established by the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This afternoon I asked the minister what I thought was a most pertinent question with regard to the council, but I do not think he got to the point of answering it. Is this to be a voluntary committee or are the members to be paid? What is to be the character of the committee? What will be its functions?


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member is referring to the advisory committee?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes. I understand that there is a voluntary advisory committee in Toronto which is doing good work without any cost to the government. This resolution also contemplates the employment of such officers, clerks and other employees necessary for the administration of the act. Are they to be appointed by the civil service commission, by the minister or how?


Humphrey Mitchell: The clerks will be
appointed by the civil service commission.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps the minister could tell us what he has in mind with respect to the advisory council.


Humphrey Mitchell: My view is that in the broadest sense it should be composed of the people most concerned with this form of training.


Richard Burpee Hanson: People
who are interested.


Humphrey Mitchell: People who are interested. I think it should be voluntary except that those who come any distance should have their expenses paid.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It will be
a part-time affair?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is the attendance at the present time at these vocatidnal training classes and what was it a month ago? I understand that the attendance has dropped considerably because farmers' sons are not now allowed to attend the classes.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have no knowledge of
that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is the difference in the figures?


Humphrey Mitchell: If there are any figures,
I shall try to get them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know there is a definite drop because some of the vocational schools which previously ran all night are now going only to about four or five o'clock in the afternoon.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Even though this proposal is about ten years late, I do not think we are going to oppose it in any way. Realizing for some years that a mechanized war has been approaching, Canada should ihave been awakened by self-preservation alone to the need of vocational training, and many of the boys who have been riding the boxcars across this dominion for the past number of years could have been much better employed in being trained in some skilled trade. Such vocational training has, I think, the support of everyone in this country. Has a survey been made of the number of vocational schools in the various provinces which could be utilized to-day or in the immediate future?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have been deeply
interested in vocational training and technical education in Canada for the last thirty years.
I recalled vividly, when the hon. member for Broadview was speaking this afternoon, the splendid pioneering work done by Toronto in technical education. A royal commission on technical education was set up by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and labour men and other public-spirited citizens helped in establishing the foundation of the system of technical education in this country. I appreciate, of course, that in some provinces technical education is not as far advanced as in others, and what is proposed under this bill is an extension of the work already being done, the work that was set in motion, as I pointed out this afternoon, by the former Minister of Labour. He knew as I know, and as do hon. gentlemen, that until the fall of France we were engaged in what has been called a war of position and blockade. Rightly or wrongly, that was the high Strategy of the allied governments at that time, and consequently there was not the demand for industrial expansion for armament purposes in this dominion or in north America generally that there was after the fall of France. I think it is only fair to say that under the policy, the foundation-stone of which was laid by the former Minister of Labour, tens of thousands of our young people have been trained and are now absorbed in the industrial structure of this country or have voluntarily joined the armed forces. This bill is simply a continuation of the act which expired on March 31. It is no latter-day thought, as my hon. friend seemed to suggest. I sat on the committee which drafted the war emergency training programme, and I think my hon. friend will agree with me that with a blank sheet of paper in front of you it is not the easiest thing in the world to draft a policy; you are more or less in the position of a composer who is writing a symphony. On paper he does not know just what it is going to sound like.
Vocational Training


Richard Burpee Hanson: He has it in his head. That is the trouble with our leaders-they do not have it up there.


Humphrey Mitchell: The composer may have it up there, but he does not know what it is going to sound like until it is played on the organ, and sometimes it does not sound so very good. So it is with drafting a policy, but I say frankly that this House of Commons and the government have done a remarkable job in vocational training.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Vocational training has been good.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course it has, and the government's war emergency training programme has greatly increased the strength of the industrial structure of this country. If our neighbours to the south-I say this in the kindliest spirit-make a similar contribution to the material side of the war effort to that which this dominion has been making for the last two and a half years, then the war is over-make no mistake about that-


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is rather a large claim.


Humphrey Mitchell: -provided that our
people measure up also to their responsibilities in a physical sense, because it is no use having the material things of war if you are afraid to use them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If you
have not the man-power.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am convinced that the war is going to be won ultimately through the industrial structure and we on this north American continent are the only people who have mastered the technique of mass production. Prior to the outbreak of the war 75 per cent of the internal combustion engines manufactured throughout the world were manufactured in north -America and when the industrial machine of this continent gets rolling, then look out-provided that human beings measure up to their responsibilities.


George Hugh Castleden: I am pleased to hear the minister's statement, and I am glad to know that a survey has been made of the number of schools available for vocational training in the various provinces. How many hundreds of students can be absorbed in the vocational schools of this dominion?


Humphrey Mitchell: It has been estimated that 10,000 boys and girls leave high school every month in this country.


George Hugh Castleden: Throughout this dominion, and particularly in the west, there are a large number of idle machine shops
Veterans' Land Act

which, if there had been vision on the government benches, would have been very busy working these days or training skilled mechanics for our war effort. It has been evident that this war is going to be won or lost on the industrial production line. According to a statement made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, some eighteen hundred surveys have been made of our existing resources in machine shops, and the people of Canada are wondering why so many of these shops should be standing idle with good lathes and other machinery all in a condition to work. If these shops cannot be given war work, could they not be training men in the trades so urgently needed in our war effort? I hope the minister in the near future will give us a statement of the vocational training capacity available in the various provinces for students. The whole question of education in the larger field will have to be tackled in the near future, and if some of the facts in regard to education across this dominion were revealed I am sure they would startle many people in this country.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mitchell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 64, to assist in the carrying on and coordination of vocational training.



VETERANS' LAND ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to make provision for the settlement on the land of veterans of the present war, to prescribe the terms of such settlement and to grant a measure of financial assistance to such settlers, and further for the appointment of a director, of officers and other employees in connection therewith.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Vien in the chair.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a statement to the committee in regard to the principles of the bill to be introduced provided this resolution is approved by the committee. The resolution precedes a bill to be known as the Veterans' Land Act. It is one of the measures resulting from the work on the committee on demobilization and rehabilitation and its several advisory committees and subcommittees. The bill to be introduced has three main purposes: first, to assist discharged members of the armed forces 
to establish themselves successfully in the farming industry in Canada; secondly, to ensure that the agricultural industry bears its share of the rehabilitation problem along with other phases of our industrial life; thirdly, to give ex-members of the forces returning to agricultural pursuits benefits comparable with those available for men entering other occupations. .
In this last connection it should, perhaps, now be pointed out in the first place that discharged men entering insurable employment are credited with the time spent on military service since July 1, 1941, and the government of Canada-the people of Canada-pay the premiums; second, that employers are compelled to reinstate exmembers of the forces in their former positions; third, that discharged men who have no trade may be given vocational training and their families maintained by the state while they are undergoing such training; fourth, that young men whose education was interrupted may be supported while completing their educational course and their tuition fees may be paid by the state; fifth, that former civil servants have their positions and their security of superannuation preserved for them; and lastly, that discharged men who are temporarily incapacitated and also those who are capable of and awaiting work may be paid benefits or grants of S9 a week for single men and $13 a week for married men for a period up to fifty-two weeks.
It will be seen, therefore, that some similar measure of assistance for those who undertake farming is fully justified on the grounds of equity.
This bill differs in many vital respects from the Soldier Settlement Act adopted during the last war. These differences are based upon a study of the history of the former soldier settlement plan, which was admittedly by no means the success hoped for both by the country and by the ex-servicemen who went on the land under its provisions.
I come now to the terms of the Soldier Settlement Act.
Under the Soldier Settlement Act the country advanced $109,034,331 for the establishment of 24,793 soldier settlers and 224 Indian soldier settlers-just over 25,000 in all. The great bulk of the settlement, as hon. members are aware, took place in 1919 and 1920. Of the original number of settlers there remained on the land as at March 31, 1941, approximately one-third, namely 8,118

Veterans' Land Act
settlers. On March 31, 1941, the situation with regard to these approximately 25,000 settlers was as follows:
Remaining on their land .. ..	8,118
Paid off their loans	 2,750
Sold out their equities	 884
The remainder, 13,041; had abandoned the scheme either voluntarily or by notice.
On March 31, 1941, total recoveries from the original advances were S65.640,518. This includes payments made by civilian purchasers to whom foreclosed properties have been sold. The recoverable value of the outstanding loans is estimated at not more than $30,000,000, which would make a gross recovery of $95,640,518, as against an original capital investment of $109,034,331. These recoveries represent an estimated capital loss of $13,393,813, all interest payments actually made having been included in the $65,000,000 of recoveries already mentioned. The administrative cost from 1918 to March 31, 1941, stood at $25,910,495.
The primary reasons for this state of affairs are, I think, to be found in the following facts. When the operations were begun there was available no staff fully trained in settlement operations. Second, in the period when the bulk of the settlement took place, prices paid for land, chattels and building materials were influenced by war-time inflation. The depression beginning in 1931 brought about a serious deflation in these values. Third, all advances were repayable with interest at 5 per cent; consequently the settler was placed under a burden of debt, including land, live stock and equipment, which often represented 125 to 150 per cent the value of the land. In an effort to remedy these defects the following measures were taken:	in the first place, the
consolidation of loans; second, cancellation of interest charges for a certain period; third, revaluation of land; fourth, 30 per cent horizontal reduction in the debt in 1930; fifth, a bonus system, subject to the payment of taxes by the settler, whereby a credit of $2 was given for every $1 paid; and lastly, adjustment of contracts under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. These deductions totalled $47,518,215 as of March 31, 1941.
Other factors contributing to the high degree of failures may be mentioned as follows. Seventy per cent of the establishments took place under very difficult conditions in the prairie provinces. The difficulties encountered by all farmers in their communities arising from drought and market fluctuations were shared by the soldier settlers. All establishments were predicated upon the settler deriving his living and his main income from the land. Many could have been better assisted by considering the farm as merely a home, the main income of the family being derived from employment. In the new bill to be presented, the government has profited, I think, by the experience gained under the Soldier Settlement Act, and the major difficulties have been avoided.
I now come to the chief differences between the old act and the one to be introduced.
There are three vital differences between the present bill and the Soldier Settlement Act of the last war, as well as a number of minor differences. The three chief differences may be described as follows:
First, whereas the Soldier Settlement Act contemplated that settlers should give their full time to their farming ventures, the present bill is broad enough to assist men in taking up small holdings where the veteran will make his home and derive a substantial portion of his income from employment apart from his cultivation of the land.
Second, the benefits of this measure are confined to persons who were domiciled in Canada upon enlistment and who served in Canadian or imperial forces. The former act covered members of the forces of the allies. It is felt that since this act provides a subsidy by the dominion government, the benefits should not be extended to other than prewar residents of Canada unless there is a reciprocal arrangement.
The third and greatest difference is that no soldier settler under this bill will be encouraged or permitted to assume an uneconomic and unbearable burden of debt. This necessarily involves a direct grant by the state, which in some instances may represent almost 50 per cent of the total cost of the enterprise.
In broad outline, the proposed scheme contemplates that an applicant for assistance must satisfy the director in charge of administration not only that he wishes to engage in farming, but that he has the qualifications for that occupation. In this connection there is provision for training, at public expense if necessary. In order to ensure that the veteran shall have a personal stake in the success of his enterprise, it is an absolute condition of the bill that the veteran himself shall make a cash payment at the outset equal to 10 per cent of the cost of the land, improvements and building materials upon which a loan is to be issued. Under the old act there was authority to waive any csah contribution by the settler, and experience has clearly shown that this was a mistake.
Veterans' Land Act

A vital principle of this bill is recognition at the outset that the average veteran under typical conditions cannot be expected to provide a living for himself and his dependents and maintain the farm plant in working order and pay annual taxes, and in addition thereto meet the payments required, if his indebtedness is for practically the full cost of the land, improvements, live stock and farm equipment. This principle was not recognized in the original provisions of the Soldier Settlement Act, and failures under that act were largely due to the hopelessness of the debt structure, notwithstanding a series of remedial amendments.
The bill embodies the principle that the debt assumed by the veteran shall not exceed two-thirds of the cost of the land and buildings, or, if the maximum costs permitted by the bill are reached, the debt will not exceed 50 per cent of the cost of the whole enterprise, including stock and equipment. The state contribution, subject to specific performance by the settler, is a grant equal to one-third of the cost of the land and buildings, and a further grant of the cash cost of the stock and equipment furnished to the veteran. On a maximum basis the annual payment required from the settler is $144. This sum, in addition to his annual taxes, is. believed to be such as the average veteran can successfully pay while providing a reasonable standard of living for himself and his family.
If justification be needed for the policy of making a grant, it is to be found in the following considerations.
In a country like Canada it is futile to say that land should not play an important part in the rehabilitation of ex-service men. Second, industries other than agriculture will be expected to absorb the majority of exservice men, and other industries cannot be expected to meet the total problem. Third, the experience gained in the operation of the Soldier Settlement Act and similar projects in other countries shows that without such assistance the average veteran stands but a limited chance of establishing home ownership within his working lifetime. Fourth, following every former war in which Canada was engaged, there were valuable ungranted crown lands available for distribution among veterans. That situation no longer exists to-day so far as the federal government is concerned.
Under the relief settlement agreement with (the provinces of Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta, more than 10,000 families have been assisted to settle on the land by means of an unrecoverable grant of $1,000 per family. In Manitoba the amount was $1,250 per family, and in Quebec the grant was increased to $2,000 per family. It is estimated that the

cost of the grant made by the state in the average case under the proposed bill will be $1,360. Assistance is being made available to the ex-service man who wishes to become a lawyer, a doctor or a skilled workman, under provisions previously passed. It is felt that similar assistance should be given those who wish to become farmers.
Before proceeding to explain the chief provisions of the bill I think it is desirable to refer briefly to another important consideration. Under the Soldier Settlement Act of 1919, establishments were in the main predicated upon the soldier settler deriving his main income from the land upon which he was established. Similar provisions are contained in this bill, but it is sufficiently flexible to provide for a wide range of establishments involving the use of land. It is contemplated that establishments may be on a full-time farming programme or on small holdings where the veteran may derive his main income from employment apart from his holding.
With the brief statement that I have made of the vital principles of the bill, it may be desirable to explain its chief provisions in logical order. The desirabilty of such a measure, notwithstanding numerous failures which attended the Soldier Settlement Act, is strongly indicated by the expressed desire of substantial numbers of the members of the forces to engage in agricultural pursuits after the war. While our information about the intentions and desires of the members of the forces is not yet complete, sufficient information has been obtained to establish clearly that the number of men who wish to take up farming or to return to it will be very substantial. The demobilization committee of the government authorized a questionnaire to be addressed to all members of the forces with respect to their previous civil experience and training and their desires and ambitions for the future. The complete results of the questionnaire are not yet tabulated, so it is not possible as yet to indicate the precise number of men who have this desire. But a review of
200.000	of these forms indicates that 16-6 per cent of those completing the form had expressed the desire to settle on the land. This represents more than 33,000 individuals.
The following is a tabulation of the results obtained from an examination of more than
200.000	occupational history forms received and tabulated prior to October 31, 1941. It shows that in the navy, of a total of 17,588, those wishing to farm are 1,042 or 5-9 per cent. In the army the total examined numbered 136,913, and those wishing to farm are 29,067 or 21-2 per cent. In the air force the total number examined were 46,225, and

Veterans' Land Act
those wishing to farm are 3,343, or 7-1 per cent, making an over-all average at that time, among that number, of 16-6.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Would those be mostly farm boys?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, in most instances they were. It is a hopeful and encouraging sign in connection with the proposed legislation that the desire to go on the land which is found among members of the forces serving in the present war does not seem to have any of those romantic illusions which captured the imagination of the soldiers of our generation twenty-five years ago. The men who have expressed a desire to take up farming, in the present instance at least, seem to be actuated by a sober, serious appreciation of what is involved. It is in keeping with the serious purpose of this measure that the director administering it is to be empowered to make regulations regarding the qualifications to be required of applicants. That is, it is expected that a loan shall not be issued unless the director is satisfied that the man has experience and ability which justify the expectation that he can make a success of farming.


Alan Webster Neill: These men have to be
experienced?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Either they must have some experience or they must undergo a course of training, for which provision is made in the bill.
In regard to administration, the measure is to be administered by the Minister of Mines and Resources, through a director. Under the original Soldier Settlement Act, administration was placed in the hands of a statutory board. Later on, as hon. members are aware, that board was abolished and the administration was placed in the hands of one director. It has been deemed desirable to follow the latter practice in this instance. A board of three or more may be desirable where there are consultative features connected with the administration. Where, however, as in this measure, the administrative functions are not consultative but executive, it seems better that authority should be vested in one man, with the assistance of such technical advisers and staff as he may require.
I come now to the question of those who may be qualified. Those who qualify for assistance under this measure are confined to (1) members of the armed forces of Canada who served in a theatre of war; (2) members of the armed forces of Canada who did not serve in a theatre of war but who served for
at least twelve months; and (3) Canadians who enlisted in the British forces, and particularly in the Royal Air Force.


Grote Stirling: Will (2) and (3) be
treated the same as (1)?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; provided they were residents of Canada before the war, the same conditions apply. Provided an applicant has the above qualifications arising from military service, it shall be within the discretion of the director to determine whether or not he is entitled to be assisted; that is, on the grounds of qualification. Broadly speaking, the discretion of the director will be concerned with a man's fitness and qualifications for the vocation of agriculture. In cases where applicants are considered to require training, the director may make provision for placing veterans with selected farmers for practical instruction. Provision is also made for arriving at agreements with the federal and various provincial departments of agriculture, or the extension departments of Canadian universities, or accredited agricultural schools or colleges, for the purpose of training veterans.
The measure does not provide for subsistence during the training period, because the postdischarge order, administered by the Department of Pensions and National Health, contains provision for a scale of allowances to be paid to ex-service men whom it is considered can be helped toward reestablishment by vocational training. It is intended that the two departments shall cooperate in this connection. The director of the Veterans' Land Act will indicate the type of training required; and when subsistence for the individual applicant is needed, it will be forthcoming from the Department of Pensions and National Health under order in council P.C. 7633.
I come now to the powers of the director. The director is to have authority to buy or acquire land and farm property, which is to be vested in the director as a corporation sole. The land and property acquired by him shall be subject to taxation in the ordinary way by a properly constituted taxing authority. Under the old Soldier Settlement Act there was a period of uncertainty, which was ended only through costly and confusing litigation, as to whether soldier settlement lands should be subject to municipal taxation. In the present bill this issue is faced definitely from the outset, and it has been decided that the land shall pay taxes to the local authorities in exactly the same way as any other farm property.
Two types of transactions between the director and the veterans applying for assis-
Veterans' Land Act

tance are provided for in the measure. In one case the director buys the land and resells it to the veterans under agreement of sale, in accordance with the provisions of the bill. The director is required to calculate the cost price of any land acquired for the purpose of resale to veterans. In calculating the cost, he must take into account not only the price of the land but the cost of improvements effected under his own administration. A ceiling has been placed upon the cost which the director may incur in connection with any individual property; that ceiling is $4,800. This top limit is to include land and improvements, building materials, live stock and farm equipment. In connection with any individual transaction it is provided that the cost to the director of the land, improvements and building materials shall not exceed $3,600, out of the utmost price of $4,800. The veteran is required to make a cash down payment of ten per cent of the cost of the land, improvements and other materials. That is, if the property has cost the director the maximum amount, the veteran shall be required to pay down $360. It is provided that the live stock and farm equipment included in the transaction shall not exceed one-third of the cost to the director of the land, improvements and other materials. Again using the maximum figure, this means that if the land, improvements and building materials cost the director $3,600, the live stock and farm equipment shall not exceed $1,200. These two figures make up the ceiling cost of $4,800.
It is in the next provision that the government's grant to the settler is to be found. The sale price to the veteran of the complete enterprise, including live stock and farm equipment, shall be two-thirds of the cost to the director of the land, improvements and building materials. By way of illustration, if the land and improvements cost the director $3,600 and the. stock and implements cost the director $1,200, or a total of $4,800, then the indebtedness assumed by the veteran shall be $2,400, and the down payment to be made by the veteran shall be $360. The interest set out in the bill is 34 per cent, unless otherwise provided by the regulations. Payment shall be completed in a term of twenty-five years, with the interest calculated on an amortization basis. The director, however, may exercise his discretion to permit for the first five years the payment of interest only, but the total repayment period of twenty-five years is not to be exceeded.
No conveyance or transfer of the property shall be made to the veteran within the first ten years, and then only if the veteran has 
complied with the terms of his agreement. This means that the government's grant to the veteran is not made unless and until the veteran has proved by ten years' fulfilment of his contract that he is making good in his venture. While it is provided that the director shall not incur costs in excess of $4,800 upon any single property, there is nothing to debar a veteran from undertaking a larger venture if he is himself able out of his own resources to put up the additional amount of money required. In this connection it should be said that the proposed ceiling of $3,600 for the land is considered to be equivalent to the ceiling of $5,000 under the Soldier Settlement Act, having regard to present-day values.
I come now to the question of live stock and equipment. The Veterans' Land Act is so drafted that the veterans' land does not become encumbered with any charge or mortgage arising out of the acquisition of live stock and farm implements furnished to him by the director. The title in such live stock remains with the director until the time comes for disposal, when the director may facilitate marketing or exchange by conveying the ownership to the farmer.
In effect, live stock and equipment are merely issued to the farm and remain the property of the director until the ten-year period has elapsed, at the end of which the director may release the live stock and equipment to the veteran if he has complied with the terms of his agreement. This does not in any way militate against the farmer profiting from the sale of his live stock. Thus, increase from foundation stock may be sold and the proceeds used to meet farming expenses. It is expected, of course, that the value of foundation stock will be maintained.
The second type of assistance to settlers contemplated by the bill is a loan upon property which the veteran already owns. The amount of assistance, by way of loan, that may be made in these circumstances is limited to $3,200, and shall not exceed 60 per cent of the value of the land as established by the director.
Advances for the purpose of live stock and farm equipment shall not exceed 50 per cent of the value of the land, or a total of $2,500. Repayment may be extended over 25 years at the rate of 34 per cent.
It is felt that this provision may be of assistance to a number of veterans who have farms encumbered by mortgages at higher rates of interest than provided for in this measure.

Veterans' Land Act
It is considered that there may very well be cases in which a veteran possessed of a property worth from $6,000 to $10,000 may need a loan of only $2,000 to facilitate resumption of farming occupations. In cases, however, where the property is heavily encumbered, it is probable that the Veteran's Land Act will prove of greater assistance through outright purchase by the director and resale to the veteran on the terms contemplated by the provisions already described.
The bill provides that the veteran shall keep his property insured and that all taxes and assessments shall be paid, but there is a provision that, if the veteran is unable to pay taxes when they are due, the director may do so in his behalf and demand repayment with interest at 3i per cent.
One of the most important features of the bill is the method adopted for dealing with settlers who prove unsuccessful. Under the old Soldier Settlement Act, unsuccessful settlers clung to their land long after they should have given up the enterprise, and it was very difficult for the soldier settlement board to evict them, because from the very nature of the transaction it was exceedingly improbable that there could be any salvage to assist the settler in embarking upon any new enterprise.
The present bill gives the director definite powers of rescission when the veteran falls down on his payments. The director may, without resort to any legal proceedings, rescind the agreement and retake possession of the property. There is a requirement, however, that the director shall give thirty days' notice of intention by registered mail and, upon taking possession of the property, the director may sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the property. Any surplus proceeds from the sale, over and above the outstanding costs and the expenses of the transaction, shall be paid to the veteran.
Before establishing any surplus, the director must take into account the cost to the director of all the property acquired for the veteran's establishment. Obviously this does not presuppose that veterans who fail will have established an equity in the enterprise. But there is provision in the bill to deal fairly with veterans who fail through ill health or other reasons beyond their control. If, in such cases, the director believes that no surplus will be realized upon resale, he may recommend to the minister, and the governor in council may, upon the minister's recommendation refund to the veteran his initial down ' payment in whole or in part.
In view of this, it is considered that the director will not be tempted to allow a veteran
to continue a doomed enterprise beyond the point at which his failure is indicated. The prompt application of the director's powers to rescind the agreement and the repayment to the veteran either of his down payment, or of a realized surplus upon resale of his property, will give the veteran an opportunity to reestablish himself in some other occupation where he is likely to have greater success than in farming. It is of no real assistance to the veteran who is doomed to failure to let him carry on for an unduly long period. It is far more in his interest that he shall cut his losses and try some other enterprise before he is too old to be able to make the change.
There are in the bill a number of miscellaneous provisions of considerable interest. It is obvious that the director will have to acquire a large amount of land, and, for its conservation pending sale to a veteran, the director is authorized to lease the property on terms approved by the minister. It is considered also that, in transactions of the magnitude of those upon which the director is authorized to embark, there will be a percentage of errors of judgment in valuation. Where such errors appear, there is a procedure whereby, under the approval of the minister, the property may be revalued or sold to others than veterans.
The director is also authorized to sell lands at his disposal as sites for dairy factories, cheese factories, fruit preserving factories, creameries, or for any educational, religious or charitable purposes. He may also sell lands to any provincial or municipal authorities for any purpose. Nobody indebted to the director of soldier settlement, under the Soldier Settlement Act, may receive a loan or advance under this measure.
A set of circumstances that arose not infrequently under the Soldier Settlement Act has been guarded against by a provision that the director may refuse to sell to a veteran land occupied by his parents or other immediate relatives. It was a not uncommon experience, under the Soldier Settlement Act that a father would sell his farm to the soldier settlement board for resale to his soldier son on the advantageous terms provided for in the Soldier Settlement Act. The result in many instances was that the father received a substantial sum of money from the soldier settlement board and remained in occupancy and management of the farm exactly as he was before. The soldier settler was thereby saddled with the maintenance of his father's family, as well as his own, and the whole transaction contributed nothing to the real problem of soldier settlement.
Veterans' Land Act

There is also very strict provision excluding commissions on the sale of land to the director. The prohibitions with regard to commissions are extensively set out in sections 32 and 33 of the bill, and severe penalties are prescribed. The bill provides for regulations to be made by the director for administrative purposes, and all regulations are required to be published in the Canada Gazette and tabled in parliament.
It has been estimated that under this bill an expenditure of $80,000,000 will provide for the settlement of 25,000 veterans. On that number of men, the capital loss arising from the provision for granting the veteran a percentage of his equity, would be $34,000,000. This is an average of $1,360 per settler. The capital loss per case under the old act was an average of $4,000, which represents the concessions granted from time to time.
It will interest the committee to know that this bill is the result of more than a year's study and consideration by one of the committees set up under the cabinet committee on demobilization and reestablishment. The cabinet committee, it will be remembered, is advised by a general advisory committee, presided over by the chairman of the Canadian pension commission, and consisting of senior officers of eight or ten government departments.
The general advisory committee, in turn, set up a series of subcommittees to deal with specialized phases of the problem of reestablishment. One of these committees was assigned the subject of soldier settlement, and the present bill is the product of its labours. Advice and assistance were received not only from government officials, but from a number of authorities outside the service of the dominion government. Some of the most prominent citizens of Canada were engaged in that work for eighteen months, before the bill was finally approved by the government.
The members of this committee and its consultants and advisers are entitled to the thanks of the government and of this house for the measure which is to be presented to the house, after the adoption of the resolution.
In conclusion, I would commend the measure to the earnest consideration of the special committee, and afterwards, of the house.


Grote Stirling: One of the difficulties
under the old act would seem to have been avoided in this. Under the old act it was possible for a veteran to choose his piece of land and ask that it be purchased on his behalf. Under this scheme will the veteran have any choice whatever as to the province, 
as to the part of the province and as to the type of land, or will it be left entirely in the hands of the director who has these lands for
sale?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It will be left to the judgment of the director with such advisers as he may call in to indicate whether land is suitable for settlement and whether the applicant is liable to succeed if settled on the land.


George Russell Boucher: Will the veteran be able to decide in which province he is to settle?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would say yes, within reasonable limitations, provided that the conditions for success with the ceiling limitations existing in this bill are as good in one province as in the other. I would certainly think he should have the right to decide.


George Russell Boucher: Do I understand that a
returned veteran will be able to obtain only what property the director has available? Do I understand that he cannot pick out a particular piece of land and then take advantage of this legislation to purchase it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I pointed out that there would be supplementary provisions in the bill whereby a veteran already owning land outside the general provisions of this bill could be assisted in reestablishment by refinancing under this legislation.


George Russell Boucher: That does not answer
my question. What option has a veteran who has proven to the director that he is a fit and proper person to be established on the land given, as to a particular parcel of land he may prefer to purchase? What assistance will be given him in the purchase of a particular parcel of land not owned by the director? A man may want to go back on the old homestead or another farm near by.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would say that that would be a matter entirely for the discretion of the director in consultation with the applicant. That is the only way whereby that could be successfully decided.


George Russell Boucher: Do I understand that
if an applicant applies to the director and states his desire to purchase a certain parcel of land, the decision is left to the director whether that land will be purchased on behalf of the government and resold to the returned man?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is quite correct unless the director had

Veterans' Land Act
available-I must be frank and say that I am rather speculating-sufficient land for the number who could be accommodated under the provisions of this legislation. Then, of course, the applicant would have to be accommodated from the lands already acquired. But if the director did not have sufficient land, then the situation mentioned by my hon. friend would be met.


George Russell Boucher: The veteran will have
little say as to the purchase price of the land?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


George Russell Boucher: He would simply have
to pay a proportion of the price the director paid for that parcel of land?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Douglas King Hazen: Were the provisions of the
Soldier Settlement Act limited to soldiers who had lived in Canada prior to the last war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; I think the provisions of that act were extended to our allies. That is why the provisions of this bill are limited to those who resided in Canada prior to this war.


Douglas King Hazen: That is rather a funny reason.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think it is a fair reason, unless there is reciprocity among our allies and we are given the same treatment in their countries.


George Russell Boucher: Would the minister go a little more fully into the matter of the judgment of the director in connection with settling a veteran on the land? I can contemplate a condition where a great number of young men who left agriculture at a very young age have spent three or four years overseas. They will come back without a firm foundation of agricultural knowledge. They did not have that before they left; and after a number of years of war when they seek to return to the world they left behind they will find that considerable changes have taken place meanwhile. Let us assume that a young man has satisfied the director that he is a fit and proper person to return to the farm. Would it not be in the public interest, either by a course of training or instruction, to see that this man was given the necessary training in farm pursuits? I think the minister realizes that farming today is not what it was in the days of the last war. It is a much more technical pursuit, requiring more skilled management in carrying it out. After this
war is over, it will probably be much more so. I think the utmost care will have to be taken in seeing that these young men are given the proper training. The veteran who has dreamed of a utopia on the land is quite likely to find a different condition existing upon his return; and if he is not given the proper training before being placed on the land, his chances of success may be lessened.


The CHAIRMAN:: I should like to point out to hon. members of the committee that when a resolution is introductory of a bill, only the principle of the bill should be discussed; the committee should not discuss the details of the bill to be introduced. There is a certain latitude given to hon. members, but I do not think it goes to the extent of permitting a discussion of the powers of the proposed director or the conditions under which the soldiers are to be reestablished on the land. The principle may be discussed quite broadly, but I do not believe at this time it would be in order to go too fully into the details.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Perhaps I was out of order in going into the details in my presentation, but I asked for the indulgence of the committee and, earlier to-day, of the house, because this bill will not be in committee again. It will go straight from the second reading to a special committee which has been appointed by the house, and because of that fact possibly we may have a little more latitude than is customaiy according to the rules of the house.


George Russell Boucher: I think it is dealing with the principle of the bill to ascertain the qualifications of the participants of its advantages.


Gordon Graydon: I doubt if there is a
subject which could come before the committee where the personal equation enters more into the picture than it does in this matter of soldier land settlement. I should like to point out to the minister in charge that I have a great sympathy with him because of the problem which he is attempt. ing to meet with this proposed legislation. Those who have made some study of the problems which successive governments have had to solve in connection with land settlement since the last war will realize the problem which now confronts this administration. But I do submit that in dealing with the question of veterans' land settlement the whole matter of the disparity between agricultural returns and those from other industries in the dominion must inevitably be
Veterans' Land Act

taken into consideration and must inevitably form a factor as to whether this scheme shall be a success or a failure.
I can conceive of the difficulties encountered by any person going on the land. I can still recall most vividly the difficulties my own father experienced through the years in trying to wipe out debt on his agricultural lands. It meant not only hard work but long hours and the saving of every possible penny of farm income. For that reason it seems to me that the committee must take into consideration the necessity of bringing the man on the farm up to a position of economic equality with other classes in this dominion. It is all very well to give our soldiers who are demobilized from active service after the war every possible advantage to start with, but something more is needed to keep them on the land after they get there, as well as those already on the land who have now a stake in agriculture. Most of the farmers with whom I have talked are of the opinion that it is almost impossible in many parts of Canada to-day for a man to make ends meet, if he has to pay interest upon any considerable portion of his investment.
I think we all realize that the difference between success and failure on the land, whether the farmer be a soldier or a civilian, is quite often a matter of how much interest he has to pay on the debt owing on his farm and the amount of principal he has to repay. So it seems to me that in this soldier settlement plan which has been outlined by the minister we must first of all bring agriculture up to a parity with other lines of activity in our economic life. Not only must we encourage these men to produce the stuff, but we must help them find a market for it at a proper price after it is produced. I can conceive of nothing more pathetic than to bring a man who has been demobilized from active service into any industry which has not at least an equal chance of success with other lines of activity.
May I say this too, from a practical point of view. The question of the adaptability of the man who is to go on the farm is of major importance and must never be lost sight of in the administration of this measure.
There are many people who think they would like to farm, but the desire to farm and the ability to make a success of it, are two different matters, and we have had thousands of cases across this dominion to show7 that the adaptability of the individual is a most important factor. Then there is, of course, an angle which the bachelor Minister of Pensions and National Health could not be

expected to appreciate. From my experience in agriculture-and this is no reflection on the menfolk on the farms-I w'ould say: Show me a good farmer's wife and I will show you a good farmer. The womenfolk are a very important factor in the success of anyone who settles on the land, no matter where he may be.
May I say, in closing, that the director of this project and the board that is to be set up will need to do much more than take just simply a business administrative interest in these settlers. They will need to exercise a fatherly supervising eye over the men who go on the land. Some of the most glaring failures in land settlement under previous administrations have been largely attributable to the fact that men were placed on the land, given an opportunity that looked good on paper, and then afterwards there was no supervision, no fatherly eye was kept upon them by those in authority or even by their neighbours. The director himself ought not to be just an ordinary civil servant, and I am making no reflection on the service when I say that, because the thought I have in mind is that the director of this land settlement scheme must be first of all a man who has made his own money by the sweat of his brow on a dirt farm. I do not care whether he is a prominent citizen of Canada or not. I am more interested in getting a man who knows the farm problem intimately so that he will understand what the settlers will face when they go on the land. Certainly he should be a veteran of the last war and, if possible, a man who has undertaken and made a success, if you will, of farm settlement under some scheme administered by previous governments. He should have associated with him men of broad, practical farming experience.
I want to say this to the committee, that so far we have only scratched the surface in giving agriculture adequate representation on the many boards which have been appointed in this country in connection with our war effort. We should not be ashamed to put farmers upon every board in the country. If we had had more farmers on boards in Canada in the last twenty-five years, certainly we would have had less extravagance and better management than we have had on many public boards in this dominion.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We should perhaps have farmers in the cabinet.


Gordon Graydon: My good friend the hon. member for Davenport brings up a very delicate question. A lot of the cabinet would like to look like good fanners-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is a compliment.

Veterans' Land Act


Gordon Graydon: -tout I am told they belong for the most part to the professions. The board to be appointed must never lose sight of the advantage of having the advice of practical farmers who understand what it means for a man and his wife to go on a soldier settlement farm to carve out what may prove to be a very precarious living. The committee, then, it seems to me, should give consideration, first of all, to the adaptability of the men who are to go on the land; next, sympathetic supervision should be exercised over them; and equally important, there should be something like equality of opportunity with other lines in our economic life. In other words, our farmers should have' a parity of return, the opportunity of being on an equal basis with other lines in our economic life.
Mr. QUE.LCH: I find myself thoroughly in accord with the sentiments which have just been expressed by the hon. member for Peel. I do not feel any too optimistic about the chances of the soldier's success under this land settlement scheme. Any soldier who starts with a debt of $3,600 on a half- or quarter-section of land and has to farm under an agricultural policy such as we had in this country from 1930 to 1939, will find that he has an impossible task on his hands.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend referred to a maximum debt of $3,600. The maximum debt will be $2,400.


Mr. QUELCH:: Even with a debt of $2,000 on a quarter- or half-section of land, the soldier will find he has an impossible task on his hands under the type of agricultural policy that we -had in this country from 1930 to 1939, because during that period, year after year, the farmers had to sell their products 'below the cost of production. Show me any concern that continues to produce below the cost of production, and I will show you a concern that is going to go into debt. Before considering any new land settlement scheme, the government would be well advised to take the necessary steps to clean up the old one- and that old scheme needs a good deal of cleaning up at the present time.
In order to judge of the principle of this new -bill, we should have a thorough understanding of the land settlement act -that was brought in at the end of the last war. Then, perhaps, we shall be in -a better position to avoid the tragic mistakes which were made under that one. The story of settlement under the last scheme is one of tragedy and despair, interspersed all too infrequently with happy memories or records of success. I want to stress to the minister the all-important fact
that unless a more humane attitude is adopted towards many of those men who still remain under the scheme, the closing chapters of that story are indeed going to be sordid ones. Since the government has undoubtedly a very direct responsibility for the conditions which exist under -that scheme, I think they should take immediate steps to rectify them.
The Minister of Pensions and National Health dealt to a certain extent with the former scheme, but on the other hand there are many angles with which he did not deal. He did not refer at any length to the tragic conditions which exist under that scheme as a result of the policy laid down by the government.
Some of the main reasons for this unhappy picture may be briefly summarized as follows:
In the first place the method of selecting settlers was a haphazard one. Many of the soldiers regarded the scheme as just another adventure. They were neither physically nor mentally equipped for the job. The majority of them in the early stages of the scheme gave up. Then, many settlers-and the same will happen after this war-brought back young wives from the old country, girls who had lived a decent, simple country life; and these girls were called upon to live in such squalor and poverty that, in a great many instances, they refused to stay on the land. In some instances the family left the land; in others, domestic troubles ensued and the families were broken up. In either event that was the end of the soldier as a settler. In many instances the choice of supervisor was unfortunate. Men were chosen who had no qualifications for the job. Poor land was purchased as well as inferior stock and equipment. The soldier settler was exploited from every side. For some reason or another the soldier settler after the last war was looked upon as fair game for exploitation, and unfortunately the supervisor too often was not qualified to give him the protection which he needed. Purchases were made while prices were greatly inflated. Any old cows were selling at $125 each, and equivalent peak prices obtained for other kinds of stock. Land prices were based on $2 a bushel wheat. Consequently the settler had to face an interestbearing debt which he could not possibly meet.


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he not say that the greatest cause of the failure of farmers under the scheme of the last war was inflation, the inflation at the end of the war?
Veterans' Land Act


Victor Quelch: Undoubtedly inflation was one of the causes, but I would not say that it was the main cause. I would point out to the minister that even the civilian farmers, who had benefited by inflation, found themselves in tragic circumstances afterwards. The distress was not confined to the soldier settler. If the civilian farmer twenty years after the war found himself in a position of bankruptcy, how much more likely was it that the soldier settler would be in a no less difficult position? To a certain extent, of course, inflation exists at present. If you compare prices of stock before the war with prices to-day, you might say that to-day's prices are highly inflated, or rather that the price of stock before the war was greatly deflated.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was just trying to be helpful; that is all. I think that shows the tremendous importance of preventing inflation now and at the end of this war, because it was the high prices which were paid for farms and for stock by these soldier settlers which weighed them down and kept them in misery for a decade or more and eventually ruined a great many.


Victor Quelch: Would the minister say that prices of stock to-day are not inflated? If that is the situation, would he guarantee that the prices which are now received for stock will be continued after the war? Can he guarantee that five years after the war the price of cattle will not be half what it is to-day? I do not think he would consider for one minute doing so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot guarantee anything of that kind but I will guarantee that I will do everything within my power, and the government will do all it can, to prevent the kind of inflation which set in after the last war.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: What about the deflation which will set in?


Victor Quelch: I believe the farmer will be more interested if the government will guarantee that the condition of deflation which we had in this country from 1930 to 1939 will not be allowed to come again. It is all very well to talk about inflation but speaking generally the farmer benefits as a result of inflation; it is deflation against which he wishes to be protected.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not talking about these soldier settlers buying farms during a period of deflation.


Victor Quelch: Unfortunately they were victims of something which was far worse than that. I know many soldier settlers and civilian farmers who in 1928 were fairly well off who had a fair amount of money in the bank a paid-up insurance policy and no mortgage, but who at the beginning of the present war were bankrupt. It was this continued deflationary policy which, along with drought, ruined the farmers. I know many who did not suffer from drought who were ruined by low prices. No farmer can continue year after year to produce crops and stock below the cost of production and continue in business. Once his reserves are gone, he is forced into debt. We all know that was the position of agriculture. Of course, any farmer who has to start in during an inflationary period is under a still greater handicap.
Another big mistake which was made was that many soldier settlers were placed on marginal land, and in a drought area. The constituency I represent comprises a great part of the drought area of Alberta. Many soldier settlers were placed in that area, in spite of the fact that the government had been warned year after year by their engineers and surveyors that that land was not suitable for the purpose. Just to show the type of land to which I refer, eight million acres have been taken back by the provincial government, who are now leasing, in many instances three thousand acres to each farmer, realizing that it takes that amount of land to enable him to make a living. Yet soldier settlers were put in that area on a halfsection or a quarter-section basis. What possible chance had those men of making a success? They were settled under the advice and supervision of the soldier settlement board. All expenditures had to be passed by the board for payment. Therefore, I think, the federal government assumed a very direct responsibility for what took place.
The minister gave some figures of the number of settlers who went on the land and the number who are left. I want to quote another set of figures. To-day, approximately twenty-three years after the initiation of the scheme, out of a total of twenty-five thousand established under the act, only 7,360 remain under the scheme. Of course that does not mean that all of the 17,640 can be classified as failures. I believe that three thousand of them have paid in full for their land, but undoubtedly the majority of these men must be looked upon as failures. I want to break down that 7,360. Of the 7,360 who still remain under the scheme, 2,953 have an average equity of 67-5 per cent; 606 have an average equity

Veterans' Land Act
of 32 per cent, 1,078 have an average equity of 16 per cent, and 2,723 have absolutely no equity of any kind. So, out of the total of 7,360, 3,801, or 52 per cent, have an equity of less than 16 per cent. In other words, 52 per cent of the soldier settlers who are still under the scheme have no chance of ever making a success. I say that for this reason. I want to quote figures which were given to the special committee on pensions last year by Mr. Walter Woods. I will quote what he stated at the time, as reported at page 768 of the record:
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I understand that this morning I am required to make some comment on the deliberations of a subcommittee of the general advisory committee that has been dealing with the subject of land settlement for the new forces.
He goes on:
It is perhaps sufficient to say that the committee finds itself in agreement on certain important principles, the outstanding one of which is that state financial assistance, a substantial part of which will not be recoverable, is a prerequisite to the institution of any comprehensive plan of land settlement as a rehabilitation measure.
This is the important point to which I wish to call attention:
The question arises as to what is a safe margin. What equity should a settler have to ensure reasonable chances of success? Private mortgage companies have set a limit of approximately 50 per cent. The Canadian farm loan board has a limit of 50 per cent. The Central Mortgage Bank Act contemplates reducing the farmer's total debt for land and equipment to 80 per cent.
You will notice that the private mortgage companies figure that a soldier must have an equity of at least 50 per cent in the land; yet to-day, under the land settlement scheme, there are 3,801 men who have an equity of less than 16 per cent. In other words, we are justified in saying that at least 52 per cent of the men who are still under the scheme have little or no chance of succeeding. What is to become of these men? The majority of the 3,801 have come under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act; but unfortunately, owing to continued crop failures and low prices, they have lost all the benefits of their reductions. But even if they were young, even if their equipment were in good shape, those men would not have any chance of succeeding, judging from the figures given to the committee by Mr. Woods. Unfortunately, however, they are no longer young. The majority of them are getting on in age. Their stock and equipment are old and their buildings are dilapidated. To-day these men are being pressed-I think I am almost justified in saying that they are being houndedby the soldier settlement board. I am not criticizing the board for their action because they are only carrying out a policy imposed upon them. Let me read a letter from the British Empire Service League on a very important question-rather, it is not a letter but the report of a soldiers' committee. It is the report of the soldiers' settlers committee of the legion.
Your committee begs to report as follows:
Since being appointed at a meeting of the provincial council held in the Memorial hall, Edmonton, on January 2nd of this year, to investigate soldier settlers' affairs, I have received from the provincial secretary copies of the resolutions dealing with soldier settlers; and I have written the branch sponsoring the resolution, asking for statutory declarations to substantiate the claims set forth in their resolutions.
I have had sufficient replies with the required evidence to prove that all is not well with our comrades, the soldier settlers, and it is my considered opinion that many of them are struggling under a load of debt too great for them to carry. I find from the evidence submitted that the S.S.B. has been insistent on the yearly payments being met regardless of whether there was enough left over to insure a living for the settler or not.
In many cases where the soldier settler was dispossessed, the land was sold later to other parties, who were not ex-service men, for a great deal less money than the debt of the original settler for the board amounted to. It is possible that if the board had given the soldier settler the same price as the land was sold for he might have been able to carry on and remain in possession of his land.
I have also seen letters myself written by the board to soldier settlers informing them that in view of the fact that they were in the position where they could not pay for the land, they might as well get off it. I would ask, where are these men to go? They are told that they have no chance of succeeding now and that they have no equity. Where will they go if they are forced off the land? Men of that age cannot easily find a job, and many of them are physically incapable of working. Of that total only 554 are receiving war veterans' allowance. I would say that as part of our war effort immediate steps should be taken to investigate the situation in regard to these 3,801 men to whom I have referred, before initiating any new scheme, I think it is the obligation of the government to take the necessary steps to reestablish those men who are already on the land. I have absolutely no faith that under the new scheme conditions in the long run will be any better than they are under this one, unless the government can guarantee an agricultural policy for the future which will return to the farmers cost of production. I would recommend that where there is a chance of a settler

Veterans' Land Act

carrying on, especially where he has the help of his children, the amount of the debt should be written down to a point where he will be in a position to pay it. I say to the government, treat him the same as you are treating the soldiers of this war. Treat him the same as he should have been treated under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Owing to the continuance of low prices, the farmer now finds himself no better off than when his debts were reduced under that act.
Unfortunately the board have no power to reduce these debts to the point I suggest. Legislation is necessary to make it possible. I have spoken to officials of the board, and I found that they would have been only too glad to make a reduction, but they had no power. They could only suggest that where the settler was married, he should release the farm so as to enable his wife to buy it from the board. They would be then in a position to sell it to her at a greatly reduced figure. Why they had to deal with the subject in that roundabout way I do not know, but not all settlers have wives, and it can be done only where there is a wife. On the other hand, where the disability or the ill-health of the soldier prevents his ever making a success of the farm, even if the debt were reduced, I would urge on the government that they carry on a somewhat similar scheme for such men as they propose under the new measure. They should place these men in communities, in low rental cottages, with decent gardens, and pay them a war veterans' allowance so that they can at least finish their days in a certain amount of peace.
Let me refer to one thing more, a certain action on the part of this government which I regard as despicable. I would not have believed that this government could possibly be guilty of such an action if the evidence had not been presented to me. The government passed an order in council which gave them power to seize a portion of dependent's allowance in payment of the soldier settler's debt. When that matter was first called to my attention I told the particular settler, "You must be wrong, because under the regulations dependent's allowances cannot be touched." He replied, "I don't know whether they can or cannot be touched, but the point is that they are being seized at the present time."
When I got here I took the matter up with the board and found that order in council P.C. 138, 1936, had been passed. Perhaps I should read that order in council because there are not very many people who are familiar with it. I hope the minister is not

proud of his responsibility for this order in council.
The board has had under consideration a submission of the honourable the Minister of Mines and Resources reporting that:
1.	A considerable number of persons who agreed to purchase farms from the soldier settlement board or from the director of soldier settlement on long term contracts have enlisted in the Canadian armed forces.
2.	In many cases the dependents of such enlisted persons continue to occupy their farms but no provision has been made for payment of instalments in respect of their contracts or of taxes in respect of their farms.
3.	The director of soldier settlement has no authority to carry such accounts indefinitely and it is considered desirable to provide for deductions from dependents' allowances to cover local taxes and interest due.
Accordingly the board recommend that notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in any of the regulations providing for payment of dependents' or marriage allowances in respect of dependents of members of the Canadian armed forces, that in all cases where the dependents of an enlisted person continue to occupy the farm for which such person is indebted to the director of soldier settlement and in respect of which the contract terms are not otherwise satisfactorily provided for, there may be deducted from the dependents' or marriage allowance amounts sufficient to provide for payment of taxes levied by the local taxing authority in respect of the property in question and interest accruing annually on indebtedness to the director of soldier settlement, such deductions to be made monthly and in no case to exceed $20 per month except with the consent of the dependents concerned.
After having read this, I wrote the settler asking if he would forward me the correspondence that had taken place between himself and the board with regard to this matter. A number of cases were brought to my attention, but I am going to refer only to one specific case. First, I should like to read the letter which the soldier settler received from the board, without giving the name:
We have for acknowledgment your letter of September 26 requesting that we consider cancelling the deduction from your dependents' allowance of $13 a month under P.C. 138/1936.
Before it is possible for us to make any recommendation in this connection to head office it must be ascertained what amount will be received from the crop proceeds to apply against the contract.
You no doubt realize the state of your husband's account. The current loan instalment amounts to $126.36 with arrears outstanding of $355.65 making a total due on October 1 of $482.01. To date, against this sum we have only received $73.89.
When your husband's account was adjusted under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act the board of review ordered that in each year the department should receive a one-fourth share of all crops grown on this land as collateral to the payment called for annually but this, of course, is not the basis of the

Veterans' Land, Act
settlement. In other words, if the crop share does not meet the annual payment, Mr. . . . is required to make up the difference.
According to the information we have re-. ceived, the one-fourth share of the crop this year will in no way meet the equivalent of an annual instalment nor will it even amount to the carrying charges.
We must, therefore, leave this matter in abeyance for the time being.
You will notice that according to the agreement under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, this settler had to turn over one-quarter of his crop, but that did not meet the payment, so they were deducting $13 a month from the dependents' allowance.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does the letter state what
the allowance was?


Victor Quelch: It does not. This man had a number of children, but at that time they were given allowances for only two children, so it could not have been more than $35 plus the allowance for the two children. I took up this matter with the board, who finally agreed to refund the amount of money that this woman had paid out of the crop proceeds, under the agreement, but they refused to stop this seizure of a portion of the dependents' allowance. I suggested that it would be better for them to insist upon the turning over of one-quarter of the crop, and allow this woman to keep the dependents' allowance. Their reply, however, was "No, we will not do that, for this reason. She may not always get a crop. If we just insist on a quarter share of the crop we may get nothing, but if we deduct a share of the dependents' allowance we will get that right along." In other words, they were destroying the very principle laid down by the dependents' allowance regulations, of which section 98 reads:
A dependent's allowance may not be claimed as a right. The allowance is for the purpose of promoting the well-being and efficiency of the military forces of Canada by providing a means to alleviate the financial anxieties of temporarily enrolled members with respect to the domestic welfare of dependents. . . .
Note that; it is for the purpose of removing anxiety from the mind of the soldier; yet the soldier settlement board refuses to accept a part of the crop, insisting upon a portion of the dependents' allowance because they do not want any financial anxiety. They prefer to place that anxiety upon the soldier, though it was the purpose of these regulations to remove it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In the instance cited by the hon. member, did the soldier's wife manage the farm, or was it rented to someone else?


Victor Quelch: I shall deal with that point after I have read the next letter.


Thomas Vien: I must direct the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that he is going into very full detail as to the application of the previous land settlement act. A general discussion, in general terms, of the proposed bill and the former act might be permissible, and some latitude might be allowed, but I do not believe the hon. gentleman is in order in going into very great detail with respect to the application of the other act.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: There has been no objection on the part of the committee.


Thomas Vien: It is not a question of any objection; it is a question of the application of the rules.


Victor Quelch: To show that I am keeping within the rules, we are discussing the general principles of the new bill-


Thomas Vien: Exactly. I was pointing out to the hon. gentleman that as long as he deals with the general principles, he is quite in order; but when he goes into minute details and reads letters with respect to cases arising under the former land settlement act, I must rule that he is out of order.


Victor Quelch: I was just going to point out that in dealing with the general principles of the new bill, the only way in which we can possibly judge as to whether or not those principles are good is by making a detailed analysis of the old act. Are you, Mr. Chairman, in a position to say whether this proposition is sound?


Thomas Vien: My ruling has been given, and the hon. gentleman will have opportunity for full discussion at the proper stage, which will be in committee. When the bill is referred to the special committee the hon. gentleman will have full opportunity to point out the details that he now has in mind.


Victor Quelch: Perhaps, while complying with your ruling, I may be permitted to answer the question which was directed to me a few minutes ago by the Minister of Mines and Resources, as to whether this dependent was herself farming the land. She is farming the land; but in order to do so she has to employ a man to run the farm, and she needs the dependents' allowance in order to pay him the wages for the work which other-wise her husband would have been doing. If the government is going to seize a portion of the dependents' allowance, this woman will not have the money with which to pay this man. During the winter, because of the health of
Veterans' Land Act

the children and the distance to school, she has to move into town and pay rent. The only excuse given by the board in this case was that they were merely charging a fair rental for the use of the farm property. If that is true, I would ask this question. If a soldier owns a house, does the board deduct from the dependents' allowance in that case an amount equal to the rent for that building? Certainly it does not. Then, why should it be deducted in the case of a person on the land, who is far less able to pay? If the government are justified in this action, a mortgage company would be equally justified in asking the government to allow it to seize a certain proportion of a dependents' allowance as fair rent for property on which they have a mortgage. Why should the government take unto itself the right to do something that no one else can do? I think, as I said before, that this is a most despicable action.


George Hugh Castleden: What was the average capital indebtedness of each farmer under the old act? I understand there were about twenty-five thousand settlers?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There were 24,793 soldier settlers and 224 Indians.


George Hugh Castleden: And the total indebtedness was about $109,000,000?


Mr MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: Then that would give an average investment or debt of about $4,400?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I believe $4,600 was the average original investment.


George Hugh Castleden: Did I understand the minister to say that the average capital loss an those debts was about $4,000?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct. That includes interest charges.


George Hugh Castleden: I think that is where the nigger comes in. In other words, these soldier settlers paid $65,000,000-I believe that is the amount collected over a period of years.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


George Hugh Castleden: And the cost of collecting that was about $26,000,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: About $25,000,000, I think.


George Hugh Castleden: Yes. In spite of this, there is a capital loss to the settlement board averaging about $4,000 on an original debt of $4,400 to $4,600. The cost of collection runs about 40 per cent. We would have been a good deal further ahead if we had given them the land, to start with. We would have had about 25,000 noble veterans of the last war who would have had homes. But the net result of what has happened is that only 10 per cent of these men have been able to pay off their indebtedness, in spite of the fact that settlers altogether have paid $65,000,000. Two-thirds of these noble veterans have given up in despair.
Where are they to-day? The 33 per cent who do remain on their homes are, in many instances, living in miserable hovels. They are living in fear and in insecurity. They are wondering when the representatives of the soldier settlement board will be around to ask them to give up everything, to sign a quitclaim deed and get off the land. Those veterans are now twenty years older than when they returned from the last war, when they were willing to give their lives for this land of ours. Now their home is tied down to debt -to inflation, as the Minister of Finance has said. Interest is bled out of these people on that debt.
As the previous speaker -has pointed out, the government is apparently out-Shylocking Shylock in passing orders in council compelling the wives of these men to take certain action. If the settler enlists again, in many instances to obtain a living, she is forced by order in council, to give up a portion of her separation allowance. In many instances these returned veterans are only wrecks of their former selves. Surely it should be the intention of such a bill to provide homes for those men who were willing to sacrifice. If that is so, then in heaven's name remove some of the worry and insecurity and fear that fill the hearts of these people. Give them a chance to make homes for themselves. Is that not the intention?


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: That is what this -bill is to do.


George Hugh Castleden: Then it is failing in its objective, because it leaves the same principle in the bill. How are we to know the value of the properties for which these men are going to be asked to pay? Is the property going to be valued by the director? Will he .place the price upon it? What will the price -be, and who will say what that price will be?


William Ross Macdonald: They are paying only 50 per cent of -the cost this time.

Veterans' Land Act


George Hugh Castleden: Whose cost? If it is 50 per cent of something valued at twice what it is worth, what is the difference? In the .years those men spent on the land they have given all their labour, and the labour of their wives and families to produce some cash return, something to maintain their home. They are forced to pay their taxes; those must be paid. In this instance the board is going to lend that money to pay the taxes, and pile that on top of the soldier's indebtedness.
Then, every year the capital debt against each man is going to reap its interest. True, the interest rate is lower than it was last time. Still it is too great, because in all those years when there was no return for a farmer's work his labour went for nothing; but the capital invested there has to be paid its interest; the debt must reap its reward. Oh, yes, capital has to have its reward, -whether labour is paid or not!
The second suggestion made by the hon. member for Acadia was that something should be done under the bill to provide decent homes for these people. Something should be done to see that men going into this scheme are not tied down to burdens too great for them to carry. Something should be done for those men who are already trying to hang on, on present settlement board farms throughout the country. If for 20 years these men have continued on those farms; if they have worked for 20 years and have stuck to their jobs, surely those men and their wives and families, after what they have suffered as a result of the last war, should receive better treatment. Surely, for the balance of their worried lives they should be told, "Well, you have done your bit. At least there is a home for you for the rest of your days." Instead of that, they are being hounded and asked to pay interest and payments, year after year.
I received a letter from one of them who happens to live in my constituency. His income will not be any more than $300 cash for the whole year. He has paid his taxes this year. He informed the supervisor that his wife had contracted a cancer, and that she had been in hospital for about seven weeks. The supervisor was informed that the wife would have to return to the hospital every two months, but no account was taken of that. On the contrary he received a letter from the provincial office telling him they would like to receive $15 or $20 as a token payment, to keep the debt in good standing.
This type of thing-well, I claim it is almost sabotage, in days like these. Some better ray of hope than what is shown in this bill will have to be placed before them. The
treatment of these men has been dastardly, and I do not see much hope in this bill unless there is a change of viewpoint.
The purpose of the bill should be that of providing homes, with security. Assuming that a farm in an ordinary year should make a certain return, then I would say in such case a settler could make a payment, and I believe he would be willing to. But in those years when there are no returns for work, there should be no interest piled on-none at all. Weather conditions, crop conditions, price conditions, and market conditions vary from year to year. These are matters over which the farmer has no control. But, in spite of the fact that he is prevented from earning anything, extra debt is placed upon him. This should not be.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Chairman, I certainly cannot let the remarks of the hon. member for Yorkton pass without challenging them. Let me say at once that the contribution he has made to the discussion to-night is of very little aid either to the soldier of the last w-ar, of- to those who will return from the present one. The hon. member lacks a sense of reality, altogether.


George Hugh Castleden: Well-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I did not interrupt the hon. member, and I ask him to keep his place now. When he says the treatment accorded by the government to the men who returned from the last war was dastardly, I throw it back in his teeth, and tell him he does not know what he is talking about.
The Minister of Pensions and National Health gave a summary of the benefits or readjustments made on behalf of the returned men who settled on the land after the last war. There is no doubt that there were many who settled at that time who should not have done so. But they expressed a preference to gO' to the land, and their preference was met.
I cannot agree either with the hon. member for Acadia. I do not know whether these two hon. gentlemen are in favour of the principle of the bill, or are opposed to it. I would judge from their remarks that they are opposed, and that they do not wish to see the government make any provision for the settlement on land of the men who will come back from the present war. If they are in favour of the bill, why do they not rise in their places and say so?
The hon. member for Acadia painted a rather gloomy picture of the last land settlement scheme. I admit that there were difficulties. The scheme was new when ii was undertaken-I may tell the committee that
17S4
Veterans' Land Act

I did not have any responsibility for that scheme-it was a new venture altogether in land settlement. There is no doubt that high prices were paid for the land because, as the Minister of Finance stated1 a moment ago, it was bought at a time of highly inflated values. The scheme came into effect and was operative in the latter part of 1919, and in 1920 and 1921, before deflation in values took place. It was during those years that a large amount of the land upon which these men were settled was purchased, and unquestionably it was purchased at inflated values. That was recognized by the several adjustments that were made from time to time. I would say that that was the first difficulty in the last scheme.
The next difficulty was that no test was madfe of the men who were settled on the land; that is, no test of their experience in a practical way to manage and operate farms. I think I am within the judgment of those in the house who are familiar with farming operations when I say that to succeed on a farm a man needs some experience and the ability to apply managerial skill; he must have the ability to apply those qualities that lead to success in any occupation. The old-fashioned idea was-perhaps it entered too much into the last scheme-that the main requisite for a farmer was a strong back. That is not the situation. If a man is going to succeed in farming, he must possess managerial skill, experience and the knowledge of how to make the best of the occupation he is in. Without discrediting any of the returned men from the last war, I think it is admitted) that many of them did not have that experience. Indeed, some of them had never been on a farm in their lives, at least had not done any practical work, and naturally they were handicapped. That was a serious handicap.
In many instances men were settled on poor land. I am not going to criticize the methods by which the land settlement scheme was carried through; but I know that in my own province, in the area between lake Winnipeg and lake Manitoba, the land is not good farming land, and yet many soldier settlers were placed there. They were handicapped from the beginning by that very fact. These have been guarded against in the measure which the Minister of Pensions and National Health introduced to the house this evening. There is provision for the selection of suitable land; there is provision that experienced men only are to be placed on the land. If an individual has not had farming experience, an opportunity is to be given

to him to acquire that experience in a practical way before he undertakes the job of managing his own farm.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Cooperation by the provinces.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There will be a provision
in the bill to guard against the acquisition of poor land. Benefiting by the experience gained in the operation of the soldier land settlement scheme, provision is made to guard against these things as far as it is possible to do so. Provision is made also for much more generous assistance on the part of the government than was given under the last scheme. With the experience gained in the operation of the soldier land settlement scheme, there is a reasonable chance-I would say a good chance-that in the great majority of cases this scheme will succeed.
The last scheme vras not quite the dreary failure indicated in the remarks made a short time ago by the hon. member for Acadia. There were between 24,000 and 25,000 settlers placed upon the land.


Mr. GILLIS:: As I understood the Minister of Pensions and National Health, he told us definitely that in the working out of the last scheme for land settlement you had something then which you have not now- you had land. As far as the federal government is concerned, they have no land now. Where is the director who is going to place these men on the land going to get the land upon which to place them?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I can tell my hon. friend
that that will be the least of the difficulties of the director. In the last scheme there were between 24,000 and 25,000 settlers placed upon the land. Of those, over 3,800 have title to their land to-day; they have made their payments in full, they own their homes and there is nothing against them. It is estimated that another 5,800 or thereabouts have from a fair to a substantial equity in their properties, and in the course of time they will probably acquire title to their homes.


Victor Quelch: I challenge those figures
as not being correct, I have a letter here from the superintendent of the soldier settlement board which gives different figures entirely.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The figures which I give
will not conflict with the information my hon. friend has.


Victor Quelch: They certainly do.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That was achieved in the
face of the difficulties I outlined a moment

Veterans' Land Act
ago as attendant upon the inauguration of the soldier land settlement scheme following the last war. A note has been handed to me which may give a little comfort to the hon. member for Cape Breton South who is doubtful as to whether land can be secured. According to the last census figures, there are to-day over 70,000 farms in Canada occupied by farmers over sixty-five years of age with no grown sons to follow them. All the time farms of that kind are coming into the market. Let me repeat:	I do not think
there will be any problem in securing suitable land.
Mr. Chairman, I ask your indulgence because I realize that I am out of order, but I do not want to let the statement made by the hon. member for Acadia pass without some qualifications. He gave an instance of a veteran of the last war who had enlisted in this war, leaving his wife and several children on the farm. He criticized the government severely because it had asked that a certain amount, I believe it was $13 a month, should be given by the recipient of the allowance toward paying taxes and maintaining interest payments on the farm. There are cases of that kind.
I think that was the kind of case to which the hon. member for Yorkton applied the adjective "dastardly". What were the circumstances of the case? In the first place, the wife of the soldier got an allowance of $35 a month contingent upon his assigning $20 of his pay each month. For each of two children she got an allowance of $12 a month. Therefore altogether she was in receipt of $79 a month. She was not disturbed in her possession of the farm; she could rent it or work it herself, and pay a quarter of the proceeds to the soldier settlement board. She was asked to pay $13 a month for taxes and to help pay the interest on the amount that was owing. That is the treatment to which the hon. member for Yorkton applies the adjective "dastardly". I think it would require a pretty good stretch of the imagination for anyone to consider that dastardly treatment.


George Hugh Castleden: I was not referring merely to that. It seemed to me dastardly that the government would take unto itself powers which were not permitted even to a mortgage company.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have as Minister of Mines and Resources charge of the administration of the Soldier Land Settlement Act. I invite the hon. member for Yorkton and any other hon. member to give me chapter and verse of the particulars of any case, and I am quite willing to submit them to the judgment of
the house. There may have been cases-I do not say there were none, although I would be surprised if I found any-where some hardship has resulted, but the whole purpose of the government in administering this scheme was not to oppress the settlers but to help them put their properties in a position where they -would have a secure home for themselves for the future. There have been cases where $50, $60, $75 and, in some instances, $79 a month have been paid to soldier's dependents on the farm, where a veteran of the last war has enlisted in this war. That is a fair sum, $75 a month, when you are living on a farm where you have a home to live in and security of tenure. You are not paying rent. You are paying a part of the proceeds-in the particular case cited by the hon. member for Acadia, a quarter of the proceeds-but it is in the interests of the veteran himself and in the interests of the home to pay the taxes. Therefore I hope the hon. member for Yorkton will, upon reflection, conclude that the administration of the scheme is not nearly so severe as he would have the members of the committee believe.


Mr. GRAHAM:: The minister intimated that in the questionnaire 33,000 indicated their intention of taking up farming.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Roy Theodore Graham: How many of these were engaged in farming or came from farms?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am told that the information is not at present available but will be when the final classification is made. A substantial proportion of them were already possessed of experience on the farm.


Roy Theodore Graham: Are any agricultural courses under the vocational training scheme given under government control or under legion control?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, I understand that the legion is conducting an agricultural course.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I listened with interest to the minister's statement in which he said that the government has no land belonging to the crown.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The leaseholds have been transferred to the provinces, and there is no crown land available, but according to the statement read by my colleague there will be plenty of land available for this purpose.
Veterans' Land Act


John Ritchie MacNicol: In the riding of the Minister of Mines and Resources I was driven over a large territory just west of the Pas. It is some of the finest land in the world, open for settlement, and is available at a very low price. I would think it would be a splendid piece of land to settle anybody upon. Again, north of the Peace river I was shown very large areas of land upon which no one was residing. I do not see why the government could not settle large numbers of men in blocks up there. I have also in mind what is being done for the Sudetens. The Minister of Mines and Resources is more familiar with that than I am, although I spent some time in that territory upon two occasions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may interject, all the provinces of Canada have been approached and have indicated their utmost desire to cooperate by way of surveys and otherwise in order to make the scheme a success.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What I had in mind was that if large blocks of good land were available here and there at a very low price, it would be much better to settle the soldiers upon such land than upon land which was heavily encumbered with debt from the very beginning. Land settlement after a war is not a new thing. After the Revolutionary war, the United Empire Loyalists were settled in Canada in the eastern counties and the counties just west of Kingston, in Frontenac and Hastings. After the war of 1812, large numbers of soldiers were settled in Lanark county. They were given the land free, obtaining title to it after being upon it for three years. They were also given various implements with which to work the land, and were given rations for two years if they were required; and as I read history, most of these settlers made good. Many of my people on my father's side were soldiers of the Napoleonic wars, and they settled in Lanark county and made good. A private drew 100 acres; a lieutenant and a captain, larger amounts respectively. They made good partly because they were not encumbered with debt from the very beginning.
I have listened with interest to what has been said by hon. gentlemen from the west who sit to my left, who are familiar with the problems of the soldier settlers in the west; and after listening to what they have said it would appear to me that one of the reasons why some of these soldier settlers failed to make good is that they were encumbered with debt from the beginning. On the other hand, I believe that what the Minister of Finance has said is largely true, that infla-

tion after the last war had a lot to do with the lack of success of many of these settlers.
I should like to see the bill contain provisions whereby the soldier settlers will be able to start on the land with a very low encumbrance of debt, if any at all. I would rather see them start free of debt, because I agree with what one hon. member to my left has said that if they are given the land free and they make good, that is to the advantage of Canada, and is much better than to settle the soldiers upon land encumbered with debt which they would give up after working upon it for a few years.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask a question of the Minister of Mines and Resources arising out of statements made by some hon. members and the minister's answer with respect to deductions from dependents' allowances. I shall be more moderate in what I say than the hon. member for Yorkton, but that, of course, is no reflection upon him. I should like to ask the government to review its position with regard to deduction from dependents' allowances, upon two grounds. First of all, in making the deduction the government is putting into operation a principle which is denied to private individuals. My understanding of the provisions is that no dependent's allowance can be garnisheed. It is judgment-proof. My understanding of the dependents' allowance provision is that they may not be garnisheed; they are judgment-proof, and in addition to that, the ordinary operations of law do not apply to the soldiers dependents' allowance. It seems to me, if that is the situation-and I am going on that assumption- the government is going a long way when it attempts to meet any governmental payment out of the dependents' allowance. The money is given to the dependents of soldiers serving in this war.
Might I also advance this suggestion? You are dealing here with veterans of two wars. You are dealing with the family of the man who served in the last war, and you are dealing wdth the same family where the head of that family is serving in this war. It seems to me that, if any evidence were really necessary on which to base a request to the government to review the situation again, this latter argument ought to hold water.
If the minister cares to reply, I should like some information, or at least an estimate, with regard to how many soldier settlers there are whose wives or dependents are being asked from time to time to share some of the burden out of their dependents' allowances.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have the information here. There are 297 deductions being made.

Veterans' Land Act
Of these, 260 voluntarily asked that the reductions be made. My hon. friend the Minister of Pensions and National Health, who has a mathematical turn, tells me that that constitutes 87J per cent. Within the total are only thirty-seven cases which might come within the strictures made by the hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for York-ton. These 260 people see the desirability and advantage of making a contribution from their allowances; they are interested in ultimately owning their homes and protecting them; and we give them every encouragement possible. Unfortunately all human beings are not made alike; all soldier settlers are not alike; but I venture to say that every one of those thirty-seven cases would be found to be within the category where they can well afford without hardship to make a contribution towards keeping their homes in good standing. I do not think it is any imposition to ask them to do it. If hon. members are interested in the matter, when the soldier settlement estimates are before the house at a later period I shall be glad to give particulars of every case and to leave it to the judgment of the house whether, in the words of the hon. member for Yorkton, they are being used in a "dastardly" fashion.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I understand that 260 are described as voluntary. Am I not correct in assuming that they were asked if they would voluntarily give this contribution? In certain cases they were.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In that particular case they were asked if they wished to help protect their homes in this manner, but no pressure at all was put upon them to make the contribution; it was merely suggested to them.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not entering into this discussion, because I think we are wasting time in talking this evening about after-war problems instead of preparing to win the war, but I do not think it is fair to speak of this as purely voluntary. I have seen some of these letters, and I would not call the arrangement exactly voluntary.


Douglas King Hazen: Did the committee who recommended the plan embodied in this bill, or did the government, give any consideration to settling these soldiers, when they return, in communities rather than putting one here, another two or three miles away, and yet another some distance from the others? It seems to me that there is land available, at least in some parts of this country, where community settlement could be put into effect, and I believe that it has much to recommend it. When you settle
one man here and another some miles away, you restrict their opportunities of social life; you lessen the opportunities of providing a suitable education for their children, and you place them under other and great disadvantages. By bringing a group of them into a community you are able to obtain for them better schools, superior educational facilities, improve their opportunities for cooperation and give them better instruction from the government employees who have to serve all those farmers. It seems to me a matter which should be very carefully studied.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is merely an enabling bill. All kinds of suggestions were made to the committee of eighteen who discussed these proposals for eighteen months, and these and other proposals for community settlement will be placed before the special committee of this house which is to review the details of this bill, and will receive their careful consideration, although I must say that in my own province, it seems to me, after the last war, group settlements were not very successful.


Douglas King Hazen: I have here the Votes and Proceedings of February 16:
Resolved that a select committee be set up to which shall be referred all matters relating to the settlement of veterans of the present war on the land in Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Is this part of a comprehensive plan which seeks to reestablish all the men who are now in the services and, if so, why has agriculture been selected as an industry which should have 180,000,000 expended? At the end of the last war, farm prices were at a very high level; wheat had been selling at $2.50 a bushel, and it was apparent that there was going to be a market for farm products at fairly high prices for a long time, so that men anticipated, in going into this industry, that they would be able to pay for their investment and make a living. We now find ourselves in a period when agriculture is a depressed industry. Farm prices are at very low levels. A person must have a lot of confidence to anticipate that in the next few years there will be markets for unlimited quantities of agricultural products. Has the government considered what will be the effect of spending $80,000,000 in a depressed industry, upon the people who have been struggling for the last ten or even twenty years to meet their interest payments and taxes and remain on the land? It would seem to me that there are other industries in Can-
<4.561-114

Veterans' Land Act

ada where these sums of money might be spent to better advantage. At the present moment we are experiencing a very serious shortage of steel. We are having difficulty in getting oil. I wonder why agriculture has been selected as the one industry to have such a large expenditure, and in which large numbers of men now in the service may look forward to finding employment and to repaying the amounts which they will receive under this legislation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Every point which my hon. friend has mentioned in his remarks was very carefully considered by the committee of eighteen. I do not know whether he has seen the names of the committee who have studied this question. When he says that we are spending money on land settlement alone, he is misinformed. A very moderate view of the order in council of October 1 is that there will be an obligation to this country of at least $100,000,000; the returned soldier will be trained for various types of industry; provision will be made for putting him back to insured employment, on a parity with the man who has stayed at home, in civilian industry, and there are various other benefits. After-war land settlement has required special legislation. This, I think, has been very very carefully considered and reviewed, and it is the hope that it will be not only of great benefit to those who can avail themselves of the opportunities provided under it, but to the national economy as a whole. I do not think the mere fact that prices are depressed at the moment will involve injury to the agricultural industry in the slightest degree. It may be a very good time to lay plans for the future and take advantage of the depressed prices which may prevail at the moment, for the future benefit of the soldier settler-of course, in conjunction with the civilian who is now on the land. There is no intention of injuring the person now on the land; rather, the object is to cooperate with the person now on the land for the benefit of the returned soldier.


Mr. BL AC KM  ORE@: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the minister's exposition of his plan. I believe he has done a very good job and that his ideas are commendable. I have just been wondering whether he has gone so far as to estimate the number of farmers that Canada really needs. I read the other day a statement concerning the United States to the effect that they had
30.000.	000 farmers and they needed only
24.000.	000. I am wondering whether there is any possibility of our getting more farmers than we really need. My interest in this

question arises probably from the fact that I come from an agricultural constituency, and I have had reason to suspect that there were certain people in the government who were interested in destroying the farmers on the land, in displacing them by any means, torturing them to death if needs be. Perhaps these sound like bitter words, but no one who has been on the soil for forty years can come to any other conclusion when he sees the price structure which obtains at the present time through wide areas of agricultural lands. I am wondering whether the minister has really gone into that matter.
I think a good deal of care should be given to the question whether or not we shall be able to sell as much agricultural produce after the war as we are now selling. If we are not going to be able to sell more wool, for example, more beef, eggs and other agricultural products than we are now selling, and if we are now not producing anywhere nearly as much of these commodities as our present agricultural productive establishment can produce, then it seems to me that we are running a serious risk in very greatly increasing the number of our agricultural producers.
Let me hasten to say that I think there is no finer place in the world for men to be than on the land. There is no finer place to raise a family. There is no happier place to live in, provided conditions are such that one has a chance to make a living. But the minister will be one of the first to agree that those conditions do not obtain in Canada in the agricultural areas.
Unless we can see adequate reason for believing that after the war there will be a sufficiently greatly increased demand for our products to enable us to sell the output of many more farmers than we now have producing, I see no reason for optimism.
Then the question has been brought up once or twice-I merely refer to it here-of price. It would comfort me considerably if the minister or some of his colleagues would indicate to the committee, even by a word, that they see how in this country prices can be established and maintained so that the farmer can be guaranteed, over a period of five years, say, cost of production plus such profit as will enable him to live. The minister has not given any such indication. He may know, but he has certainly kept the secret very well.
Up to the present time our agricultural prices have depended in large measure on prices in world markets such as Liverpool and Chicago. The government are only recently beginning to realize that it must be made possible within the country to govern agricultural prices in the country indepen-

Compulsory Military Service
dently of world market conditions. The moment they begin to govern prices within the country, using only the devices which they now possess, they will place upon the economy of Canada burdens such as the economy will not long sustain. This is the reason for the question I propounded to the minister. I would be, with him, happy in contemplating a greatly increased number of farmers on the land, which I think his scheme will bring into being, if only we could settle the matter of prices. But I contended last year in vain for a price to be fixed on eggs until a certain date in 1942. We were unable then to do that, and the Minister of Agriculture rather scornfully cast a certain amount of aspersion on me because I was so foolish as to insist upon it. The principle is a very simple one. If we cannot establish prices which are fair and remunerative in connection with the various agricultural products, then the minister's whole land settlement scheme will simply blow up like a bubble, because the ability of any farmer whatsoever, soldier or civilian, to subsist on the farm will depend in large measure on his price.
If the minister can give us some idea as to whether or not we have more farmers in Canada than we need, whether he knows how we can maintain prices, whether he has any idea as to how we shall market the goods we produce so that in case we increase by one-third our egg production, butter production, beef or hog production or flax or sugar production

if he can give us some information in these matters, I shall be greatly comforted. If he cannot do so, probably we shall need to look upon his proposal with some restraint.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, April 21, 1942