[Stage Direction]
Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull) presented the first report of the special committee on war expenditures, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 67, to amend the Judges Act.
He said: Judges appointed under this bill are to be bound by the court of final appeal.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, at an earlier part of the session there was considerable discussion in the house with respect to censorship and its more effective control. I wish to
inform hon. members that as a result of the government's decision to provide for greater centralization and coordination between the various branches of censorship, the office of director of censorship has been created. I am pleased to announce that Colonel 0. M. Biggar has been appointed to fill this new and important position. Under the arrangement previously existing, each branch of censorship was under a different minister with a separate staff. The chief postal censor was responsible to the Postmaster General; the chief telegraph, cable and telephone censor was responsible to the Minister of National Defence; the press censors to the Secretary of State, and the radio broadcasting censor to the Minister of National War Services. A degree of integration existed, inasmuch as there was a censorship coordination committee of which the Minister of National War Services was chairman, but with the increased scope and growing intensity of the war this has proved to be inadequate.
In future, all divisions of censorship will be placed under the Minister of National War Services. The director of censorship will be the administrative head of the new organization and will be responsible to the Minister of National War Services. The present chief officers of each of the branches of censorship will become assistant directors in respect of their particular fields.
As a result of this reorganization a consistent policy for all aspects of censorship will be more readily maintained. Overlapping in effort will be removed. From the point of view of preventing leakage of information valuable to the enemy, and for the purpose of securing information for intelligence purposes, it is expected that the centralized system will be more effective. The central authority will also be valuable in relations with the United Kingdom and United States censorship authorities, each of which is under unified control.
Censorship plays a vital part in the war effort. Its conduct requires, in the highest degree, judgment, skill and devotion to duty. I should like to say that the government is highly appreciative of Colonel Biggar's acceptance of the arduous and responsible duties which he has been asked and has undertaken to perform. Colonel Biggar will continue to act as chairman of the Canadian section of the permanent joint board on defence.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Is Colonel Biggar still acting on the joint defence council?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes he is, and will continue to act.
War Appropriation


Mr. COLD WELL:: The Prime Minister does not think the work is too arduous for one individual?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have discussed that with Colonel Biggar and I am sure that he will be able to fill both positions.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the appointment is satisfactory; I am not complaining about that.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Who are to be the assistant directors? I know of two, but are there not more than two?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The various ministers could answer for themselves.


Mr. RALSTON:: Major Yuill is telegraph and telephone censor.


Mr. MULOCK:: Mr. Jolliffe is chief postal censor.


Mr. THORSON:: Colonel Landry is radio broadcasting censor.


Mr. McLARTY:: The press censors are Mr. Eggleston and Mr. Charpentier.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the appointment of a minister from the province of Quebec, in order to give that province its proper representation in the cabinet, still being considered by the Prime Minister?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend asked me that same question a few days ago, and I now give him the same answer.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 4, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding §2,000,000,000 for the year ending March 31, 1943, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Vien in the chair.
James Layton Ralston: Last night the question came up as to whether students of seventeen and eighteen years of age could not be permitted to take employment through the summer holidays notwithstanding the provisions of the order in council which requires a permit before they enter restricted occupations. I have procured from the director of national 
selective service the explanatory notes which have been issued by him for use by the selective service officers throughout the dominion, and I find from that, and am also told by his office that: in re'spect to students seeking employment during the summer holidays, the policy to be followed will be that of giving permits limited to the duration of the school, college or university holidays. If these young men are needed for munitions work they should be directed to such work rather than be allowed to enter a restricted occupation by permit. A permit should not be given to a student who normally follows agricultural pursuits- for example, a farmer's son-if he is needed on the farm. If the refusal of a permit to a student would mean that he would be prevented from securing employment the permit should be issued.
I take it that, in effect, the students of seventeen who were mentioned last night are automatically, if I may put it that way, granted a permit if they apply for it for the purpose of taking employment in the summer vacation.


Mr. BENCE:: I should like to ask the minister some questions with respect to the two orders in council which have been passed governing the reconditioning of men. The first order in council, P.C. 2229, relates solely to those called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act, and the second one, P.C. 2291, refers only to men who are called up for active service. As I understand P.C. 2229, the order in council with respect to the calling up of men, it consists of two parts. The first part provides that men who have been called up under the regulations and have not been notified to report because of some physical condition which does not require remedial treatment may now be forced to report if the provision of glasses, dental treatment or nutritional improvement is all that is required. The second part of the order in council provides that where the physical condition is due to some condition that requires active remedial treatment in hospital, the men may be notified to report to the Department of Pensions and National Health and then be afforded the opportunity of taking the necessary treatment to correct existing defects.
In connection with the first part of the order in council I should like the minister to explain what is meant by the provision of glasses. There are widely different reasons for the wearing of glasses or what are more correctly called correctional lenses. Some people are helpless without these correctional

War Appropriation
lenses, while others can get along very well without them for a comparatively short time, and some for a longer time. I should like to have an explanation as to the degree of correction that is intended to be covered by the regulations under this order in council, P.C. 2229. I have this in mind. I understand that if a man's eyesight is defective up to a certain point he is refused enlistment for active service. I should like to know whether the regulations to which I have referred cover such a case, and whether they cover all cases in which the provision of glasses would bring a man's vision back to normal. A man may be put in category C, for instance, or some other category such as Cl-I do not know exactly which one- because his vision is defective without glasses, whereas with glasses he might have the normal vision required for category A men. Would these cases come under the provisions of the order in council? If so, why is not the same provision made with respect to men enlisting for active service? In view of the fact that these men are being called up, and that by virtue of the plebiscite vote there is a possibility of their being sent to any theatre of war, I should like to know whether men v'ho are suffering from defective vision will be included among those who will be sent on active service to any theatre of war.
I would urge upon the minister that he reconsider the whole question of categorization in respect of all men who are now being refused enlistment for active service because of defective vision, if the provision of glasses would bring their vision up to normal. I urge that for this reason. I understand that in the last war the vision standard required was not as high as it is to-day, and it seems to me that before this war is over the requirements will have to be lowered with regard to the degree of vision that a man must possess without glasses. If there is any real possibility of that, I submit to the minister that the change should be made now; otherwise men are put in the embarrassing position of not being able to enlist for active service to-day who when the war has gone on for some time will be eligible for such enlistment. If these men are eventually going to be able to enlist for active service I suggest that the requirements be lowered to enable them to do so now.
Furthermore it is provided by P.C. 2229 that men needing glasses or dental treatment or nutritional improvement may be called out. But the order in council says nothing about providing them with glasses or dental treatment. Is it intended that the men who are called up under this order will receive the glasses or dental treatment required?
I should also like to know something in connection with the second part of the order in council, which provides that where the physical condition of the man requires active remedial treatment in hospital, and the medical authorities certify that he is sufficiently mend-able to permit of his being within a reasonable time placed in a medical category in which he would be acceptable for military service, he may be notified to report to the Department of Pensions and National Health.


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon. friend
give me the reference? I think he is reading from the orders in council appearing on the Votes and Proceedings.


Alfred Henry Bence: Yes, I am referring to P.C. 2229, which appears at page 14 of the Votes and Proceedings, of March 24.


James Layton Ralston: I have not the orders in council under my hand. That is why I asked for the reference.


Alfred Henry Bence: In connection with the second part of that order in council, is that a purely voluntary proposition on the part of the man who is notified to report to the Department of Pensions and National Health, or are any compulsory features involved in it?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: So far as operations are concerned it is voluntary in both cases.


Alfred Henry Bence: Under both orders in council?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is so far as our department is concerned.


Alfred Henry Bence: In connection with the whole matter of medical standards generally, would the minister briefly describe the difference between the medical standard set for enlistment in the active army and that set for men who are called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act, and the extent to which the qualifications for the various medical categories have been altered since the beginning of the war? I mean, wherein are there differences between the standards with respect to men who qualified under medical category A at the beginning of the war, and those applicable at the present time? Is there any difference? Have the standards been lowered with respect to various matters, eyesight being one of them?


James Layton Ralston: I remember that in answer to the hon. member for Parkdale I made a statement with regard to certain changes which were made-I think in two respects at least. One was with regard to sight and the other was with regard to hearing. The two changes are reported in Hansard, and if I get an opportunity to look it up I will refer my hon. friend to them.
War Appropriation


Alfred Henry Bence: In connection with order in council P.C. 2291, respecting the reconditioning of men who have volunteered for active service, what is the satisfactory undertaking in writing in suitable form which is referred to in section 1, subsection (e) of the regulations, and what provision is made in the event that the man refuses, after giving such an undertaking, to take the necessary attestation to go on active service?
Also, has the department a record with regard to the men who have been discharged from the army since the beginning of the war, to the number of 40,000-I have not the exact figure, but I believe it is in excess of that- and whom it reasonably hopes to recondition under the provisions of P.C. 2291? Also, how many men have been called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act to whom the provisions of order in council 2229, respecting their reconditioning, would apply? Also will the minister tell us when the provisions of those two orders in council came into effect or are to come into effect?


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will let me interrupt him here, he is asking me about two orders in council which were passed on the recommendation of the Minister of Pensions and National Health, with my full concurrence and with the collaboration of the Department of National Defence. The orders in council are in effect now. The officers of both departments are busily engaged, and have been since the announcement was made, in working out the procedure with regard to both those orders in council and making the regulations. Hon. members will understand that we have to work out the procedure. In the first place we have to come to an agreement as to what disabilities, generally speaking, are "mend-able", to use the expression which appears in the order in council. That has to be done between the doctors of the Department of Pensions and National Health and the army doctors, in order that the army board which is examining the particular individual may know whether it is worth while to refer that man to the Department of Pensions and National Health to be mended. The procedure is being worked out also with regard to the possibility of having on that board a doctor from the Department of Pensions and National Health. The next thing is the matter of the concentration of these men, where they are to go; and I understand quite a number of details have to be worked out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the
scheme functioning yet?


James Layton Ralston: It is functioning to this extent: in cases which are apparent, the Department of Pensions and National Health

is taking them over, but I would not say that any large number have been received so far because the regulations have not been completed.
On another point which my hon. friend asked about, namely, the form of undertaking for voluntary enlistment, I have just asked the adjutant general, and he tells me that this is a part of the regulations and that the regluations are under discussion between the two departments.


Alfred Henry Bence: Before the minister goes on, I have just one more question, and it has relation to the point he is covering now. How far and in what form are these regulations being publicized?


James Layton Ralston: They have been tabled here; that was done at the time the Prime Minister made the statement on man-power. I do not know what steps are being taken by the two departments to publicize them, but of course that would be part of the plan which is being worked out.


Alfred Henry Bence: I was thinking how important it was in connection with recruiting stations, advertising, the putting out of posters, and things like that.


James Layton Ralston: Of course the way to
publicize them is to have the medical board fully informed as to what rights a man has.


Alfred Henry Bence: A man might be suffering
from hernia, for example, and if it was publicized that he could receive treatment, probably he would make himself available immediately.
Mr. MaeINNIS: May I ask a question in connection with these two orders in council?


Alfred Henry Bence: I wonder if I might have answers to my questions.


James Layton Ralston: I will do the best I can with the very limited information I have at my disposal. My hon. friend is asking about technical matters with regard to medicine. I do not profess to be an expert, and I have not one of the medical officers here at the moment.
_ My hon. friend asked first, I think, whether the same provision was made for treatment of minor defects for active service men as for the home defence men. The answer is yes. That is to say, there are certain things in the way of provision of glasses, dental treatment and matters of the kind which are afforded for both the active service men and the home defence men.
My hon. friend asked what is meant by the provision of glasses. All I can say is this: the regulations with regard to the physical

War Appropriation
eligibility of men for service and the standard which has to be reached in connection with the different categories are all set out in a routine order which I had here the other day and which was referred to by the hon. member for Parkdale. As I understand it, the provision is that for eligibility, at least for category A, a man has to be what they call 20/20, which is practically perfect vision, with glasses, if necessary.
There is a certain deterioration or defectiveness allowed for, provided it can be cured with glasses. That degree of defectiveness I shall have to get exactly by referring to the routine order which will be here in a few minutes. It is asked whether it is intended that they should receive dental treatment. The answer is yes. There will be comparatively minor treatment such as will be necessary to put the men in shape to be properly categorized. The question was asked whether the right to be mended was voluntary on the part of the man called for service. The answer is yes. My hon. friend asked the number of men to whom reconditioning would apply, that is to say the number of men who have been called up for service and rejected in the past and to whom reconditioning will apply. I cannot give the faintest idea of that at this stage. It will require examination of the medical boards with regard to those who have been rejected in order to see the cause of rejection.


Alfred Henry Bence: Can a man be called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act who has a greater degree of defective vision than one who can enlist for active service?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think so, but I will not say without having definite knowledge from the medical officer. If the man is in category A he is in category A whether for home defence or for active service.


Alfred Henry Bence: Provision is made for such
a man to have glasses which would correct his vision and make him subject to call, whereas the man who applied for active service might have perfect vision with glasses but might be put in category C or E with glasses off. I want to know if there is a distinction.


James Layton Ralston: That was the first question I answered. There is no distinction. The same mending for these preliminary defects is available to men both for active service and for home defence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The same standard prevails.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. My hon. friend
asked one other question which I do not recall.


Alfred Henry Bence: I asked several questions
with reference to the number of men who the department estimates might be available as a result of reconditioning orders. I asked whether they had any record in respect of men discharged from the army, and the minister answered with regard to men called up.


James Layton Ralston: I have not the record,
and I do not know whether there are any records extant which would give that-that is, records which have been collated. The Minister of Pensions and National Health has the collation of the cases of discharge, but I doubt whether they are sufficiently detailed to indicate the degree of defectiveness so as to enable one to ascertain whether the men would come under the mendable clauses or not.


Mr. MacINNIS:: As has been pointed out
by the member for Saskatoon City, order in council P.C. 2229 makes provision for the reconditioning of persons called under the National Resources Mobilization Act of 1940 and who are found unfit. Order in council P.C. 2291 makes provision for reconditioning of persons who have volunteered for active service and have been rejected for slight physical reasons. Is it intended to extend these services to persons in civil life or to persons who may be required for work in war services? 'The problem of the availability of sufficient workers is one that is becoming of increasing difficulty. The Minister of Munitions in a committee the other day said that he could place at the moment 6,000 men if he had them, 1,000 at Sudbury and 6,000 at Arvida. I have seen certain official communications in reference to the employment situation in British Columbia, particularly in the logging camps, which lead me to believe that the situation is getting acute there. There are many men and women in Canada who, because of physical conditions which could be corrected by better nutrition or dental services or by medical attention, and who could play a useful part in the economic life of the country, in our war industries and in civilian industries as well, are not to-day taking their share of the burden of work, and this is a direct loss to the country. It also accentuates the fact that we put far more emphasis on the fact of having people fit for military service than on the importance of having people fit to perform ordinary civilian services. I think that some member of the government ought to be able to answer this question. As the situation is at the moment, it is retarding the actual and potential war effort of the country.
War Appropriation


James Layton Ralston: As my hon. friend has anticipated, that is a matter which is not in my department, but the Minister of Pensions and National Health is here and he might give what information he can.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: All I can say is that the department has been giving for some time attention to what might be termed a national fitness measure along the lines suggested by the member for Vancouver East. The two orders in council to which he has referred apply only to those who have enlisted, have been called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act, or have volunteered for active service, and naturally they must be quite limited in application. The member for Saskatoon City asked about the percentage which could be made mendable by this process. It would not be large, between 10 and 15 per cent, even as regards minor defects. As regards major defects, which would come under the Department of Pensions and National Health, it would not be more than 2 or 3 per cent, according to the estimate of medical officers. With regard to the larger measure which has been envisaged, and which would be for the use of the country to train men in habits of physical fitness, it is now being considered, but I cannot announce a definite policy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a large order. What is considered to be a major defect? I do not want to get down to individual cases, but I have in mind a man in the air force with a hernia. I have written to the minister about this case. Is a small hernia a major defect? The public ought to know, and the soldiers themselves should know just what the plan encompasses.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are different conditions of hernia-I am not speaking as a medical man. In the great war operations were frequently carried out and the hernia condition remedied, following which the men went overseas, stayed some years and rendered excellent service. In this war medical opinion is against major operations for hernia. That is the prevailing opinion of medical advisers in our department at least.


Major James William Coldwell: In view of the number of men being called up and the fact that the Minister of Munitions and Supply the other evening spoke of the shortage of men, I wish to refer to a matter which I think has not been given sufficient attention by this committee. It involves all three defence departments and the Department of Munitions and Supply also. If my recollection serves me correctly the hon.

member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) raised it last week. It is in connection with delinquency among children, arising from the fact that many men are overseas or in the army and many mothers are working. What forcibly brought it to my notice was a statement in the May issue of the Canadian Forum to the effect that a partial survey made by the Toronto board of education shows that in the public schools in the industrial areas of Toronto in more than 20 per cent of the families the mother was working and not home at noon. The statement went on to indicate that this condition was leading to considerable delinquency among children, and the social service agencies such as we have are quite unable to deal with the problem piecemeal. If the state needs, as I think it may, the services of mothers in connection with the war effort, then it is the responsibility of the state to see to it that their families are properly cared for.
When our party was in Great Britain-there are several members of that party in the house this afternoon-we were struck by the arrangements made over there to cope with this situation. For example, in Stoke-on-Trent we visited the large community kitchen and the feeding centres from which meals were served to families whose mothers were working or where the w'age was not sufficient to provide proper and adequate food. We saw the creches, and the playrooms in the air raid shelters where children could be taken care of while their mothers were away from them, sometimes on account of the raids and sometimes on account of working conditions.
It strikes me that this is not a question for the local municipality; it is a question for the dominion as a whole and ought to be provided for by this government and this parliament. Sometimes a new war industry comes into an area and no prior information is given by any of the departments as to the extent to which a problem of this sort will be created in the community concerned. It seems to me that the local authority should be taken into the government's confidence as to the type of worker required, whether women will be employed and whether families will have to be looked after. Adequate grants should be made by this parliament to the local authority, educational or social service as the case may be, in order that proper care may be provided for the children of the community-I mean care in creches for the infants, in nursery schools for pre-kindergarten age children, and so on-and steps should be taken to ensure that the children at noon get proper and adequate food.

War Appropriation
We learned that in the British schools every child in attendance is given a daily milk ration. They are terribly short of milk but it is carefully rationed so that the invalid, the expectant mother and the child may get it, as well as the school children. The ration in the schools is small, only one-third of a pint; if the parents can afford it, they pay a halfpenny, one cent, but if they cannot pay they get it free.
If we are building a better order in this country, as we ought to be, and laying the foundations for that order now, as we ought to do even in the midst of war, then one of our first cares should be for the children of the workers in industry and the children of the men who are serving in the armed forces. I believe that this involves not only one department but all the defence departments, the Department of Munitions and Supply, and I think the Department of Pensions and National Health. I urge that consideration be given to this problem at once, in order that we may not continue to lag behind. It irritates me when I look over the social legislation of certain other English-speaking countries and compare it with what we have in Canada; I realize that as a nation we lag continually behind some of the more progressive peoples of the world.
In regard to dependents' allowances, an excellent letter reached me before this discussion began in the house. It is from a former school teacher. It is well written, and I propose to read the parts of it which bear upon the problem we are discussing, because I think it expresses the situation better than I could myself. I quote:
In June, 1940, my husband joined the Canadian army as a private. Each of us considered it his duty and privilege to do so. At the time, living as I did in Alberta, my allowance and that of my two children seemed adequate. Gradually however as we began to need coats, medicine and so on it seemed like we just could not get along. I hired a girl and went hack to my profession of teaching school.
We had been separated about a year when I decided to go to my husband. After all he was still in Canada, and if many other husbands stayed out of the armed forces to be with their families should we not have the chance to be together as much as possible? My two little girls wranted to be with their daddy if possible and he was very lonely for us.
So in August, 1941, we came to London (Ontario). It became apparent immediately that we could not get along unless I worked. I took my children to a day nursery and got employment in an office. After two months of this I became ill and had to quit work.
. Then we realized we were to have another baby.
Well, I needed medical care, my children needed clothes, and we got neither. I went to a doctor for five months. He prescribed medicine and a diet which I could not by any means
get. He advised dental care and eyeglasses- both impossible. And so, discouraged, he sent me a bill for his services. I took that to mean that he wanted no more to do with my case so I quit going to him, or anyone.
My children could not appear on the street all winter because we could not buy them coats. They cannot go out now because they haven't presentable shoes. I cannot appear on the street now because I have not been able to buy one garment to meet the requirements of my condition.
I have had to cut the children's milk allowance in half-and I don't get any when a quart a day has been prescribed. This is the first winter they have not taken cod liver oil. Their allowance of oranges and tomato juice has been diminished.
I am not a spendthrift, no one could be more saving than I in cooking, buying clothes, et cetera. At present I am knitting summer coats which will cost $5 for both. I'd have to pay at least $7 each if I bought them. I mend and mend and make over elothing.
I haven't anything for layette, and baby is due in July. We have to live in the poorest homes we have ever had. Our civilian friends have profitable employment, are living well. To try to help out I am taking care of a twenty months' old boy in addition to my other work. I do our laundry in the bathtub and dishpan. Here is a sample budget:
$30.00-rent.
1-50-hydro and gas (in cold weather fuel extra).
1.00-reading material.
1.30-insurance (children).
4.50-milk.
35.00-groceries, soap, etc.

My allowance is $79. Can anyone tell me where our clothes are coming from? And my hospital and doctor care? And layette? And ice for the refrigerator this summer? And medicine? And a toy or amusement once in a while for the children? And care for them when I am not able to do it? It's a problem too difficult for me to solve and I never did have much difficulty with mathematics.
This is a point to which I wish to direct particular attention, because I do not believe a case of this type has come before the house so far.
My husband is a sergeant-without pay. He is more conscientious than many with pay.
I take it that means a sergeant's pay.
He's a top ranking mechanic at the trades school, was chosen recently because of his ability, along with eleven others of high marks, for draft. Still has his sergeant's rank-but no pay. No trade's pay either. But he pays sergeant's fees-lives a sergeant's life-on a private's pay. Don't take my word on his ability; I'll refer you to-
I shall leave out the name of the officer and give it to the minister later.
-or other officials here. And he is not a man to spend money on himself either. But his ambition to become a good soldier must be dampened when he thinks of us here at home.
War Appropriation

My husband has no knowledge of this letter. I hope that it will in no way interfere with his chances of advancement, if he has any. He has the ambition, the ability and the incentive to get ahead. All he needs is a mind free of worry and a few of the "breaks."
I think that puts the case better than I could put it. I would ask the minister, if there are any cases of this kind-and I presume there are, since this is an intelligent, well written letter-of men in this position, doing tradesmen's work, with the rank of sergeant but the pay of a private, and with the families receiving the allowance of a private, to take steps to see that justice is done.
I should like also to add my voice to what has been said in this house already, asking that something be done to give the dependents of men serving in the armed forces an additional bonus or additional pay to meet the increased cost of living. It does seem invidious that we should provide-and quite properly-that men in industry should receive the cost of living bonus, and not provide that bonus for the dependents of our soldiers, sailors and airmen, for the aged or for the pensioners of the last war, who so frequently to-day languish in semi-poverty. I am urging that we do something to meet this situation. After all, these people in the lower income brackets certainly deserve a cost of living bonus more than some of our own high-salaried officials who are in receipt of a cost of living bonus from this government. Certainly we should do justice by those who are serving us in industry and in the forces.


Mr. McIVOR:: I have a word or two to say, Mr. Chairman, because I believe one or two things should be emphasized. When boys are taken into the army, or when they volunteer for service, parents wonder just what their surroundings will be and what temptations they will have to meet. I should like to express my appreciation of the work that has been done by the Department of National Defence in looking after the welfare of our men in all directions. A man may be well looked after materially and physically but there may be that one thing lacking that would make him miss becoming a real soldier. I should like to pay tribute to the work that has been done by the chaplain service in the army, the navy and the air force. The best men have been chosen, not one-day-a-week men but young men who are ready and willing at all times to give service. This is not only true of the chaplains; it is true also of the Y.M.C.A., of the Salvation Army and of all the other religious organizations represented.

Many parents are also anxious about the wet canteen. My position in this matter is well known, but I hope I may never be guilty of talking about anything in this house about which I know little or nothing. I have some data with regard to a canteen in one of our training camps, which I should like to give the committee. In this canteen the men consume five bottles of milk for every bottle of beer that is sold. I think every mother and every mother's son in Canada should be proud of that. On a recent occasion in this same canteen, when the troops were confined to barracks, they drank sixty-two bottles of beer and over three hundred bottles of milk; and there were 337 men in that draft. Again, over a recent Saturday afternoon and Sunday, when 171 men were in barracks, milk outsold beer by a very high percentage. It will be remembered that one hon. member rose in his place in this house and said that in one barracks they had a wet canteen, but when the dry canteen was opened the wet canteen was put out of business. To those who fear the bogey of the wet canteen, who think that when our soldiers sign up or are called up they are going to the bow-wows, I say I am convinced that from the chaplain service right down to the canteens our soldiers are surrounded by things that will help them to work and become real fighting men.
There is another point I should like to mention. Our men in England, in every branch, prefer to serve under Canadian rather than English officers. I pay my tribute to the Englishmen. After Dunkirk they were out of almost everything; they fought on, without guns and equipment, but notwithstanding that, our soldiers prefer to serve under Canadian officers.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Last night when the leader of the opposition inquired about reserves the minister gave a comparison which, while he did not say it would be applicable to conditions to-day, I think might be misleading. He said that in 1918 about 10 per cent were composed of reserves. From his own experience he will realize that that was during the time of the final drive when we had nearly everything in the drive. He will know that in 1916 or 1917 the reserves were many times 10 per cent. I am not suggesting that he should give the actual figures of the reserves in the old country or in any theatre of war, but I do not think we should leave the public of this country self-satisfied about the matter of reserves. I am quite sure that the actual figure at this stage would be well over 10 per cent.

War Appropriation
I should like to ask the minister some questions about our women's army. I have an article which appeared in the Star, written by Austin Cross, which reads:
"The object of the C.W.A.C." said Major-General Letson, "is to replace every able-bodied man in category A with a woman, and thus far, we have succeeded in doing this with 1,900 women. We aim to let a woman take a man's place wherever we can, and by so doing, conserve the man-power resources of Canada."
Early in the interview, the general emphasized the fact that women were available for service anywhere, and already a detachment of eleven was at the Canadian legation in Washington.
I have another article dated May 1 which appeared in the Daily Province, written by Torchy Anderson, which reads:
Possibility that Canadian women who enlist in the rapidly-growing Canadian women's army corps, may emulate their British sisters manning mixed batteries for anti-aircraft defence, was admitted officially this morning.
In the discussion of the corps, Major-General H. F. G. Letson, M.C., adjutant-general, said that it is quite possible that volunteers of the corps may be trained in anti-aircraft work.
The minister made some reference to this corps in the house some time ago, as reported on page 1913 of Hansard of this year. He referred to the dietetic service, which included cooking and waiting on tables, and certain clerical work. I think many hon. members are in the same position as I. I 'have received many communications from young women in all parts of the country and of various educational standards inquiring as to what branch of the service they could enlist in. Could the minister not enlarge on his previous statement and give us something concrete as to what he expects this women's army to be able to undertake? Perhaps he could tell us also the minimum and maximum ages which will govern their being taken into the service, what educational standards will be required, and what type of work they can usefully perform in order to relieve fit men for service.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member for
Rosetown-Biggar made a statement about public health matters and quite properly suggested that the army were interested, the navy, the air force, munitions and supply and the public generally. I gathered that he was including these departments as part of the public and not as sendee departments. I shall not take up the time of the committee to deal with this because I do not profess to be able to do so in any detail. I shall bring the matter to the attention of the government. I do not think my hon. friend was quite fair in his reference to what has been done in Canada. I am talking not about the government but about the Canadian public 44561-135
generally and what it has done in the matter of public health and various types of social legislation. I do not think we lag behind a great deal in this respect. The hon. member referred to Stoke-on-Trent where there was a local organization. Canada is a federation and matters of health are under the provinces as well as the dominion; there is a division of jurisdiction. I think the last few years have seen a remarkable degree, not only of coordination-that word is pretty well worn out-but of cooperation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And improvement.


James Layton Ralston: As well as improvement in this matter of public health. There are measures in force to-day in the provinces and the dominion that would never have been thought of ten years ago. I do not mean that we are by any means satisfied, but I would not want it to go out to the country that we are altogether lagging behind in the matter of public health.


Thomas Miller Bell: I think the minister must liave missed my .point. It was that the federal government should assume some responsibility for the financing of these things.


James Layton Ralston: Of course the federal government has assumed considerable responsibility in that respect. In reference to the case which my hon. friend cited as outlined in the letter he read from the wife of a soldier, he was simply pointing out the argument that has been made a number of times during this debate, that dependents' allowances are not sufficient. At the risk of repetition I would indicate that that is exactly the sort of case that I have had in mind. I believe this particular case has been brought up before.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not think so.


James Layton Ralston: It sounded familiar to
me. It is exactly the sort of case that the Minister of Finance was endeavouring to deal with in his announcement last November. If the dependents' board of trustees, in whom I have considerable confidence and who have certainly been taking an interest in their work by adopting the method, not of going through departmental officials but of going through citizens who know the cases intimately in their communities, does not work out, the system will 'have to be changed.
With regard to the army part of it, my hon. friend mentioned the fact that this man was a soldier without pay. I can only think of the situation being that he must have been a tradesman, receiving more pay as a tradesman than he would have received as a sergeant.

War Appropriation


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister will recall that the letter stated that he was not getting tradesman's pay either.


James Layton Ralston: I am quite free to admit that there has been great difficulty in the service with regard to tradesmen's pay. There are certain tradesmen's positions in the establishments of the various units and those who occupy these positions get tradesmen's pay. The rule has been that they do not get tradesmen's pay until they are filling tradesmen's positions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has not the trouble been that the men were induced to enlist in the belief that they were going into a trade? Perhaps they were promised by the enlisting officer that they would get tradesmen's pay, and then when they got in there there was no job. I have had cases of that kind.


James Layton Ralston: I am bound to say that the recruiting officers and the literature with regard to recruiting have emphasized the matter of tradesmen's occupations and trades opportunities. But we have now put into effect a system with regard to tradesmen's pay which I think will cover the situation. As a matter of fact this was effective April 1. A man will be entitled to tradesmen's pay on the completion of his basic training, subject to the provisions of the next three subsections. He must be filling a vacancy in the appropriate rank and trade in the war establishment of his unit. If, while in receipt of tradesmen's rates, he is promoted and thereby ceases to occupy a tradesmen's vacancy, he may continue to draw such tradesmen's rates until he is promoted to a higher rank that will entitle him to a regimental rate equal to or higher than the tradesmen's rates of which he was in receipt prior to such promotion. The next provision is that he shall be entitled to tradesmen's rates while absent from his normal duties on leave, on a course of instruction, or because of sickness caused by wounds or injuries. When he is qualified to draw tradesmen's rates, he may draw such rates while being held as an unposted reinforcement within quotas to be determined under the authority of the adjutant-general. That last provision is important. In other words, the adjutant-general may prescribe the percentage it may be.
I hesitate to name the percentage, but it may be a percentage 25 or 50 per cent above the establishment to the extent of which men who are qualified as tradesmen may receive tradesmen's pay notwithstanding that they are in excess of the establishment. That provision has been the subject of a great

deal of examination by various branches of the department, each one of which has tradesmen. We heard the member for New Westminster the other night asking that bandsmen be given tradesmen's pay. There are also cooks and clerks frequently getting tradesmen's pay. The list is almost unlimited. I sometimes think that the infantry soldier who is learning the rifle, the two-inch mortar, the Bren gun, the machine gun, the tommy gun, and some of those who drive carriers are probably just about as highly skilled tradesmen as any of them.
With regard to the case itself, I suppose it is old now, but may I ask my hon. friend how long ago the letter was written?


Thomas Miller Bell: On April 27.


James Layton Ralston: I should like very much to get the name.


Major James William Coldwell: I shall be very glad to give it to the minister.


James Layton Ralston: I shall certainly have it looked into.


James Arthur Ross: Would the minister make a statement about the Canadian Women's Army Corps?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. The present strength of the corps is between 2,200 and 2,300. Recruitment is going on satisfactorily. The age limits are eighteen to forty-five. The educational qualifications are grade eight or higher. The service is general service-that is, service anywhere. The young ladies are called privates, sergeants or corporals, just as in the army. Speaking of them in the mass, the volunteers are used particularly in the four general subdivisions, two of which were mentioned by my hon. friend. When I mention dietetics, I mean cooking; I mean as dietitians, waitresses and eveodhing else that has to do with the production of food in the camps or training centres or other establishments wherever they may be. That is one general class. The second general class is clerical-stenographic work, secretarial, accountancy, and so on. The third general class is in the auxiliary services, in canteens and places of the kind, where a large number of them can be employed. The fourth general class is in connection with motor vehicles, mechanized transport and classifications of the kind.
I have been very much impressed with the work which the corps has already done. The numbers are not large. We felt that to give proper training we should have a central training school. We have had training in the districts where the original volunteers were taken on, but we felt there should be

War Appropriation
some uniform standard. We did not have the same length of time that we have for training the officers in the male branch of the army, and we were fortunate enough to make arrangements with McGill university under which we took over a large portion of Macdonald college, and there at this minute there is a class, and has been since April 27, of over 300 of the corps. We are having them all take a course there. I had a talk the other day with the district officer commanding military district No. 4. He had visited the school and is tremendously impressed by it, and particularly by the quality of the young ladies who are giving instruction. He even suggested that they might be used for instructional purposes in connection with other branches of the army as well, in view of the great aptitude they showed for that kind of work.
As I mentioned to the committee the other night, the difficulty has been accommodation. I think I can safely say that in five different districts in the dominion the quarters are now practically completed, and now that we are ready to house the members of the Canadian Women's Army Corps they will be taking on their duties in some of the lines I have mentioned. District No. 1, I recall-that is the district of which London is headquarters-has been particularly enthusiastic with regard to the work which these women have done. They are working in quite a number of the basic training centres. At Camp Borden there are practically none of the Canadian Women's Army Corps as yet, but there again it is a matter of accommodation. We are having temporary accommodation arranged for, and we expect to have a substantial number of the women's corps there. In Ottawa we have just acquired a place where we can house a hundred members of the corps. They have, of course, been working here for some time. They have been on subsistence, but we feel that it is highly desirable, from the point of view of esprit de corps and the general spirit which association together produces, to have them all together, and that is being done. I have great hopes of the corps and great satisfaction in the work that has already been done. The enlistments as of April 11 were 72 officers and 2,188 other ranks.


James Arthur Ross: Can the minister give an estimate of the probable strength over a given period of time?


James Layton Ralston: The adjutant-general tells me that his requisition is for roughly 5,000. I hate to mention big figures but I do think the figure can be increased away beyond that. I know they can be trained, and I am sure 44501-1351
they can be utilized. Without making any forecast, what is in my mind is a strength of possibly 15,000 at least.


James Arthur Ross: That information is very useful. What about the training of these young women for anti-aircraft work?


James Layton Ralston: As to training in handling
weapons or munitions, here again I am mentioning something that was given to me quite unofficially, and I am not sure that it is proper for me to mention it here. When I was on the Pacific coast an officer in charge of the searchlight battery mentioned to me that he believed that the members of the Canadian Women's Army Corps would be able to do that sort of work admirably. They are certainly equipped to do it. They have the standard of education, and their aptitude indicates that they would be able to do it. There again it is a matter of accommodation, and it is somewhat more difficult for the corps than for the army.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Are they not being used in England in prediction work?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, in connection with coastal defence.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: What is the term of enlistment?


James Layton Ralston: For the duration.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Last year during a recruiting parade in Toronto an accident occurred. The parade was coming along Queen street, and near the city hall a man ran out between two army vehicles and was knocked down by a trooper on a motorcycle. The man had no business to be running between the vehicles, of course, but as a result the trooper's motorcycle got out of control, ran into the crowd and pinned several people against a hydrant. One woman in particular was very badly hurt. Although she has had a great deal of medical care, she is still in the hospital. This is just one of a number of incidents. I took the matter up with Ottawa, and there was no difficulty as regards the Department of National Defence, but they consulted the Department of Justice and got an opinion to the effect that there was no liability. Probably there is not, but I imagine that if it had been a civil case and a question of insurance had been involved, there would have been legal action of some kind, a settlement would have been made, and the woman would have got something. In this case she has nothing at all. She was an innocent bystander, as were other people who were injured. If the parade had not taken place
War Appropriation

there would have been no accident. If the man who ran out had been of some substance she would have had recourse against him, but under the circumstances she has none, and the crown will not give her a chance to sue. It seems to me there should be some way by which this poor woman, as well as the other people who were injured, could be compensated. The parade took place there, and it seems to me that there is some liability. I should like to know what the minister has to say.


James Layton Ralston: I appreciate the hon. member's consideration. He has not even brought the case to my personal attention; evidently he has exhausted departmental procedure in connection with it.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I should like to toy with the legal end of it, but I know that that is not the important thing. My hon. friend suggested that if the parade had not taken place there would not have been an accident and therefore the crown is liable.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: No, I did not suggest that the crown was liable.


James Layton Ralston: I thought that my hon. friend was suggesting it. If I remember my law, it is not, as I understand it, the causa sine qua non but the causa causans which decides whether or not the defence is liable; and the parade was not the cause of the accident-not the proximate cause of the accident-in that sense.
My hon. friend suggests that in a civil case there would have been a trial and the lady would have got something. I can say to him, if this will do him any good and do the lady any good-for the crown does not want to avoid any liability-that I shall certainly take the matter up with my colleague the Minister of Justice and ascertain if it is not possible to grant her a fiat so that she may have her day in court and an opportunity just as she would have in a civil case. That may be of some help. The only alternative is payment ex gratia. Invitations of that kind in my department are pretty frequent, and I have to have some general rule. I do not believe that, on the statement of the case which is made by my hon. friend, it can possibly be considered on that ground. However, I assume that my hon. friend will send me the name of the person-probably my secretary has it now- and I shall look into the case to see if anything more can be done.


Mr. CHURCH:: The matter which has been mentioned this afternoon of hospitalization and the care of the soldier and his dependents, and also the dependency money, has been before the house since the fall of 1939. I then raised this question, which is still on the order paper and under the rule of anticipation has never been dealt with, and there is a private bill about this and other matters.
The question of hospitalization is a most important one, and the matters which have been raised here are directly related to the subject matter of the resolution which I brought in immediately after the war started, namely a proper system of national insurance of the soldier and his dependents. The policy which I proposed, and which the Minister of Finance refused last year and the year before to adopt, was an insurance policy like the one they have at Washington-I had the document here and read it to the house- to take care of hospitalization, sickness, unemployment for two years after the war, and rehabilitation of the soldier and his family.
What have we now? We have this work centred very largely in the municipalities. Large numbers of men have enlisted, and what provision are we making for them in these respects? Anything that is not in the draft estimates has to be covered by the resolution covering the $2,000,000,000. It is an involved resolution, because it covers hundreds of items and a multitude of sins and errors which have been committed since the war began.
The subject of hospitalization involves soldiers who, having enlisted and trained for three months, may go overseas and then be sent home. Who looks after them? Judging from the cases which have been brought to my attention, I understand they have to go from one authority to another, with the result that they cannot pay their rent; sometimes they cannot get the money due them, and the bailiff puts them out. I know many cases of suffering under these circumstances. The province cuts them off relief and will give them no further help. The result, as I see it Toronto, which has one of the finest health departments on the continent, is that the city is forced to look after some of these men or let them go out on the streets and shift for themselves. I admit that the present Minister of National Defence has made a great improvement.
The other matter to which I wish to refer is that in my opinion we have the wrong system of considering the question at present
before us. It is unfair to require a minister

War Appropriation
to sit here for two or three weeks, as he must do under our present antiquated system of procedure. We are doing the same thing as they did in the time of the Napoleonic wars; there is a resolution first, a bill, and all that kind of thing going on in a circle. If we had the British system, by which, during the first forty-five minutes each day that parliament meets in war time, hon. members can rise and ask the very questions which are being asked here this afternoon, hundreds of questions could be answered, avoiding unnecessary long debates and saving months of time which are wasted by us in debating war policy under an old system. Whether it be this or any other government that is in power, I sympathize with any minister who has to be here for weeks and attend to departmental affairs as well and carry on, and I apologize sometimes myself for asking on urgent matters. But I say this, representing a soldier city, that we should have a new system. I raised this point last year and the year before. To-day we are sitting from three to six and from eight to eleven. Surely the British policy of setting aside forty-five minutes each day for answering war questions would be a great improvement on the present practice and curtail weeks of debate. I receive the British Hansard daily from the old country, and I am surprised at the questions which are asked on the orders of the day. In nearly every case the minister has had notice and the answer is often read. That is true even with respect to such questions as the one which was raised this afternoon by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The minister has his answer ready; he can rise in his place and say why Mrs. A or B or C or D did not get her dependency money, or why her soldier husband was not admitted to hospital, or did not get his pay, or questions about soldiers' parcels not delivered in enemy countries. Supplementary questions are allowed as well.
I must say that the system in the minister's department is such that the letters I write about hospitalization or departmental matters are answered the next day or so. I believe I write to the department as much as any hon. member, because a great many people write to me. I am sorry they do, because I do not want all that work, but our officials endeavour to help the private member and his constituents, and our civil service do it well.
I have one other question to ask, and I shall occupy only a few moments, because it is hard to raise important questions of policy regarding the war in the haphazard way which is followed in this house, one hon. member
after another rising and asking such questions as occur to him on a variety of different topics. For that reason I did not like to interfere last evening with the train of thought of various hon. members on certain features of the debate. However, the minister made a radio speech on Sunday evening. In my opinion it was a very good radio speech. I speak only as a private member. I believe it is my duty to give the government independent support as long as they are trying to carry on a total war, and I intend to do so irrespective of politics. I believe that every hon. gentleman on this side of this chamber is trying to do the same thing. J am sure they are.
I believe it would be an advantage if the minister would devote some time to disseminating news on the radio himself in this way, because to-day the radio is of great importance. I say this without disparaging the splendid work of the press, which have rendered splendid service in connection with the war, but I believe the minister should explain over the radio the position of the soldier and his dependents in this matter of hospitalization, pay and better conditions for the soldier's care.
I have tried to get some into the hospital, but you cannot do it unless you sign a contract. There is a great deal of suffering, and federal power will have to do something more about this matter in the future than it has so far done, because after all the soldier's wife and his children are civilians. Parliament will have to go into the whole question of public health for civilians and soldiers. It is one of the greatest problems before us, but for many years past it has been made a football here. This is a comparatively rich country; the health of the Canadian people is a matter of first importance to all of us, and the first duty of a government is the care of its people. We have all been surprised at the criticism that has appeared in newspapers throughout the empire about the decadence of our race, the number of people who have been found unfit for active service, and the fact that the civilian population has been finding it exceedingly difficult to stand up against the battle of nerves or ready to serve in the war. I urge parliament to take the necessary steps to help the municipalities in this direction of caring for soldiers and civilians. The minister speaks very well over the radio-I heard him on Sunday night-and he and other members of the government might very well give their assistance in this matter. The hon. member who is at the moment in the chair (Mr. McCann) is an authority on the subject
War Appropriation

of health which I am discussing, and he and other hon. members could give valuable assistance.
I suggest that something be done to educate the people through the radio, and another means of eliciting information would be in connection with the forty-five minute rule applied here only with regard to questions and supplementary questions on the war. I believe that we have power now, but if we have not, then I suggest the rules should be changed in this regard. I am glad to see that I am getting some support in this matter, not only in connection with insurance, but in connection with the training of soldiers, the better treatment of our men, better fares, the high cost of living, dependents' allowances and so on. I have had a bill dealing with these matters since 1939 and also with the difficulties in the camps throughout Canada, because at the present time the troops cannot get home on embarkation leave for a reasonable holiday with their people. They must waste two-thirds of their leave getting up and down so that they have just a day or so to spend at home. That is one of the things that hurt recruiting. There was a resolution on the order paper in regard to this whole subject from 1939 on in my name, and I wish to thank the minister for putting on Hansard recently certain information which I had been hoping to get two years ago of the rates of pay. If this information had been put on Hansard last June when I had the return, it would have saved a good many questions which have been raised in the last three weeks; but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) at that time rose in his place and objected to my putting anything of the sort on Hansard or having it in Votes and Proceedings. The Minister of National Defence was kind enough to put the table on Hansard on Tuesday last and members were surprised to read its contents.
Another important return was tabled yesterday in regard to the rates of all ranks of army women's pay. That also should be put on Hansard. I would ask the minister to be kind enough to have it appear in Hansard. I cannot do it in committee, but I suggest it is a document which every member of parliament should read. With regard to the new regulations which were brought down last November and changes made having to do with the amendment in connection with dependency money, a number of boards were set up last November. There were thirteen districts and one emergency branch in No. 2 district, Toronto, operating. There were in Toronto only 328 applications and all they paid out was $4,064.46. What good is that? What is the use of $4,000 in a large city in

which there are so many soldiers? The minister has not been unfriendly to this question of dependency bonus. We see hundreds of people getting a civilian bonus in the civil service in Canada to-day.
I regret that the Minister of Finance is not here at the moment because there are a few things I should like to say to him. I have a great deal of respect for him, but I must say that in my opinion he has not had, in many respects, that training for the position which he should have, as I said the other day. What I have to say about ministers I say to their faces. I believe there is a great deal of suffering for want of this soldier bonus he opposed. In the riding I represent, in the district south of Gerrard street, the only time we see some people happy there is when somebody has a campaign fund on at Christmas for the help of the poor and needy. Some of the houses there are not fit for human habitation. Many of them have been condemned and changes ordered and the people have no money and no new place to go or houses. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) this afternoon read a very nice letter, which is only one of a great many letters of the same sort which I receive from soldiers' wives all over the country, complaining that they cannot live on the money they have, especially at this time when rents and food and necessities have risen to such a degree. The fact is that they have no new houses or homes, and I hope that something will be done in the coming budget to take care of dependency money and housing as well for these people.
As regards cadet services, it is very difficult to get anything said or done about this matter. In the old days the cadet services were under the control of the school boards and the boards of education, and I think it was a great mistake to take them away from these bodies. The army still has its association with the school boards, but so far as the other services are concerned this is not the case. I know a great many principals who say that when private organizations come to a collegiate institute asking for 25 students or so, the rest of the students feel that they are discriminated against. All cannot get into some private organization for military purposes. There is at the present time among the students of the collegiate institutes, an invidious distinction which should not be allowed to exist. There should be equality of treatment. It would have been far better if in connection with the three services the school boards and the boards of education had been left in control as in other days and grants made to them.

War Appropriation
With regard to women's services, I am glad to see the improvement which has been made.
Reference has been made to the audit department, and I have no complaints in this regard, but last session I asked the minister whether the auditor-general had power. I understand that every department has a separate audit system of its own and the whole business is involved and complicated. I fail to see any coordination. I am not criticizing the army, but I do criticize the dead-hand of the treasury that does not control all of these expenditures for the war and veto some of them. The audit system does not control them adequately. A new appointment has been announced in connection with censorship, and I suggest that it might be well to censor occasionally some of this gentleman's remarks, as for instance certain utterances in New York about the defence board. I am for the censor plan of the last war.
Another matter that in my opinion calls for some remedy is the position of certain men in the publicity branches of the department. I do not see why a man who simply writes up news and publicity, a liaison officer, nonmilitary so far, should be wearing a uniform when he is not a soldier. It is all right if he is in fact a soldier; but if anyone has not had any military training and is not actually a soldier, but is engaged in such work, then I suggest he might wear an armlet and a civilian suit. Certainly he should not allow people to think he is a soldier when he is not and has never had any military career.
What are Canada's objectives and strategy for 1942? I do not know. It seems to me, as I have been reading Hansard in the past few days, that there are priorities at the Pacific coast and in the maritimes, and that we have established with our limited defences priorities for some provinces and not for others. I believe that some statement along that line should be made. There should also be a national system teaching every citizen on the Pacific coast and in the maritimes to handle a rifle. The minister made a reply last session about that and went to considerable pains to see if something could not be done, especially in the Pacific province. I admit the minister went into it and gave an elaborate reply, but we have not the rifles for the civilian population. The Finns in Finland were ready for the enemy; they had shock troops and by guerilla war they kept the enemy at bay for months by skilled training in rifle affairs. In the schools of Ontario
50,000	are to be given military drill by the department of education this year at the expense of the school boards, and no doubt they will have miniature rifles. The people
of this country will have to wake up and adopt a national policy of rifle education along that line before it is too late.
There is another matter which arose during the depression, and in connection with which the present minister has not been unsympathetic. I refer to the large number of young ipeople who were cast into prison for riding the rods looking for a job and other minor matters. Many of these young fellows escaped sentences as vagrants but others were sent down for two years to penal institutions under this parliament. If a proper survey were made, a good many of those who are in for what may be called secondary offences might be admitted to the army. I know some oppose it. I know a commanding officer, one of the finest in France, who got into trouble in a financial way and was sent down. I wrote the new Minister of Justice in February about the matter; he was sympathetic and was going to get a survey made. We should have a survey and get the facts and train men for war or home defence or overseas service as was done in the great war.
I believe also that recruiting would be helped very much if the minister would allow men of the services a day off on such occasions as the 17th of March, the Holy Name parade, the 12th of July, St. George's day-and I see my good Scots friend on the front bench so I may add St. Andrew's day. On that great day November 30, 1941, there were 20,000 present at Varsity stadium for the Winnipeg-Ottawa final game. In the Holy Name parade there were a good many soldiers in uniform. It is a good advertisement for recruiting. I am not prepared to say anything about the 12th of July because, being an Irishman, I am too modest, but I hope some recognition will be given by the different services to the patriotic festivals I have named, for one day, or a day and a half, as was done in the great war with camps near cities.
While the plebiscite cannot be discussed here, the result of the voting was a demand for greater efficiency in our war effort, on land, in the air and on the sea. Parliament should act at once and get value for this two billion dollar vote and programme for war in 1942. The people should have morev knowledge about our war effort. Criticism is not as bad here as it is in England or Washington. I disagree with the hon. member for Vancouver South we are not in a position yet to do anything out in the Pacific. We have lost command of the sea; we have made some improvements in the defence bases there, and got commandos and vast improvement.
213S
War Appropriation

I admit it is good, but until we regain command of the sea we cannot send an expeditionary force to the far east. This country must wake up to the fact that the war is not going to be won by the navy, any more than the war with Napoleon; it is not going to be won altogether by the air force, although the work they are doing is very material, never equalled, and wonderful. Sooner or later this country will have to contribute its quota to a peninsular war on the continent of Europe and also one in the far east, and I hope the day is not far distant when we may be ready for it, because to take the offensive, to attack, is the best defence. What defence have the people of Canada in case of a surprise attack? We do not know yet. What defence have we for the aerodromes in British Columbia? There is a unified command; the minister gave some idea of that, but it all comes back to the point that we must make up for lost time. The fact that our defences were allowed to become so inadequate is not the fault of anyone at present in the house or in the government; the people of this country and their parliament were almost a unit for disarmament, pacifism and dependence on America for defence. What precautions have we against surprise attacks? The minister made some suggestions about that. Have we priorities? No doubt we have the policy of "first come, first served," but when you want a yard of defence and there is only half a yard to go around, you have to have priority for some section of the country at the two coasts.
It must be apparent to everyone that all this weakness in our defences was known long ago. We know the trouble we have had in the far east, and the defence of the far east was the defence of Canada. How did it come about that there was a colonial conference in 1937 and Canada said, "We have no commitments, parliament will decide," and all that kind of thing? But parliament did not decide. Mr. Menzies, former prime minister of Australia, was present in this chamber not so long ago and gave his opinion as to the defence of Canada, and our empire on the Pacific; our defence in the far east is the defence of Canada just as the defence of Britain is the defence of Canada. A large [DOT] part of the money provided under this resolution will sooner or later have to do with it and attack abroad not at home. It is something we have to face. It is the most important question for the people of this country. The enemy is at the front door, the back door, the side door and every door. Sooner or later we shall have to wake up to the fact that 
we may be invaded at all our doors, and something should be done to give us the facts about that situation.
It has come out that Australia and New Zealand have announced that they were notified by Great Britain of the weakness of Britain in the Pacific. So was Canada. It could not be expected that it would be done any other way, Canada knew and did nothing. I remember when the government in 1937 and 1038 brought down the present policy about defence, on which this resolution is based. What were the cardinal principles? The cardinal principle given then of our defence was first for home defence, but our only real home defence is in Britain, the Mediterranean, Libya and the far east. That is primary, it is not secondary; if we fail over there, it is all over with us here at home a few days later. The only other cardinal principle of our defence given in 1938 was to protect Canada's neutrality in case America was attacked by a foreign power, meaning Japan. Those are the two cardinal principles of our defence policy; there are only two. That was supported in this house by nearly all hon. members on both sides. What was the result? Well, I know what was said by eight or ten prominent speakers right here in 1937-38. They said, "Oh, we do not need to spend our money for defence now. We can reduce them and rely on the league and disarmament. The United States will protect our shores. British Columbia does not need any defences, nor do the maritime provinces; the United States are going to do it on both oceans." Then war came, and we cannot get ready in a day or a year to rearm.
Let me read a paragraph from a statement of Sir Keith Murdoch of Australia. He is arguing for the immediate need of a war cabinet to meet the Pacific disaster. He said:
The entry of stout dominion minds into the war council, and of overseas service men and business men into the army, navy, air and supply councils has become of great importance for the two reasons that the dominions will not stand grave decisions going against them unless they are in those decisions, and that something must be done to improve the war management.
He is right, yet, Canada opposes it. The dominion prime ministers or their deputies can compose it.
Then we were told of the losses in the far east. Mr. Menzies, the distinguished former prime minister of Australia, who spoke to us in this chamber not so long ago, has since stated that as prime minister he was in possession of facts revealing the dangerous but inescapable weaknesses of our defences in the east. It is reasonable to suppose that

War Appropriation
Mr. Fraser, Prime Minister of New Zealand, also had knowledge as to that state of aSairs, and so did Canada, I charge. That cannot be denied; we refused to cooperate. Canada had this information long before the present minister came to office; Canada knew all about the weakness in the Pacific. As the Times has said, the essence of strategy at its highest level is the assessment of priorities as between the various theatres of war. After dangers have been foreseen, then weaknesses must be deliberately tolerated in some places in order that decisive strength may be concentrated elsewhere, because Britain and her empire were not ready to meet an armed foe. We must bear in mind the old adage that half a yard of cloth cannot be made to do what a yard will do.
I am sorry I had to bring up these matters at this time, but I think it of the utmost importance that we should face the facts before it is too late, and before there is a surprise attack on Canada, a coveted land. I suggest further that, as suggested, we should amend our rules in order to do away with lengthy debates of this kind. In the mother country for the first few days of the last war they followed the same practice we are following to-day, but then they got down to the procedure of question, answer and supplementary question. There has not been a question placed on the order paper during the last few weeks that could not have been answered satisfactorily on the orders of the day, with supplementary questions that would prevent weeks of debates.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
should like to ask one or two questions. Are female medical officers taken into the service in order to check on applicants for the women's service corps? Has any consideration been given to appointing women medical officers to the dependents' allowance boards? Some mention has been made of the emergency board in connection with dependents' allowances. I understand that boards have been set up at various points throughout the country. Could the minister tell us in which districts those boards have been set up? Then there is one further question before I sit down. Are sulphanilamide tablets being given to the men on active service, for use in case of wounding? I understand that after the Pearl Harbour bombing the men who had sulphanilamide tablets were saved, while those who did not have them became casualties.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend asked about medical officers for the Canadian Women's Army Corps. No female medical
officers have been appointed, but the matter is under consideration and a certain number will be appointed. Then as to question No. 2, in regard to the dependents' allowance board, I do not think any medical officers are appointed to those boards, or to the board of trustees.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would it not be a wise thing to do, with the number of women in the service corps increasing all the time? Would it not be wise to have female medical officers there?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend misunderstood me. I said we expected to appoint female medical officers for the examination and check-up of members of the Canadian Women's Army Corps. Then I thought my hon. friend also asked whether or not women medical officers ..'ould be appointed in connection with the dependents' allowance board of trustees.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Not the trustees; the board.


James Layton Ralston: I shall inquire about that, but I have not in mind that the dependents' allowance boards have medical officers. There may be one medical officer who checks over the files, but I do not think examinations are made by the dependents' allowance board. With regard to sulphanilamide, that is not issued to the individual soldiers, but the medical officers are supplied with it, and the matter is receiving consideration now.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Where are the boards set up under the dependents' allowance?


James Layton Ralston: I put that information
on Hansard somewhere, and if my hon. friend does not mind I will send him the reference later.


Mr. BRUCE:: I hesitate to prolong this
debate, Mr. Chairman, because I consider that the minister has been very painstaking and patient in his answers to a great many questions. I have no intention of submitting any further questions, but I thought I might be able to add something to the debate in view of two or three matters which have come up this afternoon.
Reference was made to the practice as to operating on hernias. This question came up also during the last war, when I made an investigation of the medical services overseas in 1917 and reported my findings to the Minister of Militia. That report should be in the library. To-day I tried unsuccessfully to obtain a copy, although in the sessional papers I was able to obtain the interim

War Appropriation

report, made in reply to my report; so I shall have to look up another copy of my report in order to make sure that it is available in the library here.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is available.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Our experience then confirmed what was said by the minister this afternoon as to the attitude now taken by his medical officers in regard to operations on hernias upon men serving in the army, at least during the period of their service. I suggested then, as I suggest now, that if a soldier is found to be suffering from hernia which could be relieved by an operation, the the operation should be performed by a surgical specialist. I do not believe it should be performed by the ordinary medical officer attached to a hospital or other army unit, because most of these officers are not experienced in this work. Even though a hernia is a tempting operation for young, inexperienced men to perform, one should remember that it may be attended with considerable difficulty and, if not performed in the most up-to-date manner, may result unfortunately or may be followed by a recurrence, in which event it would be better not to have been done at all. Modern methods have reduced the incidence of recurrence in operations on hernia by as much as 60 per cent or more. In other words there are at least 60 per cent fewer recurrences under modem methods of operating as compared with the ratio, say even twenty years ago.


James Layton Ralston: I understand they never
think of operating, so far as attempting to mend a man is concerned, on what they call a double hernia. Do they ever do that in order to fit a man for a medical category?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I think under appropriate
modern surgery, by a skilled specialist in this type of work, the double operation might very well be undertaken, but of course it should never be performed by men who are not skilled in this work. You know that in the modern successful operation fascia is transplanted from the thigh to close the hernia; that is, the so-called living suture is used instead of the old method of catgut or silk. This method, which was devised by a Toronto surgeoh, Doctor W. E. Gallie, a number of years ago, has stood up under the most severe tests; and when that method is used I think perhaps 90 per cent of the cases will result in a permanent cure and fit the man for any kind of laborious work, including service in the army.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer and which is dealt with in P.C.

2229, namely, dietetic and nutritional treatment. I placed some questions on the order paper recently in connection with the British government requiring some Canadian authority, which I presumed was the government, to have the flour sold them fortified by the use of synthetic vitamin B; that is by what is known as thiamin. The answer I received was that there was no information. This answer, I believe, *was correct, because I understand that it is a matter between the millers and the British importing board.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The miller is required to add -2 grams of thiamin to every 280 pounds of flour. For a considerable period experiments have been conducted in flour mills in Canada in an attempt to find a method of retaining in the flour the essential vitamins of food of nutritional value, particularly the various forms of vitamin B. Thiamin, or what is known as vitamin B-l, is only one of eight or nine vitamins in the B group. Even though a synthetic vitamin is added to the flour it is not as good as retaining the vitamins present in the wheat. During the last year or so the millers, by a series of experiments, have evolved a method of retaining these important vitamins in the flour. I understand that all the large mills have now perfected a process by which they can retain these vitamins in the flour. Previously it could be retained only in the dark type of flour from which was made brown bread, but with the perfected process they can now produce a white flour containing all the essential vitamins which, in turn, will make a white loaf. Not only are they able to do that, but the loaf is indistinguishable in appearance and taste from the ordinary white loaf which has been in common use and demand for a long period of time.
We have had many illustrations of the need of increased nutritional values for our growing population. What we have in mind particularly is to see to it that our young boys receive food of the proper nutritional value so that when they go into the army they will be of the proper standard of fitness to enable them to be placed in category A. I have a few figures which I shall give in a moment. If these important and essential vitamins can be retained by the use of a process worked out by our millers and scientists, then why does not the government insist that the bread supplied, not only to our troops but to our civilians, shall be made from this type of flour?

War Appropriation


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member means to make it compulsory?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Yes, I would make it compulsory. The large millers are using this process successfully, and if the smaller millers find that they have to compete with the larger millers, they would soon fall in line. I understand that it is not an expensive process, and that the present mills can be converted at very little cost. If our people are suffering from lack of nutrition, as was shown by the recruitments in the early period of this war, and I presume is still the case, then I suggest it is highly desirable that the government make it compulsory that our troops and our civilians alike have the benefit of this so-called vitamin B white flour Canada-approved.
I think it is a fact that of the first 50,000 recruits called up for compulsory military service, 40 per cent failed to make category A after being examined by their family physicians, while another 10 per cent were rejected when examined by the military medical boards. It might be interesting to mention here that statistically the twenty-two-year-old Canadian is found to be five foot six and three-fifths inches in height, and he weighs 144-6 pounds. The weight and height and physical well-being vary in different parts of Canada, and the best specimens of Canadian youth come from Prince Edward Island. Of the Prince Edward Islanders 80-16 per cent graded A. Perhaps the minister will appreciate that fact, since he represents a constituency in that province.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is not a Prince Edward Islander; he is only a visitor.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The Sirois report drew attention to the wide and unnecessary variations in the health picture of Canada and to the tragic results of grossly inadequate public health services. This matter will be of interest to the minister of health. They were concerned about economic waste, whereas we are now concerned about the wastage of man-power needed for our industries and armed forces. I am glad to know that an interdepartmental committee is sitting in Ottawa to study this problem. Physical defects among recruits for our armed forces caused the federal government to set up this new nutrition branch to deal with the whole problem of health in war time, with special emphasis on the health of workers in industry. This is a move in the right direction, and I am sure it will produce valuable results.


James Layton Ralston: That is the committee under Doctor Hunter.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I think it is under Doctor Pett.


James Layton Ralston: There is a committee under Doctor Hunter of the university of Toronto.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The nutrition committee is under Doctor Pett.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I was not aware of the other committee. I should like to mention that in England 1,000 men who had been rejected by the army medical boards were taken to a camp provided by the army and fed a special diet for six months. At the end of this time 85 per cent were accepted by the army. I wonder if something of the kind could not be instituted in this country. Health depends more than we realize upon the B and C vitamins. We need milk, we need cereals, and we need green and yellow vegetables, citrus fruits and tomatoes. Vitamin A is also necessary for the eyes. The maligned potato is still a basis of a good diet.


James Layton Ralston: Prince Edward Island once again.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: This will please the leader of my party. I am hoping as a consequence that the sale of this product in his part of the country will be increased. It is interesting to note that peanut butter is high in calorific value. It is rich in carbohydrates and fats, and contains somewhat more protein than beef. It is among the best sources of vitamin B and is cheap.


Mr. REID:: You would not leave out oatmeal, would you?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Oh, no, I mentioned cereals earlier in my remarks. A pint of vitamin D milk, whole-wheat peanut butter sandwiches, and a tomato or an orange make a nearly perfect lunch for a child. I hope these few remarks may be helpful to the minister and to the health department.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Mr. Chairman, on March 27 I was directing to the house some remarks in regard to recruiting, a subject which was exercising my mind at the time and to which I have given some thought and study since. I have in the meantime made a few observations which I should like to give to the house.
Since returning to Ottawa I have observed something which I think has come under the observation of all members of the house. No later than half-past two this afternoon I passed the most centrally located recruiting station in the city of Ottawa, which, as you will recall, is in the Canadian National railway ticket office on Sparks street. A young man
War Appropriation

was sitting there being interviewed by a private or a corporal. I wondered at the time just what that young lad's feelings and emotions were as he sat beside the man in uniform in that office where ten or twelve clerks were engaged in their daily routine, where there were stenographers, and salesmen selling tickets, and about six people like myself in there buying tickets or making inquiries with regard to transportation. I thought to myself, this is not fair to Canadian youth: to have a young volunteer like this sitting alongside a soldier in uniform, subjected to the gaze of the indifferent and the curious, the interested and the uninterested, and even of those who might be scorning all he was doing at the moment when he was about to dedicate his life to his country. Our young Canadian deserves better of our country and of the cause for which we are fighting. I tried to picture myself in that young man's position twenty or twenty-five years ago, and I wondered what thoughts were passing through his mind as he sat there under the gaze of us all, and the agitation of mind and soul he had experienced possibly in the last twenty-four hours, when he was making up his mind. I imagine that he probably came there looking for advice, sympathy and help in making a momentous decision. A man who comes to volunteer at any of our recruiting offices is entitled at least, in my opinion, to the courtesy of privacy when he is about to make his decision.
Then my mind turned to the officer in charge of the recruiting office and I thought to myself, what is uppermost in his mind? Is he thinking in terms of the young man who has had the courage to come in and offer his life for his country? Or is he thinking in terms of the army and of his job of getting men for the army? I imagine the thought that was uppermost in the recruiting officer's mind was: "Here I have another recruit for the army." I am sure that his success or failure in the eyes of his superior officer depends upon the number of young or middle-aged men who enlist for the Canadian army in that particular recruiting station.
We have heard a lot about selective service. I wonder whether we are applying selective service even in our voluntary enlistment system to-day. That young man may have come from forty or fifty or maybe a hundred miles from Ottawa, where there was no local regiment in his town or village, no unit of the air force or of the navy. He may never have seen a ship at sea or a squadron of planes in the air and may have had little notion in which of the three armed forces he was best qualified to serve his country. It does seem to me that that man is entitled to the best advice and

counsel that our country can afford. It should surely not be left to caprice or chance or even his whim or fancy which of the services he should join. Surely the paramount consideration should be that of public need and necessity. I am afraid that some of the dissatisfaction which exists in our army, navy and air force is due to the fact that men have gone into a particular service without proper advice as to where, by reason of their background, education, training, experience and ability, natural or acquired, they can individually best serve their country. I suggest that the fact that the young man whom I saw this afternoon happened to run into an army recruiting office makes it almost certain that he is now, while I am speaking, a member of his majesty's army. But I wonder whether that is the place where he can best serve his country. If by chance he had stepped into the navy recruiting office, I wonder whether he would not now be a member of the Canadian navy, or if peradventure he had gone into another recruiting office further down the street, I wonder whether he would not now be a member of his majesty's air force. Should such a serious decision as that be left to chance? Are we to look at this thing and allow his fate to be decided solely from the point of view of the needs of the army, or the aggressiveness of the air force regarding recruiting, or by the romantic appeal of the navy? Is chance to be the deciding factor as to which service the young man shall join?
I think we are pretty well convinced now that the time has gone by when men flock to the army in the large numbers witnessed at the outbreak of the war, when the more enthusiastic patriots and some of the unemployed were flocking to the colours. To-day the men offering are possibly more sober-minded or hesitant, thinking of their ties of home and of duty to loved ones who are dependent upon them.
One of the two outstanding things which have been accomplished in Canada in this war has been the creation of the personnel selection service, of which the minister spoke yesterday afternoon in answer to a member representing one of the Winnipeg seats. I was very much interested in what the minister said. That move is very much to be commended. But it does seem to me that the advice, experience and knowledge of these personnel experts, trained medical men and psychologists, could best be applied when the young man first comes forward to offer his services. That is the time he should get counsel and advice as to where, in the opinion of these men, he can best serve. I believe the minister remarked that possibly that branch had not

War Appropriation
been expanded to the extent he wished it to be, because of inability to get sufficient trained men. I wonder whether there is a personnel selection branch in the air force, and similarly for the navy. If not, surely there should be. But why three personnel selection branches? Why three different recruiting depots? Why not one recruiting depot at which Canadian manhood should apply and receive advice from those familiar with the wants and needs of our three services, and be directed into the branch which needs men and in which the particular individual can best serve his king and country? To me the present system of recruiting seems extravagant and shows a lack of cooperation which is reflected down through our three armed forces. It demonstrates failure to appreciate the requirements of the situation. We get the money to finance this war, not through the efforts of the soldiers, the sailors or the airmen, but by relying upon our civilian population and specifically upon men who are skilled in selling victory bonds and promoting the sale of war savings certificates. When it comes to the manufacture of munitions of war, whether they be guns or bullets, uniforms or shoes, we rely upon our trained civilian men, institutions and organizations to provide our armed services with these things. I suggest that the same practice, the same reasoning and the same logic should apply in so far as the recruitment and selection of our manpower are concerned.
In that connection I wish to refer to the work of another department of the army, upon which I think the minister is very much to be congratulated. It has demonstrated more eloquently than anything I can say, through practical results, the theory which I have enunciated regarding the obtaining of men.
In Alberta there are, I believe, at the present time working in cooperation with the army, over 345 civilian agencies. No longer do we have an officer in uniform with a retinue of subordinates travelling from point to point to await the arrival of prospective recruits. In each of these towns and cities the recruiting officer is a civilian, a man of character, reputation, standing and past experience in one of the armed services, and it is generally known or made known to the community that he is there to counsel and advise young men who are entertaining the notion or impressed with the duty of offering their services to their country. This system has worked out remarkably well, and I commend the minister and those associated with him for the success which has attended their efforts in my own province. I should like to
inquire from him how it is working out elsewhere, and whether we cannot have more of that civilian recruiting. I am told, regarding one office in my own city, that a simple advertisement brought in twenty-five responses from tradesmen and mechanics who had seen the classified advertisement in the local papers requesting those interested to present themselves at the office of the assistant civilian director of recruiting services. The response and reaction were splendid, in this respect, that the mechanic, were he young or elderly, came to a private office, was met by a man in civilian clothes, sat down at the desk on terms of perfect freedom and equality with his interviewer, there was not the embarrassment of a private citizen talking to a man who was already in the army, and counsel and advice were given without regard to any particular branch of the service. I know that one man, a diesel expert working in a country garage, was sent to a place east of Calgary, where a diesel expert was urgently needed in the army. I know that another applicant, who had served his apprenticeship on the Clyde and was an experienced shipbuilder, was not sent to the army or the navy or the air force, but was advised that he could best serve his king and country in the shipbuilding yards at Vancouver. And so on down the line.
I should welcome a statement from the minister as to what, if any, cooperation or coordination there is, with respect to recruiting, between the three armed services. I wonder how many hon. members are familiar with the situation of the young man who has volunteered his services for the air force and, although , a period of three to six months has intervened, has not been called and is still carrying on in civilian life. We were told some months ago that the Department of National Defence for Naval Services had at that time a waiting list of 4,000 or 5,000. Where is the need to-day? Is it certain that these 5,000 men waiting to be called to the navy, these 10,000 or 20,000 waiting to be called to the air force, can best serve their country in those services? Who knows? Has anybody examined these men having regard to their potential capacities and abilities, in order to ascertain whether some who have volunteered for the navy could not better serve their country in the tanks or in the artillery? What is it that decides where a man shall go? Is it the needs of the country, or his training, or experience and background; or merely his whim or preference; or is it, who "gets to him" first?
Another question in my mind is, what cooperation is there between the three armed
War Appropriation

forces in Canada in so far as their training is concerned? I have yet to hear of any place where the army and the air force are carrying out their training in cooperation with each other. That may have been done, but I was wondering, because I had not seen or heard that it had been done; and yet we are -all aware that in every great battle fought so far in this war it has been the close cooperation or lack of it between the air force, the artillery and the infantry that has spelled success or failure as the case may be. I would welcome a statement from the minister, if he is at liberty to give one, as to the extent to which our two or three forces-because we have three now-are cooperating in training. What does the airman know about the ground tactics and operations of the infantryman. Is there any cooperation as between the navy and air force so far as training is concerned?
I should like to have a statement from the minister on another point, because I have had this thrown at me on two or three occasions, that once a man is in the navy he must perforce stay there regardless of his personal desires or training or ability, that he cannot go from the navy to the air force or from the air force to the infantry. I do not know whether that is well-founded or not, but only yesterday I received a letter from one of my constituents indicating that he was not permitted to transfer from one force to another. I would welcome a statement on this point.
Another question that has disturbed me a little is this. I should like to know if the minister is at liberty to tell us what, if any, has been the number of desertions from the Canadian army attendant upon departure from Canada for overseas, and what disposition, if any, is made of those who have deserted, if and when found. I should like to know whether or not desertion is a common practice or whether the department have knowledge of any extensive dismissals of persons from the army, the navy or the air force for any crime record or absence without leave, and whether such persons have gone to another district and reenlisted in one of the armed services. I am led to believe that there is a considerable number. Far be it from me to spread rumours, but I should like to know as a matter of fact what action is taken with regard to such persons.
There is one other question that is pertinent so far as the financing of the army and of the war effort is concerned. I should like to know with respect to the permanent staff whether they are still eligible for pensions. I believe that in the ordinary course of events they are entitled to pension after twenty-one years in the service. What happens to a man who is a sergeant or a corporal in the permanent staff

and who since the outbreak of war, has become a major or a colonel-and I believe that has happened. Will he retire on pension at the colonel's rating, or will he retire at the status which he had at the time of the outbreak of war?


Mr. GILLIS:: I agree with the member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) that the minister has been very patient and thorough in his answers to the committee on questions that have been brought to his attention. I wish to come back for a moment to the question of dependents' allowances in order to bring another category to his attention, because in my opinion this category is getting anything but justice. I refer now to the man who enlists and has a housekeeper. The reason why I bring this to the minister's attention is that I thoroughly discussed at least two cases with the allowance board, but I have not to date received any redress. I wish to submit one case in particular. The mother died in 1931, and the daughter at that time had to leave school, become the housekeeper and care for the rest of the family. The father enlisted fourteen or fifteen months ago. The family is receiving no income with the exception of the assigned pay of the father.


James Layton Ralston: Is the daughter still
keeping house?


Clarence Gillis: Yes, and has been continuously since 1931. A younger brother at the present time is coming out of a sanatorium after undergoing treatment for tuberculosis, and on the 1st of May I received another letter asking whether something could not be done. This is not an isolated case. There are several of this kind, to my knowledge, and I presume there are a good many of them throughout the country. I have written to the minister to-day on the subject, and I leave this case specifically with him.


James Layton Ralston: What reason did the board give for not making the allowance on account of the daughter who was in the position of housekeeper?


Clarence Gillis: The only reason the dependent has received is that she does not come under the regulations within the meaning of "dependent", because she is a housekeeper, and is a daughter and not the wife of the man. That is the attitude they have taken right through the case.
Another thought I should like to leave with the minister is with regard to boys under age who enlist. I know that the regulations definitely state that no boy shall

War Appropriation
go overseas unless he is nineteen, but there are many boys who are enlisting by covering up their ages. The reason for that is that in some instances the parents cannot keep them at school in the higher grades. The books cost a lot of money. Moreover, they cannot get employment when they leave school; they go to a recruiting officer and say they are nineteen; after they have been in for six or eight months taking training and are ready to proceed overseas, the parents produce a certificate, and the boy is taken out of the army. The point I make is that the boy is relegated back to the streets. There is no employment for him, particularly in the part of the country from which I come, and I am aware of many cases of this kind. Has the department ever given any consideration to the establishment of a boys' brigade or battalion such as we had during the last war?
Instead of wasting the training that has been given, sending them back to the street whence they came, would it not be better to place them in a trade school and give them some training for employment in industry which would serve a purpose now and fit them for something after the war? Many of these boys are going overseas at that age, and I know that, as happened during the last war, many of them who went over are weeded out. A boy seventeen years of age is not much good on active service; he is too young. I have a case in point to-day, a letter received from a father who has one boy eighteen years of age in England. The second boy, who is only seventeen, has now gone over. The father made application to the Department of National Defence, and he encloses to me a letter signed for the Adjutant, Captain MacCallum, dated April 10, giving him the assurance that this boy would not proceed overseas until he was nineteen years of age.


James Layton Ralston: That is the younger one?


Clarence Gillis: That is right. The next thing he knows is he is informed that the boy is in England, regardless of the letter of the adjutant. The question of boys under age is something [DOT]to which I think the department should give serious consideration.
Another category about which something should be done is that of men weeded out of the army. I have seen many discharge certificates where men and boys were discharged by reason of being underweight, with no particular disability. Another discharge certificate would read, "Does not come up to the required physical standards." Again no particular disability. With regard to most
people discharged by reason of being underweight, this is due to lack of proper food. Instead of sending these people back to the street-certainly no industry wants a man in that physical condition-if a period of training and proper feeding were given in a camp, the chances are that within a few months they would meet the required physical standards.
I thought these three points were worth bringing to the attention of the minister because I know there are many cases such as I have described.


James Layton Ralston: In reference to the eighteen-year old boy, if he is eighteen I am instructed that he is kept overseas unless his parents desire him to come home. As to the one seventeen years old, the general rule is to discharge him. I must say that unless he applies or makes it noticeable what his age is and if he wants to stay in the army, I do not think he is "turfed" to use the army expression. But a case of this kind where the adjutant of the battalion told him he would not be sent overseas is to my mind absolutely unexplainable. There obviously it was accepted that he was seventeen and therefore he should not have gone overseas. Has my hon. friend written me about that?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: With regard to the nutritional eases, I am obliged to the committee for two or three instances becauses they all aid in discovering a general trend. I cannot understand the medical board discharging a man on the ground of underweight or that he does not come up to the required standard. I understand that discharges should be specific, indicating what the disability is. With regard to nutrition my hon. friend is perfectly right, and it wTas made clear in the statement by the Prime Minister in connection with man-power. He pointed out that it is and has been standard practice for the army to accept men for service who required only dental treatment, provision of glasses, or nutritional improvement, and they are to be given them. In the face of that statement of policy, I do not understand why a man is discharged for being underweight unless he has some functional or organic disability which means that he cannot be brought up to weight by proper nutrition. I shall certainly inquire into that case.
My hon, friend mentioned another case, the matter of dependents' allowances; I shall look into that. It sounds as if there should be an allowance for the daughter who is keeping house, and why it is not granted we shall have to find out from the dependents' allowance board. My hon. friend suggested that the regulations did not cover it, but I cannot
War Appropriation

believe that; I am satisfied they do cover the case of someone taking the place of the mother.


Clarence Gillis: It has been a matter of correspondence with the department, the allowance board, for the last five or six months.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member for Broadview mentioned that he would like to
have put on Hansard the return with regard to pay and allowances and the emoluments of officers and members of the women's army. Since it is only part of the return I would ask permission of the committee to have this additional return put on the record. It is really a companion to the return I put on the other night at the hon. member's request. The return is as follows:
Supplementary Return to Order of the House of Commons No. 151 Dated 26th March, 1942-Mover, Mr. Church
1.	What is the pay, sustenance allowances, and all other emoluments of officers and men of His Majesty's three forces?
2.	What is paid also to officers and members of the women's army?
So far as the Canadian army (Active) is concerned: -
1(A) Pay
(i)	Officers:
Pay of rank
Colonel	
Lieutenant-Colonel
Major	
Captain	
Lieutenant	
2nd Lieutenant ..
Regimental rates
Per diem $12 00 10 00 7 75 6 50 5 00 4 25
Medical and Dental Officers
Colonel	
12	50Lieutenant-Colonel	
11	00Major	
9	25Captain	
7	50Lieutenant	
5	00
Nursing Service-R.C.A.M.C.
(Regimental rates)
Matron-in-chief	
7	75Matron	
6	50Nursing sister and dietitian	
4	25Nursing sister and dietitian after 6 months' service	
5	00Home sister and Physiotherapy Aid	
3	00
Additional Pay
Officers in command of units	
1	00Adjutants	
0	50Officers extra-regimentally employed with Headquarters of formations.. 0	50Flying pay for authorized flights	
2	00
(ii) Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men
Regimental rates
Pay of Rank
Conductor	'
Master-Gunner, 1st class	
Staff Sergeant-Major, 1st Class	
Regimental Sergeant-Major	
Garrison Sergeant-Major	
Camp Sergeant-Major	
Foreman of works	
Clerk Signals	
Draughtsman Signals	
Accountant Signals	
Mechanist	
Engineer Accountant	ISergeant-Major
Topographic Surveyor	
Lithographic	
Engineer Draughtsman	
Armament	
Armourer	
All other Warrant Officers, Cl. I	
Per diem
("A")	$ 4 20
("B")	3 90

MAY 5, 1942 2147 War Appropriation		
(ii) Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men-Con.		
Regimental rates		
Pay of Rank		Per diem
Master-Gunner, 3rd class			
Regimental Quartermaster-Sergeant			3 10
Staff Quartermaster-Sergeant			
Quartermaster-Sergeant					
Squadron, Battery or Company Sergeant-Major			3 00
Warrant Officer, Class III			2 75
Squadron, Battery or Company Quartermaster-Sergeant			2 50
Sergeant			2 20
Lance Sergeant			1 90
Corporal or Bombardier			1 70
Lance Corporal or Lance Bombardier			1 50
Trooper, Gunner, Private, Sapper, Trumpeter, Bugler or		
Drummer (over 18 years of age)			. 1 30
Boy			0 70
Tradesmen's rates		
	Group	Group Group
Rank	"A"	"B" "C"All Warrant Officers, Class I	("A") $ 4 95	$ 4 70 $ 4 45All other Warrant Officers. Cl. 1	("B") 4 65	4 40 4 15Regimental Quartermaster-Sergeant	Staff Quartermaster-Sergeant	3 85	3 60 3 35Quartermaster-Sergeant	Squadron, Battery or Company Sergeant-	Major	3 75	3 50 3 25Warrant Officer, Class III	3 50	3 25 3 00Squadron, Battery or Company Sergeant-	Major	3 25	3 00 2 75Staff Sergeant	Sergeant	2 95	2 70 2 45Lance-Sergeant	2 65	2 40 2 15Corporal or Bombardier	2 45	2 20 1 95Lance Corporal or Lance Bombardier....	2 25	2 00 1 75Trooper, Gunner, Driver, Sapper, Private	2 05	1 80 1 55Additional Pay	Per diemFlying Pay for Warrant Officers Non-Commissioned Officers	and Menfor authorized flights	(B) Subsistence Allowance	Officers in receipt of Regimental rates of Pay	
$ 1 70Officers in receipt of special rates of pay	
1 00Warrant Officers, non-commissioned officers and men	
1 00fC) Dependents' Allowance-An award shall be	for such an amount as the	Dependents' Allowance Board may decide, but no award shall exceed:-	To wife, or if there is no wife, to the female relative maintaining a home	for his children: -	Per monthOfficers above the rank of major	
$60 00Major	Captain 	Lieutenant 	2nd Lieutenant 	Warrant Officer, Class I	All other ranks	First dependent child	Second dependent child	Third dependent child of ranks below W.O. I	Fourth dependent child of ranks below W.O. I	Other Dependent Relatives	Officers above the rank of major-up to	Other officers-up to	All other ranks-up to	Dependents' Allowance cannot be claimed for more than three	dependents except in thecase of ranks below Warrant Officer, class I, who mav also claim for their third and	fourth dependent children.	
!214S
War Appropriation

(D) Other Allowances
(i)	Outfit allowance for officers of $150 on appointment.
(ii)	Outfit allowance for warrant officers, class I of $100 on appointment.
(iii)	Transport and travelling allowances when travelling on duty.
(iv)	Transport and travelling allowances to their residence prior to enlistment, when discharged.
(v)	Civilian clothing allowance on discharge of $35. If service less than six months, $27 in winter and $17 in summer.
(vi)	Rehabilitation grant of thirty days' pay and dependents' allowance of 183 days' service completed.
2. The Canadian Women's Army Corps receives pay at two-thirds the rates for officers and other ranks of the army. They receive no additional pay. No dependents' allowance is paid on their behalf, and any dependents' allowance which they were receiving prior to enlistment is stopped when they become members of the C.W.A.C. Pay and allowances are as follows: -
(a)	Pay (i) Officers
Pay of Rank
Chief Commander. . Senior Commander. Junior Commander.
Subaltern	
2nd Subaltern. . . .
Per diem $6 70 5 20 4 35
3 35 2 85
(ii)	Warrant Officers, N.C.O's and Volunteers
Pay of Rank
Sergeant-Major, W.O. I	
2	80Quartermaster-Sergeant, W.O. II	
2	10Company Sergeant-Major, W.O. II	
2	00Staff-Sergeant	
1	70Sergeant	
1	50Corporal	
1	15Lance-Corporal	
1	00Volunteer, after 3 months' service	
0	95Volunteer on enrolment and Recruit	
0	90
Tradesmen's rates
Group	Group	Group"A"	"B"	"C"All Warrant Officers, class I	
$3 30	$3 15	$3 00Quartermaster-Sergeant, W.O. 11 	
2 60	2 40	2 25Company Sergeant-Major, W.O. II 	
2 50	2 35	2 20Staff-Sergeant	
2 20	2 00	1 85Sergeant	
2 00	1 80	1 65Corporal	
1 65	1 50	1 30Lance-Corporal	1 35	1 20Volunteer	
1 40	1 20	1 05(b)	Subsistence Allowance
Per diem
Officers	 $1 70
Other ranks	 1 00
(c)	Underclothing Allowance
An initial grant of $15 is provided to purchase underclothing, toilet articles and necessaries. A quarterly allowance of $3 is paid for the purpose of replenishing these articles.
(d)	Other Allowances
(i)	Outfit allowance for officers of $150 on appointment.
(ii)	Outfit allowance for warrant officers, class I, of $100 on appointment.
(iii)	Transport and travelling allowances when travelling on duty.
(iv)	Transport and travelling allowances to their residence prior to enlistment, when discharged.
(v)	Civilian clothing allowance on discharge of $35. If service less than six months, $27 in winter and $17 in summer.
(vi)	Rehabilitation grant of thirty days' pay, if 183 days' service completed.

War Appropriation
I think it was the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Edwards) who spoke of the matter of transfers. There is no right of transfer as between any of the arms of the service. That is, after a man is in as a member of one arm he cannot as of right ask transfer to some other. The procedure is that he applies to his commanding officer for transfer to the other service, and the considerations which influence the commanding officer in granting or refusing that request are obviously (1) how long the man has been training, how much time has been spent fitting him for the particular arm of the service in which he is, and (2) his usefulness in connection with that arm of the service. I think reasonable endeavour is made to meet his desires, but obviously if you had a man highly trained for a year or two as a signaller in a particular unit, the commanding officer would feel reluctant to let him go to some other arm of the service where perhaps that training would not be so valuable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is
the position with respect to transfer to different branches of the same service, that is in the army; say transfer to the ordnance or the infantry? Does the man there have some option, or must he go where he is put? I know an instance of a man who understood he was going to the ordnance from the very beginning, but he was put into the artillery. He did not want to go there. He had a bent for the ordnance. I am not sure that the case has been settled yet. I have been trying to help him fulfil his desire, but I realize that there are two sides to the question. Possibly he is not fitted for the ordnance. Someone higher up would have to make the decision, but there ought to be some flexibility in a case like that.


James Layton Ralston: Well, he does enlist for
general service and he can be transferred from one branch of the army to another; that is the legal position. Certainly his desires are consulted. There are cases, many of them, and this may be one, in which the recruiting officer may have told him he would be taken into the ordnance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
that is the fact in this case. That is the representation to me.


James Layton Ralston: Legally it is a case where he can be sent from one branch of the army to the other.
The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asked for a list of the places where advisory committees to the dependents'
board of trustees had been set up. I have given him the reference, which is page 1932 of Hansard.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are they functioning? [DOT]


James Layton Ralston: Yes.
Mr. BLACIvMORE: Is there any provision whereby a man in the air force at a particular training centre, desiring to be transferred to another training centre giving the same sort of training, may have that change made?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend asks with regard to the air force, and I can answer only as to the army. In the army the man would be entitled to appear before his commanding officer and make the request, giving his reasons. That request would be considered, and the action taken would depend upon the exigencies of the service. The man has no right to a transfer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is sometimes given on compassionate grounds?


James Layton Ralston: Sometimes that is done on compassionate grounds; families may be located at one place or another, and for the time being the man may be allowed to go to a certain camp or centre. I am speaking of the army, not the air force, about which my hon. friend really is asking. I must say that we cannot take into consideration very much the compassionate grounds of which my hon. friend speaks. Obviously, since there are now training centres all over Canada, men would like to go to the particular training centre nearest their homes. That cannot be done, and veiy often it is obviously desirable that they should go somewhere else, in order to gain experience away from home.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Some months ago, according to an announcement in the press and, if my memory serves me aright, an announcement also in this house, provision was made for the issuing of discharge buttons, or at least buttons which would indicate that a person had been rejected after having applied for enlistment in the active service forces. I was wondering to what extent these rejection buttons had been issued and what were the regulations covering their distribution.


James Layton Ralston: There are two buttons available. One is the discharge button; that is to say, a man who has enlisted for general service and who later has been discharged, receives one type of button. The other is the applicant for enlistment button. The adjutant-general cannot tell me the number issued so far, but they are available on application.
War Appropriation


Gordon Graydon: In connection with these applications for enlistment, if a man enlists for any particular branch of the service and is rejected, is a button issued by virtue of that application, or does it have to be a general enlistment?


James Layton Ralston: If he is rejected by the army, that is sufficient. He must have a rejection from the army before he gets the applicant for enlistment button.


Gordon Graydon: Could the minister also give the committee some information with respect to the army train which is going across Canada at the moment, as to how long it has been in operation, and as to the personnel accompanying that train across the country?


James Layton Ralston: It started on February 3 and, as I remember it, went first to central Canada, then east, and then west. I think it is due back very soon now. As to the personnel, Lieutenant-Colonel McKenna is in command, and the staff were selected by him in conjunction with the recruiting branch, or the adjutant-general's branch. This personnel were changed in the various parts of the country to which the train went. When the train was in the west, personnel from the west were put on the train, and in central and eastern Canada personnel from those territories accompanied the train.


Gordon Graydon: Was the purpose of the train to stimulate recruiting?


James Layton Ralston: To stimulate recruiting
and interest in the army. It was simply taking the army to Canadians at a time when we could not have demonstrations which would bring Canadians to the army. As the hon. gentleman knows, from time to time people have asked for armoured demonstrations. We have had detachments go to various places and give these demonstrations, but that could not be done in the winter. So it was suggested that we should use the railway instead of using the roads. In addition, I believe one car was devoted to the victory loan campaign, and part of one car to the Red Cross as well.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I should like to ask a question as a matter of information, because I have received a great many wires and complaints about it. Who advised the stops that were made in British Columbia?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell my hon.
friend that, but, as far as I know, I do not believe there was anyone in this house who did not advise stops. As a matter of fact, the adjutant-general tells me that a real endeavour was made to have stops at all

places possible, where there might be interest shown. He says further that one factor which governed was the physical factor, that is, the length of the railway sidings at the various points, which decided whether or not the train could be accommodated there. So the railways had to be consulted in deciding where the stops should be made.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Would the
minister be kind enough after the dinner recess, or at some other convenient time, to make a general statement in connection with the recommendations brought in last year with regard to an interdepartmental committee functioning as between the different branches of the service, and so on? I think the minister knows to what I refer.


Alfred Henry Bence: There are two points I should like to clear up. The first is whether or not men in category Cl are being called up under the national mobilization regulations. The second is in connection with the buttons that were referred to by the hon. member for Peel. My understanding is that men in categories D and E are given these buttons but that men in category Cl do not receive them, though Cl men are being turned down for active service. In view of that fact I should like the minister to explain why these men are not entitled to buttons.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend may not think it is a good reason, but the adjutant-general tells me that the man in category E is the only man who is almost definitely out. An E-category man may improve, but there is very little chance of it. There is much more chance that a C-eategory man may improve, and so far the button has not been issued to men in C category, because the time may come when they may be eligible for enlistment.


Alfred Henry Bence: By virtue of the medical
qualifications being reduced?


James Layton Ralston: By virtue of a change in their category. However, the matter is still under advisement.


Alfred Henry Bence: But that man is required to sign an undertaking that if the class in which he is placed eventually comes within the category of men eligible for active service, he will submit himself for further examination. So there is no reason why a Cl man should not be given a button.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is quite right, and it even goes further than that. As a matter of fact, the regulations under which the badges are issued provide that there is a right to recall the badge itself if subsequently the category in which the applicant

War Appropriation
is placed becomes a category which should be called up. As I indicated, however, the matter is still under advisement.
My hon. friend was good enough to send his other question to me. That was whether any men in the medical category Cl have been called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act, as the regulations are administered. I think that is the question. Of course my hon. friend understands that under the general regulations any category could be called, but, as I understand the situation, under the instructions issued to the medical officers, at the present time the only men who are being sent in, who are being forwarded to the training centres after having been, examined by the medical officer in the particular town, are men who have passed that medical officer as A. If they get into the training centre and, after being examined by the army officer, turn out to be B, but not lower, they are retained in the training centre. The specific answer to my hon. friend's question is that C category are not called in the sense that C category are returned home if, on examination by the local medical officer, they turn out to be in that category.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. GREEN:: Mr. Chairman, when the
Prime Minister announced the new orders in council providing for the national selective service programme he stated that provision was being made for the calling up of aliens, and similar statements have appeared at different times in the press. For example, we find in "Canada's War Record" of May, 1942, this statement:
Liability for military service is being extended to all residents in Canada whether citizens or not.
There have also been statements in the press to the effect that the calling up of men who are not British subjects would have to wait for the conclusion of international negotiations with the countries of which those aliens are citizens. Would the minister tell us when these aliens will be called up and in what way they will be used by the armed forces? It would also be interesting if the minister could tell us what groups of aliens are to be called up.


James Layton Ralston: That matter has not been settled yet. It is in the hands of the Department of External Affairs.


Howard Charles Green: What is the situation with
regard to Canadians in other countries? Why is it necessary for Canada to enter into an agreement with each of the governments ' concerned?


James Layton Ralston: Because I think each
government as a matter of international law reserves its rights with regard to other nationals in its own country. But my hon. friend is getting me beyond my depth, and I do not propose to go into that matter at any length. I can only say that the matter is under consideration and, I believe, under negotiation by the Department of External Affairs at the present time.


Howard Charles Green: In what way will these
aliens be used by the Canadian armed forces? Will they be put, for example, into the armed forces, or are they to be used on road work, or has the government some other plan in mind regarding them? Surely the government must have had some plan in mind when it decided to call up these men.


James Layton Ralston: I think the decision was
to open negotiations with regard to calling the men up. I cannot forecast in what way they will be used. So far as I know they will probably be used in the same way as others who are called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act.


Howard Charles Green: Go right into the armed
forces?


James Layton Ralston: That is what I say, so far as I know. I have no reason for thinking otherwise, except that they might be used for any other purpose for which they could be called up under the act.


Howard Charles Green: What is the present situation with regard to United States citizens in our Canadian forces?


James Layton Ralston: There are two phases.to
it, as my hon. friend knows. One phase is that United States citizens in Canada were given a certain option to go back to their own forces, if the option was exercised by a certain date, and that date has been extended. There was a reciprocal provision with regard to Canadians in the United States forces. The other matter, the calling up of aliens in Canada, is still under consideration by the Department of External Affairs, along with the other question which my hon. friend mentioned which has to do with all aliens.


Howard Charles Green: Press dispatches yesterday
stated that representatives of the armed forces of the United States would land at Saint John on May 5, which is to-day, apparently to make arrangements for giving United
War Appropriation

States citizens who are serving in the Canadian forces an opportunity to transfer to United States forces. Can the minister tell us anything about that?


James Layton Ralston: That is part of the agreement which has been or is being concluded between the United States and ourselves. The parties who are coming here are coming for the purpose of meeting, at various points across Canada, United States citizens in our own services who have elected to go to the United States, and arranging for their medical examination and details with regard to transportation and so forth.


Howard Charles Green: How many men in the Canadian forces will be affected?


James Layton Ralston: No one has any figures on that so far as I know. I think I stated some time ago-it was just a general statement and was not made in connection with these negotiations-that there were from six to seven thousand United States citizens in the Canadian army. I also stated that including staff pilots there were

I am speaking from memory-at that time some 2,300 in the Canadian air force. That was some time ago, and I have no doubt that there are quite a number more who have joined the air force since.


Mr. BROOKS:: Are not friendly aliens in
Canada subject now to call by their own governments or by their governments in exile in other countries?


James Layton Ralston: Oh, yes, they are subject to call under their own laws, but the Canadian government under international law does not necessarily assist in the enforcement of those laws.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: But they are notified by their own government?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: At an earlier stage of this debate I raised the question of easier transportation facilities for the men on active service and suggested that the minister might consider calling together a small committee of men in the ranks of the armed forces for the purpose of advising in connection with some of the matters to which I then referred.
It. is along that line I want to say a word further to-night. I am advised that in the newly organized United States army they have a system which I bring to the attention of the^ minister with some reluctance because it is not likely that he will pay any more attention to his civilian critics than we are justly entitled to but I hope this example 
may not be overlooked in the new disciplinary arrangements which the Canadian army has in mind. In an effort towards what is regarded as the democratization of the United States army, 3,000 questionnaires, each containing 118 questions, have been sent to a selected number of men in the ranks. In other words, these men have been asked to give essential opinions regarding several important aspects of the army's work. One of these questions asks how the services of the man in the armed forces may be made more efficient; another invites suggestions as to improvement of the army in efficiency, discipline and other respects. This approach to the troops may be said to follow out in a more comprehensive way the suggestion which I originally made of a select committee consisting of men in the ranks. Perhaps the reference of army matters to the "man underneath" is not so unorthodox a procedure as upon its face it may seem to be. In the formulation of future policies the minister might give some consideration to this suggestion which comes from the United States army itself. May I ask whether the department has any plans in mind which would lead to that objective?


James Layton Ralston: As a matter of fact, we have an organization which was set up comparatively recently; we call it a special services directorate. It deals with just such matters as my hon. friend has mentioned

shall I say, matters of morale; that is part of it, on matters both inside and outside the army, suggestions either from civilians or from soldiers to improve the service of the individual, to employ his capacities more usefully, and also for the improvement of the army generally.


Gordon Graydon: Has the machinery actually been set in operation?


James Layton Ralston: No.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There has been a questionnaire.


James Layton Ralston: When my hon. friend says "machinery", no questionnaires have been sent out along the lines he has suggested, but other steps have been taken to secure opinions and views with regard to such matters.


Mr. HAZEN:: I wish to submit to the minister one or two questions which will not take long to ask but may take longer to answer. Are the fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth divisions up to strength? Is each of these divisions fully officered? Is each of them fully equipped? If any of them are not fully up to strength, fully officered or

War Appropriation
fully equipped, when does the minister expect to have them up to strength, fully officered and fully equipped? Who are the officers commanding these four divisions?


James Layton Ralston: I thought the hon. member asked about the fourth, sixth and seventh.


Douglas King Hazen: The fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth-if they have been named. If they have not been named, does the minister expect that they will be named soon? Can he inform us also of the names of the officers of the brigades in those four divisions?


James Layton Ralston: It will not take me long to answer the first question, with regard to the matter of strengths of the fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth divisions. I am sure my hon. friend will not expect me to give that information. The matter of the strengths of divisions and of units is not one on which I would make a public statement.


Douglas King Hazen: I did not ask for the
numerical strength; I meant, were they up to strength? We know that they have an establishment.


James Layton Ralston: It is the same thing. I do not think I should make a statement about that.
With regard to the names of the commanding officers. The name of the commanding officer of the fourth division is Major General F. L. Worthington, who was in command of the first army tank brigade in Britain, and who was brought back to command that division.
With regard to the officers commanding the sixth and seventh divisions, announcement will be made very soon. The eighth division is not far enough advanced in mobilization to name an officer commanding at the present time. Did my hon. friend ask another question?	,


Mr. STIRLING:: Brigades.


Douglas King Hazen: I asked about the equipment.


James Layton Ralston: The same consideration applies to the question of equipment. I would not make an answer with regard to the equipment of an individual division.


Douglas King Hazen: Well, the names of the officers commanding the brigades comprising the divisions.


James Layton Ralston: The officers in command of the two armoured brigades of the fourth division are Brigadier Burns and Brigadier Thomas. Brigadier Hyde is in command of the support group of the fourth division.
With regard to the sixth division, Brigadier Leclaire, Brigadier Colquhoun and Brigadier Martin are the three officers commanding brigades. Brigade commanders for the seventh division have not yet been named.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: One day last week I raised with the minister the question of the policy the government is following in connection with men who were on farms on the 23rd of March, when the Prime Minister announced the government's policy. I mentioned a number of cases. I have in mind one in particular where the man was on the farm until the 1st of April. I have received to-day a letter from the officer commanding in Regina to the effect that in view of the fact that this man's case was heard on the 27th of February, 1942, and he was granted postponement to April 1 and it was definitely marked "final; no action can be taken by this department". A letter dated May 1, from the young man informs me that they have 300 acres of land ready to seed and they have not been able to get any help. Could the minister make some statement in this connection in view of order in council 2251, which starts as follows:
Whereas the Minister of National War Services and the Acting Minister of Labour report that there is a growing shortage of agricultural labour and that it is necessary for the effective prosecution of the war to take steps to stabilize employment in agriculture. . . .
Have these orders been relayed to the different officers concerned, and will the minister explain the relationship between his department and the Department of National War Services? The Department of National War Services informed me over the telephone that they have no further jurisdiction after a man has been called up by the army, and the officer in charge informs me that they have no jurisdiction because the Department of National War Services on February 27, before this order was passed, had reached certain conclusions. Could the minister make a statement as to whether some definite policy can be announced?


James Layton Ralston: Did I understand that some decision had been made by the board on February 27, granting postponement or the reverse?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Until the 1st of April, but he was called on the 1st of April.


James Layton Ralston: What is the situation now? Is there a further application for postponement?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes. The man has made his application to the officer commanding. The officer reports that a decision
War Appropriation

was reached on this date in February and that they cannot do anything about it. The man is still in the army, although he was actually on the farm on March 23 when the Prime Minister announced the policy that was to apply to all men then engaged in agriculture.


James Layton Ralston: One hesitates to deal with facts that are a little complicated; but it sounded to me as if- the man, when he was called for the 1st of April, should have appeared before the board and asked for postponement on the ground that he was engaged in agriculture on March 23. He should have made his claim then. The rule is that if he does, and shows that he was wholly or partly engaged in agriculture at that time, the burden is on someone else, I suppose the army authorities or the Department of National War Services, itself, to show that he was still, even though wholly or mainly engaged in agriculture, not essential thereto. I do not know why he has not made that application. Perhaps he has. If he has not made that application and has gone into the service he may still apply to the commanding officer, who will refer the application to the board through the district officer commanding. My hon. friend refers to a particular case and I shall ascertain what has been done. This is one of those cases that would appear to bridge over the time of the zero date when men were frozen in agricultural pursuits. If the man is in the army and my hon. friend will send me his name I will endeavour to see what has been done about the matter. What the. army has done is to agree to accept the recommendation of the boards which have been constituted under the National War Services Act in connection with applications of this kind, subject to military exigencies, as my hon. friend will understand.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: I wish the
minister would elaborate this matter. There has been a good deal of confusion with reference to it. I do not know that his department is as much responsible as the Department of National War Services, but my time during the Easter recess was almost entirely taken up with this problem. Nearly 1,000 men in Saskatchewan were due to begin training on April 9, but were on farms on March 23. I got in touch with the Department of National War Services, as many others did, and we were told that these men should report because their call came prior to March 23 and that therefore they had to report, but that if they reported they could make application to be allowed at least to go home for spring

seeding. Most of the men got in touch with me and I passed that advice on. I told them that they must report and then make application for leave to go home for spring seeding.
That, however, has raised another problem, and I wish the minister would make a clarifying statement either now or later in the session. As soon as it was announced that some provision was to be made to give soldiers leave for spring seeding, scores of farmers wrote asking me and, I have no doubt, other hon. members as well, what steps they should take to have itheir boys given leave to come home for spring seeding, and this came particularly from men up in years farming large tracts of land. I did not feel personally that I ought to take the time of the minister or of his deputy, both of whom have a great many other things to do, by referring individual cases to them. What I did was to point out to these men the procedure which their sons must follow. I told them that they should apply to the commanding officer and that the application would be forwarded to the Department of National War Services and be decided upon. In many cases that worked satisfactorily. Some of these men have been given leave to go home and put in the crop, but I am now receiving letters in which soldiers say that when they go to the commanding officer they are told that he knows nothing of such a provision; that it must be a rumour, and therefore nothing is done about it. In some cases the application is accepted reluctantly and the men hear no more about the matter. Such communications come in every day. I hesitate to take up the time of the minister with these individual cases, but the matter is pressing so far as these people are concerned.
The other day I had a letter from the secretary of a municipality giving a list of elderly men in his municipality who will not be able to put in a crop this year if they cannot get help, and they cannot get help in the surrounding communities. The boys have not been able to get leave for seeding. This is what happens. If a young man happens to belong to a unit where the commanding officer understands the situation and is sympathetic, the boy gets leave, in some cases, for six weeks. The hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) mentioned a young man who had been given six months leave, but there are few such cases. On a neighbouring farm, however, there happens to' be another man whose son also made application and he has never heard anything about the matter. It is difficult to explain to two farmers why one gets six weeks, or six months as the case may be, and the other no leave. I imagine the difference is in the commanding officers,

War Appropriation
but 'the people on the farms do not think so. They think one man must have more influence than the other.


James Layton Ralston: It must be the government.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Yes. I wish the minister would make a clarifying statement with regard to applications for leave. If the commanding officers clearly understand that provision has been made that the application must be forwarded immediately to the war services board, individual cases will, I believe, be dealt with. Could the minister make such a clarifying statement either to the committee or to the commanding officers across the country?


Thomas Langton Church: If Hitler comes he will give us all leave to be slaves.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is under a misapprehension when he speaks of a provision having been made. The only provision which has been made is the provision that when an application is made for compassionate leave-not for seeding, but for leave under special circumstances-the commanding officer makes a recommendation, whatever it may be, and passes it on to the district officer commanding, who sends it to the board, and when the board makes a recommendation the regulations require that that recommendation shall be accepted, unless the exigencies of the service are such as to make it inadvisable to do so. But that is not leave for seeding. That is where the misapprehension arises. I tried to make it clear the other night that the army cannot spare a man for seeding, any more than can the air force or the navy, and that we should not be asked to take on two jobs. These units are being mobilized as rapidly as they can be; there is urgent need for them, particularly in some parts of the country, and we feel that we cannot agree to any policy which means the wholesale release of men who are in the middle of training to go back for seeding.
If there are individual cases of hardship, cases in which compassionate leave should be granted and which the boards think are proper cases, they are considered by the board. When my hon. friend says the commanding officer knew of no such provision, I think he must mean that the commanding officer knew of no such provision for granting leave for seeding, because I think all commanding officers know that we have delegated to the boards under the Department of National War Services the discretion in connection with proper cases of application for compassionate leave. That is probably not very satisfying to my hon. friends, and
particularly to those who are writing and who apparently have the idea that there is actual provision for leave for seeding, but that is only in connection with depots and some home guard establishments, and I do not think it applies to any of the units to which my hon. friend refers, or to the training centres.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They apply particularly to young men in training under the National Resources Mobilization Act, a great many of whom have been in for but a short time. When I say "provision for seeding" I must not be misunderstood. I am aware that no general provision was made to allow any soldier to go home for seeding, but I think there was some provision that if a man could show that he was absolutely required at home and that those at home could not carry on the spring operations without him, some consideration would be given.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think those considerations were mentioned. It was purely a procedural order in council that was passed. The idea was to get away from the idea that the army made the full decision; that is, to give people opportunity to make a special case under special circumstances, but I do not think it had reference to seeding or putting in a crop or agricultural operations alone. I think it had reference to compassionate leave.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Along the same line, in case of applications for postponement coming before the commanding officer, does the decision whether or not a case shall be presented to the war services board rest entirely in the discretion of the commanding officer, or is he obliged to present it to the board?


James Layton Ralston: He sends it with his recommendation, which may be that it be not granted, but he should send it forward to be decided by the board. Often I can conceive of cases in which the board has facilities for making inquiry very much superior to those which the commanding officer has, and it is very much more accustomed to hearing applications of this kind. I can understand one commanding officer may be pretty lenient and another pretty stiff in matters of this kind.


Joseph Henry Harris: I am sorry that committees are sitting to-night at the same time as this session, but the minister was kind enough to suggest before the dinner
War Appropriation

recess that he would make a statement as to what progress had been made on recommendations which had come to his attention during the last ten months, and particularly in the November session, having to do with the setting up of the interdepartmental committee and several other economies. I understand the minister will make one comprehensive statement covering some forty recommendations.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If I might revert to the matter which we were just discussing, I have had some practical experience with it, and I might say that if individual members of this house are having plenty of correspondence, the commanding officers are also having their share of trouble in this connection. Possibly the newspapers are as much to blame as anyone. What we call part 3 orders are not always interpreted as. they should be. There is a general impression that there should have been an exodus from the training centres and the army to the farms. As the minister has explained, there is an application for leave from the soldier himself. This application has to be accompanied by letters from two disinterested persons. They make a statutory declaration as to the facts, which is sent to the district officer commanding by the commanding officer of the unit with his recommendation. But I think the difficulty arises in connection with the A recruits and the R recruits. WTith the R recruits this provision applies, but with the active it does not, and I would imagine that the trouble to which the hon. member for Weybum refers is probably due to men in the depots who are active service men coming to the training centres and not coming under the same regulations as the R recruits. They came in just about the time, March 23 to April 9. I know we had considerable difficulty; the men from the depots could not understand why they were not given the same consideration as the men who had been called up under the National War Services Act. A good deal of confusion has occurred on that account.
There are a good many applications in my training centre, and I judge the same is true over the dominion. The men seem to think that all they need do is make application and their application should be granted. But it is supposed to be granted only on compassionate grounds and not as a matter of right.


Mr. POULIOT:: I hope the minister will be able to give me some information about the young man I mentioned the other day who had six months leave given to him by the

national war services board and who could not go back to his father's farm but instead was sent to Nanaimo.
I find this heading in the Montreal Gazette of March 27, "Compulsory trainees are nucleus of new coast defence divisions". In the Montreal Standard of March 28 there is a picture of the Minister of National Defence in an article entitled "Home Army". On May 2, I read in the Ottawa Journal a dispatch sent from somewhere in British Columbia by mail entitled "Popular French-Canadian unit now in Pacific defence zone. Regiment entrusted with important operational role on coast". What those young French-Canadians are doing on the coast is entirely different from what the Mennonites are doing there. The young French-Canadians are fighting for their country while the Mennonites are earning a dollar an hour working in the shipyards.
One thing of which I have to complain to the minister is that letters which are sent to soldiers or trainees in the army addressed to what was the right address a few days or a few weeks ago are not forwarded as they should be to the men where they are; they are sent back to the sender. I have many cases like that. In one instance it was sent to the first camp where the man went and afterwards it was sent back to me. I have here another envelope addressed to a soldier who was at Farnham. It is marked, "No Record; return to sender." He was forwarded somewhere else, either in British Columbia or even in Nova Scotia.	The
county of Temiscouata does its share in defending both coasts now.	I have here
another envelope that was addressed to a soldier at Coteau barracks at Three Rivers. I know the man is at Debert camp, in Nova Scotia; I heard that from his father, but the envelope has been returned to me from Coteau barracks instead of being forwarded to the man in Nova Scotia. There is no excuse for that. Soldiers are always glad to receive letters, and they should get their mail properly. It is done for civilians; I do not know why it is not done for soldiers and trainees in the army. There is no justification for it. I have here a letter I wrote to a soldier at Valcartier, in which I enclosed a copy of a letter I had received from the Department of National Defence. That letter also was returned. I have here the envelope; it was addressed to the soldier, giving his name and number, at Valcartier camp.
The situation is most unsatisfactory; it seems as though soldiers are not any better off than those in concentration camps. Of course there must be a reason for it. The

War Appropriation
reason is to keep them away from home, to have another excuse for not giving them an opportunity to go back to the farms during the season of the year they are most needed. There is another man from my county, the son of a settler, who is at York island, British Columbia. These men do not object at all to defending their country, but a distinction should be made between trainees and soldiers. We have no defence at all in our part of the country. When the minister found that the defences in British Columbia were unsatisfactory he took some boys from Temiscouata and sent them there, and he did the same thing for the defence of Nova Scotia. Of course they are good men, but that is no reason for dealing with them as they have been dealt with. I bring this matter not only to the attention of the minister but also before this committee. I hope that when a wrong is revealed, that wrong will be redressed and those guilty of committing it will not be deified.
Here is another matter. The other day I was told that I had taken too long in mentioning the numerous branches of the Department of National Defence. It is not my fault that they are so numerous; I tried to be as brief as possible. I wanted to know what was the purpose of each branch and what was the cost of it, but I received no answer. The answer was given over the racjio, at the expense of the Canadian people. Instead of giving the information here in the committee, so that it might be recorded in Hansard, the minister went on the air once more, and in a broadcast addressed to "Fellow Canadians" he said:
Now on my shoulders rests the responsibility for seeing that the men and women for the army are raised, and clothed, and housed, and fed," and paid, and kept in good health, and equipped, and transported, and trained, and used where and how and when they can best be used to help to win this war.
That was on his own responsibility. Then in the following paragraph he said that those who had the responsibility for it would speak over the air again to give further news and more explanations. In the first place it was the minister who had the responsibility, he said, but then he went to to say that those who were really doing the work would explain what was being done.
I want to mention just a few facts to-day concerning my French-speaking compatriots of the province of Quebec and what they have done in the army. I had an opportunity to summarize, some time last summer, in an article published in the best weekly in Canada, Le Saint Laurent of Riviere du Loup, what has been done by French-Canadians since the
beginning of the war. That article was translated and published in other newspapers, including the Ottawa Citizen. Two months after statistics were sent to a number of officials in the Department of National Defence with regard to French-Canadians-of course I waited for two months-I published this article to show my Canadian fellow citizens that the province of Quebec and French-speaking Canadians at large throughout this country were doing their share in this war, as they did in the last war. That article appeared on July 31 last, and part of it was reprinted in the Ottawa Citizen of September 3. Some figures are given and some facts stated. The translation goes on to say:
A Tory organ, referring to the subject of voluntary enlistment in Quebec, has recently suggested that "the time has come to make known the figures of enlistment by provinces." Will it not be fairer to make the comparisons between the war effort of the French-speaking Canadians and that of the English-speaking Canadians?
In the first place, the evidence of true history is there to prove that in 1914-1918 there was not a single unit without French-Canadians. They numbered 3,000 in the first contingent; but at that time General Sam Hughes refused to allow them to form a regiment.
It is true that the second contingent contained the immortal 22nd Regiment, made up exclusively of French-Canadians; but there were also a great many French-Canadians in the English regiments of Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, particularly in the Tenth of Calgary (now the Calgary Highlanders), of which R. B. Bennett was the honorary colonel. Our compatriots, however, were given no credit for this because there were no French-Canadian officers in those regiments.
In two English regiments, the R.M.R. (Royal Montreal Regiment) and the 87th (Canadian Grenadier Guards), there was respectively a company composed of French-Canadian officers and men. In two other regiments of our province the proportion of French-Canadians was very high; but they were all rankers. There were no French-Canadian officers in the Royal Highlanders of Canada or the Victoria Rifles. In the latter regiment French-Canadians formed at least one-half of the strength and it was, apparently, as a posthumous homage to a considerable number of them that the regiment's flags were lodged in the Church of Notre Dame in Montreal.
We must hope that the errors of the past will not be repeated indefinitely.
It must not be forgotten that in the present war the Maisonneuve Regiment was the first to mobilize, among all Canadian regiments.
A comparison between the total enlistments up to last spring (1941)-one year and a half after the start of the war-and those of twenty-five years ago, for the same period of the great war, shows that throughout Canada the figure was 18 per cent below that of the former period, while for this present war the enlistments in Quebec province have increased by 58 per cent.
The number of voluntary enlistments in our province is already at the present time greater
War Appropriation

by 15,000 than the total for the whole duration of the last war. Quebec military district has the honour of ranking fourth in the recent volunteer recruiting campaign, being surpassed only by Saint John, N.B., Halifax, N.S., and Winnipeg. It made a better showing than the three military districts of Ontario and those of Saskatchewan and Alberta, even of British Columbia. Quebec's percentage of the quota allotted was 122 per cent; at London, Ontario, the rating was 73 per cent, and at Victoria, B.C., 61 per cent.
Small wonder, then, that after a rapid inspection of the military camps, air fields and war industries of Quebec province, the British high commissioner to Canada, Right Honourable Malcolm MacDonald, should have said: "In the first place I congratulate Quebec in going over the top in the recruitment of men for the active service."
.... LeDevoir, over the signature of Emile Benoist, a former president of the press gallery, commented as follows on this intolerable situation:
"For month after month, ever since the war began, French newspapers, not only in Quebec but in the other provinces, too, have called for the recruiting of French-Canadian regiments outside Quebec province. Nothing was done about it. On the contrary, we have seen Quebec regiments, which we have always considered to be French-Canadian regiments, become mixed units to which Anglo-Canadian as well as French-Canadian officers are posted. This was the case, notably, for the Sherbrooke regiment and for the tank regiment of Three Rivers. We have even seen a Jew appointed to the command of one of these regiments, that of Sherbrooke. This same Jewish officer is to-day in command of one of the military camps in the Montreal district. Did the same thing happen in Ontario, for instance? Certainly not. Can you hear, not the noise, but the riotous uproar that would lift the roof in the Toronto hamlet if a Jew were appointed to the command of the Highlanders in that city?"
. . . . The conclusion is inescapable: It is high time to publish bilingual military manuals, to train French-Canadian officers in numbers commensurate with the proportion of French-Canadian soldiers, to open wide to them the doors of the military schools instead of merely leaving them slightly ajar, to entrust them with positions of command at the head of their compatriots even outside our own province, to preserve for French-Canadian regiments their French-Canadian character, to acknowledge the patriotism of all those French-Canadians who have enlisted in regiments other than those of Quebec province by giving them, besides officers of their own race, the legitimate hope of deserved promotion, of forming a French-Canadian brigade instead of trying to break up French-Canadian regiments, finally to allow to every French-Canadian fighter, in the army, the air force or the navy, the satisfaction of being treated as an equal by his English-speaking comrades in the three services, so that there will be no inferior race that is shouldered with all the risks and no superior race to garner all the benefits, all the gold braid and all the glory.
The reports were made and sent in by the various officers either at the end of May or at the beginning of June of last year, and the article I have just read was published on

July 31. Two months later, or four months after the reports had been issued by officers who knew their business and who were not French-Canadians, the lamented Mr. Lapointe delivered a lecture in Quebec in the presence of His Excellency the Governor General, Her Royal Highness Princess Alice, and many other distinguished guests. He said that there i would be some improvement for French-Canadians, that the manuals would be translated and that there would be more opportunity for promotion, afforded to Frenchspeaking officers. He said that there would be an. opportunity for French-Canadians to get training as officers in Brockville under the direction of French-speaking Canadians from abroad and especially the officer, Colonel Blais. In that lecture the late Mr. Lapointe said that it was common knowledge that French-Canadians did not have the opportunity for promotion to which they were entitled according to their numbers in the army.
On the same occasion that Mr. Lapointe spoke, on September 25, Brigadier Vanier of Quebec said that he was happy to see these reforms in favour of French-Canadians in the army put into effect. The great mistake made by the Department of National Defence at the outset was not to mobilize the old French-Canadian regiments. The only door that was open to French-speaking Canadians who wanted to enlist was the door of the recruiting offices of the Black Watch and other English regiments. The French-Canadians did not get credit for' enlisting in these regiments. I wrote to the Department of National Defence in January of this year and mentioned what Mr. Lapointe had said and what had appeared previously in the article. They told me that some regiments had been mobilized, and then in a paper dated March 30 I saw that four regiments had been mobilized.
In Montreal, on the slopes of Mount Royal, I think on Queen Mary road or somewhere around there, is a new armoury. On both sides of the entrance there were last summer posters for the Black Watch. These were bilingual, one side being in English and the other side in French, and they invited French-Canadians to join this English regiment. I saw these writh -my own eyes. Those who wanted to enlist passed there and they perhaps thought that it w^as their only opportunity to get into the army. They enlisted, but they did not get credit as French-Canadians for doing so.
In any country the minority has to suffer the slurs and attacks of those who want to

War Appropriation
use the majority for their own aims. In all countries of the world the minorities have had to suffer because some of those who want to govern try to paint them black just as -much as. they can in order to give -a false impression to the majority. This causes hatred and disunity, but it is what happens. My Freneh-Canadian compatriots have been slandered and libelled because they have not been given the credit that was due to them for what they have done in this war.
Here is a clipping, for instance, from that great maritime paper the Telegraph-Journal of Saint John. It prints a letter which was sent to the paper and which reads in part as follows:
To-night, in the Capitol theatre of Saint John, in this city which saw last summer at least one regiment of Quebec boys on their way to Hong Kong, the coats of arms of Canada and each one of all provinces of the dominion were shown in succession to a numerous public. Each of them drew a long and well deserved applause, warm cheers-except Quebec which was greeted with an eloquent silence and even an isolated but no less eloquent whoop. And I felt sorry for those poor Quebec boys, Hong Kong heroes, who voluntarily gave so much and were forgotten so soon.
Twice I have seen the same subject presented to the audiences during the evening; twice I have witnessed the same results. I still cannot believe that so much blood heroically shed for our common survival and so much sorrow bravely accepted failed to win so little as a twenty-four hour praise and remembrance.
If I know well the citizens of Saint John, what I have seen and heard in this circumstance was not representative of their true feelings. Jervis Bay will never be forgotten here, and this is to the honour of this city. Why should the Quebec boys who have been known here and fell heroically in Hong Kong be not equally honoured? Why such tragic oblivion?
Saint John, December 25, 1941.
The letter was dated Christmas day, but there was not the Christmas spirit in evidence at that theatre.
I have here a clipping from the same paper under date of March 7, 1942, and it gives a tabulation of enlistments in the armed services in Canada by provinces. It is headed, "Maritimes in forefront of Canada as source of fighting man-power." It goes on to give Canadian enlistments to December 31, 1941, and there is a footnote reading:
Quebec's enlistment unit should be divided between recruits of French racial origin and other racial origins, for which official figures are not available.
Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but we want to know the number of French Canadians who have enlisted in all regiments in this country, not only in Freneh-Canadian regiments but in all regiments in all provinces, so that French Canadians will not be blamed
when they' do not deserve it. We are ready to take any blame that we deserve, but we do not want our compatriots to be left under unjust suspicion. By the way, what French Canadians have done in this war has been very highly commended, and it is too bad that these commendations have not always received the publicity they deserved.
What kind of propaganda do we find going on now in many of the newspapers? On the front page of the Montreal Standard of Saturday last, there is an article headed, "Canada losing a great friend"-"Our biggest failure." The article, by A. D. Dunton, is introduced in this way:
This article is the first of a series written by the editor of the Standard after returning from a trip to the United States to investigate American opinion on Canada. Here he states the seriousness of the problem.
Following articles will explain what must bo done to tell our story to Americans.
It is unfortunate that the great American people are not better informed than they now are of what Canada has done since the beginning of this war. They should be told. "We are losing a great friend." Why? Just because the information bureau at the service of this government is not worthy of being kept. Not long ago, on April 15, on his way to Washington to meet Mr. Roosevelt the Prime Minister of this country expressed his views on this matter in an interview which appeared in the press, headed "Injustice to Quebec on war effort deplored by Mackenzie King here." That interview appeared in the Montreal Gazette and was given as the Prime Minister was passing through Montreal.
The Montreal Standard has published very good articles about this war. One appeared in its issue of April 18, entitled "How to sell Canada to the States". It says:
"If you had more than 1,000,000 men serving overseas right now and lots more in training, would you think that the United States is properly in the war?" I asked. "Sure", said Harold. "That's a lot of men."
"Well, in proportion to Canada's population that is the number we have overseas," I said.
This conversation was transplanted from a New York apartment to the pages of our next week's magazine section.
That is the sort of thing that should be told. In my humble view, in proportion to population we have the equivalent of more than a million Canadian soldiers in England compared with the United States' effort in sending -men overseas. In other words, our proportion of men sent overseas is very much higher than that of the United States.
What did Mayor LaGuardia say of Canada's effort, speaking in New York on April 9? In the Toronto Star of April 9, an article appeared on the front page, headed "Canada
War Appropriation

effort equal to that of 100,000,000-Mayor La Guardia declares Canadians are doing swell job." I should like to see this article sent by the dominion government to be published as an advertisement in all the newspapers of the United States so as to destroy prejudice and hatred and especially to dissipate ignorance as to Canada's war effort.
Here is a clipping from L'Etoile of Lowell, Massachusetts, of April 29, 1942, reading:
I will translate it:
Strange to say, the province of Quebec, which has voted three to one against conscription has until now given more volunteers for overseas than the province of Ontario, which voted five to one in favour of conscription.
Some very interesting information was given out by the Department of National War Services on April 4 showing the number of men who had enlisted voluntarily in Canada by provinces, and this information was published in all the newspapers of the country. The number enlisted in Quebec was 2,109, and in Ontario, 2,116. The article goes on to say:
Major-General LaFleche stated that since October, 1940, a total of 120,305 men called up by national war services had reported to the military training centres and had been found physically fit for training. The men came from provinces as follows:
Prince Edward Island .		 1.013
Nova Scotia		.. .. 4.718
New Brunswick .. ..	. . .. 4,567
Quebec		. . .. 38,433
Ontario			 37,252
Manitoba			 8,331
Saskatchewan		. . 9.424
Alberta 			 9,024
British Columbia .. ..	.... 7,543
Total			 120,305
Of the above, 35,881 were	trained by Frenchspeaking officers and instructors, which was a great progress on what had happened before. The number of men requisitioned by the Department of National Defence was 35,*40. The surplus of 1,692 men was accounted for as follows: Nova Scotia, 119; New Brunswick, 225; Quebec, 1.146; Manitoba, 14; Saskatchewan, 285; Prince Edward Island supplied the exact number of men called for; Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia were respectively 53, 40 and 24 men short.


James Layton Ralston: What are those figures?


Jean-François Pouliot: What I have here is a publication of the Department of National Defence, and it was issued to the press.


James Layton Ralston: The Department of National War Services.


Jean-François Pouliot: I presume, whether it came from the Department of National War Services or from the Department of National Defence, it must be accurate.


James Layton Ralston: It was a press release issued by the Department of National War Services with regard to the number of men required to report. It did not suggest that they had enlisted.


Jean-François Pouliot: This document was very well analysed by Mr. Gerard Filion, a well-known and brilliant Canadian journalist, when he spoke at a meeting at Tetreaultville on April 15. He said:
(Translation) We are ahead of the other provinces and yet we are being ridiculed.
This is evidenced by the fact that no other Canadian province has subscribed to the victory loans to the same extent as Quebec. Quebec has more soldiers in training notwithstanding the fact that Ontario has a comparatively larger population. The voluntary system of enlistment is no longer successful in the remainder of Canada: only in the province of Quebec are its results satisfactory. Every month men are called for training. Ontario is constantly lagging, while we always .supply more than our quota of men.
As regards voluntary enlistments for overseas service, the maritime provinces have supplied about 200 men over their quota. Quebec has supplied 1,146 over its quota. And the district of London, Ontario, the hotbed of orangeism, was 20 per cent short.
I entirely agree with him, except with regard to London, Ontario, being a centre of Orangeism.
Recently we had a visit of an army train. The publication which relates to it and which was distributed among those who went there is printed only in English. Something insulting was done by one of the fellows on the train. When it was at Quebec city, and when he was asked for information in French and was told that the gentleman who was speaking was addressing him in French, that officer was told that he did not hear any foreign language. This was in the press, that when the train went to Quebec a good French-Canadian visited the train and asked in French for information, and that fellow-probably a bloke-said, "Well, I speak no foreign language. Speak English, or otherwise you are not entitled to an answer."


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend stating
what someone told him? Is this what the gentleman informed him?


Jean-François Pouliot: It is in the paper.


James Layton Ralston: I am not talking about the paper.

IFor Appropriation


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just pure hearsay.


James Layton Ralston: I am asking, does the hon. member know the gentleman who was spoken to in that way by the officer?


Jean-François Pouliot: It was in all the papers of Quebec, and I will send a clipping-


James Layton Ralston: I am not talking about papers. I am interested to know if the hon. member knew the gentleman, if he had any information himself.


Jean-François Pouliot: I cannot be everywhere at the same time.


James Layton Ralston: I asked my hon. friend just one question, that is all.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes, it is all right; but I wonder whether the minister will make an investigation to know who speaks like that to French-Canadians to provoke them. I have already mentioned in this chamber the case of a lady who received a visit one day from soldiers who came to arrest her husband who was supposed to be a deserter, while he was in England serving with his majesty's forces.


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon. friend mind letting me see the newspaper clipping? All I am asking for is the name of the gentleman who was spoken to in that way. If he will give me the name of the officer or noncommissioned officer, or any information about the matter, he may be sure I shall investigate it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have another clipping from Le Soleil. I will give it to the minister.


James Layton Ralston: I will just point out that apparently there is no mention of either the name of the gentleman who was spoken to or the person who spoke to him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just pure gossip.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend says that just because it is stated in the newspaper, that makes it true.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, no.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will give me any particulars of the gentleman who says he was spoken to in that way, I shall be very glad to have an investigation made in the most thorough possible manner.


Jean-François Pouliot: On the other hand, when I reported the case of a man who was put in gaol because he had spoken French, the minister took advantage of the fact that there was an airport of the same name as the military camp there and he gave an answer relating to the military camp when I was speaking of the airport.


James Layton Ralston: We may as well settle
this now. I gave my hon. friend the fullest information; in fact I went further than I need have gone. My hon. friend did not take the trouble to find out what camp it was. He immediately assumed that it had to do with the Department of National Defence, and proceeded to make a charge about it. He found that it was not the army; that it was the air force, and he thinks I should have investigated the air force before I made any reply. I disclaimed that responsibility at the time, and I do so again.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the
assumption that this debate is not going on, I desire to ask the minister one or two questions. Possibly we have heard enough of the kind of stuff that has been put on the record to-night. So I desire to direct the minister's attention to a situation with respect to recruiting which I think deserves some explanation from him.
A young man enlisting for active service overseas may, after a lapse of time, and his conduct being exemplary, apply to his commanding officer for leave to marry, and if the conditions are fulfilled he may get the consent of his commanding officer and he may marry, with the result that his wife gets dependent's allowance. A young man called up for training under the National Resources Mobilization Act may not marry, under the regulations, even with the consent of his commanding officer; and when he applies to his commanding officer, I believe, invariably the man is told what the position is, that so long as he has not enlisted for overseas service he may not marry. I have only to state the two positions for hon. gentlemen to understand the significance of the leverage on the young man in the training centre to enlist for overseas service. I cannot imagine any condition that would be more conducive to forcing men into enlistment for overseas service than desiring to marry and being prevented from doing so by the regulations of the department. I put it to the minister- and I do not want to generate any heat about the matter-that the situation which I have portrayed, and I believe accurately, is to say the least not creditable to this country. It is the back-door approach again to compulsory enlistment.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Does the hon.
gentleman not believe in conscription?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, but
let us be man-fashioned about it, and enter by the front-door and not by the back-door route.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Why talk about
"total war," then?
War Appropriation


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
talking about a condition, and I am appealing to the minister to correct what I believe to be an improper position on the part of the military authorities. I can understand no more compelling reason to induce a man to -enlist than that he shall be granted the right to marry, or I can understand no more discreditable position for a government department to take than to refuse permission to marry, other things being equal, unless he signs for foreign service on the dotted line. I do not think I am putting that case unfairly or too strongly. I suggest to the minister that it is a position which ought to be corrected. Undoubtedly these young soldiers .should have the right to marry. In England they are encouraged to marry. I am told that there are 400 marriages a month among Canadians in England. That is all to the good, and we shall get some new blood in the country in the times that are to come, I hope. But marriage or no marriage, it should not be conditioned on a man's willingness to serve overseas or his unwillingness to do so.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He is no good if he will not serve.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Please
allow me to make my statement. I suggest to the minister that it is a position of which this country' should not be proud, a position of which the department should not be proud. It is a position which the department should correct. Either a man is entitled to the right to marry on the merits of his own position, or he is not. He is entitled to marry or not to marry, irrespective of his willingness or unwillingness to .serve overseas in the active army. I object to the position that has been taken. I do not think it is a proper position; I do not think it is a dignified position for this country to occupy. I have termed other positions the back-door route. I will withdraw that, and say that this is an indirect route to compulsion, to compulsory service, conscription. If we are going to have conscription let us have it, but let us have it by the proper methods. I ask the minister first of all if I have not correctly stated the position; I ask him, does he think it is a proper position, if so; and if he does not think it is a proper position, then I ask him to have it corrected.


James Layton Ralston: Let me say to my hon. friend that I never heard of such a regulation or provision or instruction, implied or expressed. I have in front of me the-
Rights and obligations of the R recruit.
While an R recruit is attached to the training centre and until the normal time at which he should have arrived at his destination, the R recruit, except as otherwise provided in these regulations, shall have all rights, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to pay and, if eligible therefor, dependents- allowance, provided, however, that if he reported to the basic training centre prior to July 1. 1941, and married subsequent to the time of his so reporting, he will he eligible to claim dependents' allowance in respect of such marriage and from the date thereof only on receiving the consent of his commanding officer to such marriage and on becoming a member H.D. of the Canadian army immediately on his ceasing to be attached to the training centre.
If my' hon. friend knows of any instructions issued, which intimate to any commanding officer that he shall not give consent to marry unless a man enlists for active service, I should like to know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will not give the minister the case. I refuse to do so in the interests of the man himself. I will not do it because the man will be a marked man always.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend said that he was not going to generate heat.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I won't.


James Layton Ralston: I want to find out whether or not this is an isolated case or whether it is the rule. I am stating that I have never heard of such a thing. I am absolutely sure that no such instruction has been issued, and I say I am sure of that because I cannot imagine such an instruction being issued. The adjutant-general is here and he says that he has never heard of such an instruction. There may be an isolated case.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The young man may possibly marry without the consent of his commanding officer, but he may not get the dependents' allowance without the consent of his commanding officer.


James Layton Ralston: That is so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If he was taken into the draft after a certain date.


James Layton Ralston: That is right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But if he will go active he will get the separation allowance; he will get the dependents' allowance. That is the condition of which I com-

War Appropriation
plain. There is a differentiation between the man who is willing to go active and the man who will not go active.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Exactly the same condition applies to the air force.


Richard Burpee Hanson: These are all on active service. They all have to get the consent of the commanding officer or they do not get the dependents' allowance. The young man in the reserve army, if that is the proper term, cannot get that dependents' allowance unless he goes active. That is what I am told is the practice. I will ask the minister to have an examination to see if the thesis I have attempted to lay down is correct. If so, I am going to ask him to have the position corrected, because there should not be a distinction between the two.
Mr, RALSTON: I say to my hon. friend that my instructions- are-because he has used strong language-


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


James Layton Ralston: What he has said he has founded upon a statement of fact which I am questioning seriously. I have in my hand the regulations for the reserve army, special, which have to do with these recruits, and it is provided that the recruit is entitled to dependents' allowance; that is the home defence man. He is entitled to dependents' allowance when he marries with the consent of the commanding officer, and I am instructed that exactly the same provisions apply to the active man-that he does not get the dependents' allowance unless he gets the consent of his commanding officer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The man who is active will get the consent; the man who is not active will not get it.


James Layton Ralston: I challenge my hon. friend to produce a case in which a young man has been refused consent because of the fact that he was on home defence, and told that he had to enlist and go active.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not going to give the case because that man will *be a marked man.


James Layton Ralston: Before my hon. friend made a statement of that kind he should have submitted the case to me. He has indulged in considerable rhetoric to-night on the basis of a statement of facts which I say I challenge in the most positive way from instructions which I have received. Exactly the same treatment, under the regulations, is laid down for both active and home defence men.
Neither can get the dependents' allowance if he marries without the consent of the commanding officer.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise as a peacemaker. I rise in order to afford the hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. Minister of National Defence an opportunity to make love to each other as they do every time I speak. There is a saying that history repeats itself. We will go back twenty-five years. I will not say what has happened in the meantime, but I have in my hand a book, the "Life of Sir Wilfrid Laurier," by Oscar Douglas Skelton, and at page 546 of volume II I see that
the first shock to the sanguine supporters of the conscription act of 1917 came when it was found that of 404,000 of the first-class of unmarried men, from twenty to thirty-four, who had registered by the end of 1917, 380,000 had claimed exemption.
It states:
The next shock came with the announcement that there were 118,000 claims for exemption from Ontario as against 115,000 from Quebec (out of 125,000 and 117,000 registrants). Local tribunals, particularly in Quebec, were charged with being farcically lax; on the other hand the military representatives appealed nearly every exemption in Quebec, but allowed 90,000 in Ontario to go unopposed.
That is what happened during the last war. I have now the Montreal Standard of April 18 saying:
Enlistments increase with French-Canadians swelling army units.
While results of the plebiscite on April 27 are awaited, officials of the army recruiting depot at 1121 St. James street west disclose that recruiting has been picking up since the first of the month. The daily rate of enlistments has not only been increasing, but the percentage of French to English-speaking recruits has also been rising steadily.
During the month of January the average daily numbers of enlistments in all branches of the army was about 46; during February, when the question of the plebiscite was first raised, the daily average dropped to 36, and during March to 33.
The ratio of French-speaking recruits to English has steadily increased. In January it was approximately 6 to 5, in February about 5 to 3, and in March about 5 to 2.
There is one thing I regret deeply; it is that in all places where young boys go to enlist there is no picture of the commander in chief of the Canadian army, His Majesty the King. I wrote to the Department of National Defence asking if they were placing in those recruiting offices pictures of their majesties, and especially of the commander in chief of our army, His Majesty the King, and the answer was, "No; if they want any picture of the kind they have to pay for it." I think it would be much more useful to place

War Appropriation

pictures of their majesties in recruiting offices than to send copies of speeches regarding the plebiscite, which was a waste of paper. It would have been better to use that paper to print a picture of the commander in chief of the army and give it a place of honour in our recruiting centres.
On January 1 the New York Times said that the United States army had promoted 575 to the rank of colonel. It was a great promotion on account of the new year. But now the picture is not so good as it should be regarding French-speaking officers in the army. Take, for instance, what happened in Hong Kong; how many were French-Canadians? There was a large number of French-Canadians there. We have no news of them, no more news now of those who are prisoners at Hong Kong than we have of the probe that took place not long ago. The number of Freneh-Canadian officers was so small that they took men who had not a drop of French blood in their veins and put them down as officers just to show one or two more.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Two officers from my riding were French-Canadians, both sons of Mr. Pierre D'Avignon, from Marieville.


Jean-François Pouliot: There may be two, but there was only one there.


Vincent Dupuis: Perhaps there was one from Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes, and his name was Lapointe, a soldier, not an officer; we have no officers from our district. I am sorry that the leader of the opposition has vanished, like the prophet of old in his chariot of fire. Every time I have something to say that would be good for him to learn, he disappears.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Maybe if the hon. gentleman had something to say my leader would stay.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend should keep quiet, in preparing such wonderful speeches as he does, when he compares his deskmate to Cicero and Demosthenes and others of the world's great orators-


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I am not an orator like my hon. friend, but when I speak in the house I have something to say.


The CHAIRMAN:: Let us come back to the question before the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just to please the hon. member for St. Paul's, I have here in my hand an editorial from a good paper although it is Tory, the Toronto Telegram, of March 25, 1942. It is headed "Secret proceedings of inquiry must be given in full to the nation".

That is the Hong Kong inquiry. We want some information. We are entitled to have complete information about that and about everything, but everything is hidden. We have a right to get complete information about the usefulness of every branch of the Department of National Defence, as we have a right to know who was guilty in connection with the Hong Kong expedition. But we shall never have it.


Thomas Vien: Order. I would point out that the matter referred to is sub judice, and it is not in order to discuss matters that have been referred to the royal commission. I understand that a great deal of leeway is allowed in this committee, and some remarks have already been made on that subject, but I think that in the future conduct of this debate no further reference should be made to the royal commission or the subject matter of its inquiry.


Jean-François Pouliot: Coming back to November 12 when the minister was away, the estimates of the department were in the hands of his colleague the Minister of National Defence for- Air. I asked him a direct question:
There was something else I read, this time not in the Toronto Telegram but in the Ottawa Journal of September 24, stating that a census of the religious beliefs of the troops was being taken. I do not see how it is possible to do that when it is not possible to learn how many French Canadians have enlisted in a certain regiment. All that information should be available.
Mr. Power:	It is on the attestation card.
The man states to what religion he subscribes, and usually it is on his identification disc as well.
Air. Pouliot: That is fine, but I should like to know the number of French Canadians who are serving in regiments such as the Black Watch, the highlanders and so on.
Mr. Power: I believe that information can be obtained.
Mr. Pouliot: Thank you.
That is from Hansard of November 12, 1941, page 4695.
Since that I have got nothing in the way of information about the number of French-Canadians in the whole country who have enlisted in all regiments. That is what I want to know. If the figure is good, that is well; if the figure is bad, we are ready to take our medicine, but we want to know and we have a right to know. The amount of this estimate is $997,000,000. Is it not possible to take from this amount $100 or $200 to check the payrolls of all regiments in the treasury office and see the number of French names which appear thereon? Of course there might be

War Appropriation
a very small proportion, a fraction of one per cent, of English-speaking men who have French names, as was the case with one officer at Hong Kong. But that would work both ways. There are some men with English names who do not speak English at all, while there are other men with French names who do not speak French, and the proportion in each case would be about the same. What I want to know is the number of French-Canadians who have enlisted in the army, and I have asked the minister for that information. I have already made that request, and if it is impossible to get an answer I think that is wrong and unfair, not only to the province of Quebec but to Freneh-Cana-dians throughout the whole country. Why is it refused to us? We are entitled to that information.


James Layton Ralston: It is not refused at all. I have told the committee; I have told the house and I have told the hon. member that the racial origin does not appear on the attestation papers. The idea now propounded by the hon. member, that of examining the names and taking those names to represent nationalities, would not give an accurate result, I do not propose to guess about a subject of this kind, and then have it said later that the figures were not correct. I say that to the hon. member. The only way to do it would be to take a census of each battalion and ascertain from the men themselves their racial origin; and at this stage of the war I have not regarded it as necessary to do that. I had an estimate prepared as to the time that would take, and I think even my hon. friend would be amazed to learn the time that would be required to have that done. One can see that you would have to go through all the battalions and inquire as to the racial origin of every man. That is why it has not been done; it has not been refused at all.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not done, but it is not refused. I may be making some progress there. But it is not impossible to get in touch with the men. The official in charge of the plebiscite got in touch with the men not long ago to ask them a silly question. Is it not much more important to know the racial origin of a man in the army? We must have it for the French-Canadians; we have a right to it. The minister questions the accuracy of taking the names. He knows, or he should know, that the proportion of Englishspeaking Canadians with French names is about the same as that of French-speaking Canadians with English names.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend may know that; I do not.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, let the minister learn that.


James Layton Ralston: I would not take it from my hon. friend.


Jean-François Pouliot: What I say is right. When the minister tried to give me the lie, it was all right, but never for more than twenty-four hours.


James Layton Ralston: I ask my hon. friend to withdraw that. I did not suggest giving him the lie.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is that unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman?


Thomas Vien: Yes. I think the correction of the minister takes care of the situation. The hon. gentleman said the minister had given him the lie. The minister says, "I did not give you the lie," and the statement of the minister stands.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank you, sir, and I congratulate you upon your ruling, which is true to the old British traditions. The other day I quoted what was said, not by a civilian but by a most distinguished soldier, General Browne, about the possibility of the invasion of this country. I repeat it for the benefit of my dear friend the leader of the opposition, who has just come down from heaven, to use a euphemism. This was also quoted by the hon. member for Vancouver South, as reported at page 1905 of Hansard, when he said:
I think General Browne gave the picture quite clearly when he was quoted as saying at that time:
"The reserve force may have to fight and it must be ready to fight as soon as possible," he said.
"After all, there is no more war overseas than there is here now, and we may have some here sooner than they have, in view of the threats to our coast."
That was the opinion of a general. Here is the opinion of a civilian, which has been enlarged upon in an editorial appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of September 3, 1941:
Jean Francois Pouliot, member for Temis-couata, wrote with characteristic vigour in Le Saint Laurent (Riviere du Loup) on "The French-Canadian War Effort." The doughty champion of French-Canada's article is reprinted in part elsewhere on this page to-day.
That was what I read just a few moments ago, before the hon. member for York-Sunbury thundered so vigorously.
Perhaps there is need to keep the Englishspeaking people of Canada better informed on French-Canada's contribution to the war effort. It would compare favourably in the war industries as well as in the number of enlisted men. It would at least help to offset a prevalent
War Appropriation

opinion that French-Canada is responsible for preventing a total war policy as it should long ago have been adopted by the government of this country.
A more effective answer than comparative statistics, however, would be articulate leadership from an outstanding Freneh-Canadian in favour of complete national service in Canada. Even for home defence, without insisting that every enlisted man should be liable for military service overseas, national service has to come in Canada. The present opportunist policy will almost certainly otherwise result in chaos.
It is to the credit of Jean Francois Pouliot that he is demanding a more comprehensive policy of home defence. He has urged the construction of military highways through strategic territory east of Quebec where the lines of communication are at present very slender. As a Canadian, however, the member for Temiseouata is too modest.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should not have read that.
He could speak on the need of more effective defence measures in British Columbia. Nova Scotia and elsewhere as well as on the St. Lawrence river front. This form of leadership would put Freneh-Canada's position in a new light. It would help to show that there is true Canadian vision as national in outlook in the Laurentian country as it is in Toronto, Calgary or Vancouver.
This is something to think about. The other day I quoted a statement by the Minister of National War Services, appearing in the Ottawa Journal of Friday, April 3, 1942, to the effect that the Canadian army was the most mobile of all the allied armies. Most mobile, yes; because an all-out war has been advocated and our army is going out of this country, so that we have nothing left here. All-out war-all outside Canada.
A member of this house, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton), made an address in Williamstown, Massachusetts, and this was referred to in the well known paper, the New York Times, of March 22, 1942. The headline is:
Asserts criticism has war time limit.
Brooke Claxton, at Williams conference, calls excess detraction "pure poison."
Canada's efforts cited.
I have no objection down to there, but this is what I do object to:
We cannot afford to fight in North America, dominion parliamentarian warns.
Imagine! If the enemy comes here, we must surrender at once. That is what he said; that is what is reported in the largest paper on this continent, perhaps the largest paper in the whole world. We cannot afford to fight! Is that not an invitation to the enemy? It is here in the New York Times. The five-minute rule should have been applied to his speech.


Mr. MUTCH:: Read it all.


Jean-François Pouliot: 1 I will send it over to my hon. friend and he can read it. My time is valuable. I asked the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) on February 16 if he could give any guarantee that this country would not be attacked before the end of this war. He replied that he could not give such a guarantee without major reflection, and of course the guarantee was not given. It could not be given. My idea of defence is the proper protection of the shores of this country. No Canadian, no member of this house should be allowed to go outside this country and say that it is impossible to fight to repel an invader who is bold enough to come here. The enemy who dares to attack Canada can be repelled only if we have an army here. Otherwise we shall not be able to repel an army which is well-equipped. You cannot do that with your fists, even if you are a champion prize-fighter. We must have a trained and well-equipped army.
The figures we have been given lead us to believe that this country is not defended as it should be. Unless we have some more information about it, I will not cease to insist upon having proper defence in Canada in order to protect our people, our country and our homes. On March 3 the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) stated in a broadcast that our enemies had their eyes set on our country. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) said the same thing on March 6 in Toronto; he stated that we were exposed to attacks from the enemy. On March 9 the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) stated in the house here that it would be a miracle if we won this war. On March 13 the Minister of Justice warned us that the nazis eye Canada. Captain Maurice Burke, at the conference of the association of children's aid societies, said "it cannot happen here" is held too prevalently. He said it was undermining belief reflected among men and women all over Canada. We are not concerned about that!
What did the Prime Minister of Australia do? On March 14, Mr. Curtin made a stirring appeal. He said that his country was the last bastion between the west coast of America and the Japanese. The Toronto Telegram of March 25 said that the U-boats may try raiding the St. Lawrence in the summer. I made reference to this dispatch not long ago, but now I hold in my hand the page from the Evening Telegram of March 25. The interview in question covers a whole column. It is headed:
Three services defending maritimes ready for visits by Hun craft, is assurance.

War Appropriation
That was what was said by Vice-Admiral P. W. Nelles, chief of the naval staff and Rear-Admiral G. C. Jones, in command at Halifax. Then here is a report in the New York Times of April 6 of this year, not so long ago:
Some ports lag in preparations against raid peril.
Few coastal centres ready, but most are found ahead in some precautions.
Many cities lack sirens.
Joint fire-fighting tools are not widespread and not many shelters are built.
That was on the first page of the New York Times. Then Mr. Godbout, the distinguished premier of Quebec, stated on February 20 that Quebec was in imminent peril of possible attacks. Then the Hon. Doctor Manion, former leader of the Conservative party, said on April 13 that A.R.P. is the duty of all. Here are the headlines:
National director declares every individual and municipality must act.
Coast work praised.
B.C. and maritimes "in splendid shape" he asserts after dominion-wide inspection trips.
That was on Monday, but the paper of Saturday contained a picture of the first siren that had been installed in Quebec city. A.R.P. work there apparently was not so good. I think the people do their best, but they have no protection whatever from the Department of National Defence. Here is what happened in Australia. The Citizen of March 27, 1942, contained this headline:
Australian troops return for defence of continent.
All imperial forces government intended to recall for home defence now safely back at stations.
The Anzacs were in every part of the world, and when the motherland was attacked they had to send an S.O.S. to the United States. Home defence for India was urged. Who would have believed a year ago that the Japs would have reached India now? The Burma road was considered safe, but now it is in the hands of the Japs. It is not enough to say that we never thought it would happen, and then make a glorious retreat. I will tell something else to the Minister of National Defence. He should not put in the heads of soldiers, whether they are going to enlist or whether they are already in the army, the idea of sacrifice. Sacrifice is for the civilian, but our soldiers should have in their heads, their hearts and their minds the idea, jiot of sacrifice but of victory. This should be the inspiration of all our soldiers, and it is the duty of the Minister of National Defence to guide them in that direction.
More and more men are being called to the colours all the time, but we see very few of them. Of the hundreds of thousands of
trained men that Canada has, there are only, according to the statement made by the minister the other day, 15,000 trainees at present in Canada to defend our shores.


James Layton Ralston: Nothing I said would give
the slightest ground for a statement like that.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then what were the 15,000
for?	.


James Layton Ralston: I said it was home defence members of the Canadian army. As a matter of fact, only 10,000 of them were in the units. About 5,000 were in the training centres and the depots. That has nothing to do with the other matter at all.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does the minister not consider the trainees as fully trained soldiers- young trainees like those sent to Hong Kong, without sufficient training, according to his own admission?


James Layton Ralston: I have not interrupted before, but I think it is about time for me to ask you, Mr. Chairman, to give your ruling as to whether or not the Hong Kong inquiry is to be the subject of debate in this house before the report is presented.


Thomas Vien: I have already called the attention of the hon. gentleman and of members of the committee to the fact that the Hong Kong incident cannot be discussed either in committee or in the house before the report of the commission has been received.


Jean-François Pouliot: On January 8, the Ottawa
Journal said, "Increase quota of men called," and on April 1, the Montreal Gazette said, "Call-up of B men for home army is under consideration by Ottawa."
Then, on April 2, the Montreal Gazette had an article headed "Ralston 'not wholly satisfied' with Pacific coast defences." This again has appeared in the press and, since it has not been denied, I presume it is a correct report of what the Minister of National Defence said at Nanaimo, British Columbia.


James Layton Ralston: I said it last night in the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: But I was not here, and so I am quoting from the press. I enjoy very much listening to the hon. minister, and when I hear him make a statement I never forget it.
This is worth underlining. On April 1 the Minister of National Defence was "not wholly satisfied" with Pacific coast defences, but the very next day, on April 2, his colleague, the Minister of National Defence for Air, who accompanied him, tried to correct the bad impression that had been left by the interview given by the Minister of National
War Appropriation

Defence, and this is what the minister for air said. I quote the headline-"Power reports coast defences much improved." They were improved overnight!
Further, to correct the impression that had been left by himself, the Minister of National Defence gave an interview, which is headed "Ralston impressed by competence of coastal defenders." He had not been impressed by the Pacific coast defence, but he was impressed by the coastal defenders, who were probably men from Temiscouata. They made a great impression on him.
Then, on April 2, as reported in the Citizen of April 3, the minister for air said, according to the headlines, "pilots not needed in Britain now-asserts so many overseas, no more wanted at present-foresees Canadian defence expansion." Then the Minister of National Defence again plunged into this matter of Pacific coast defence. At Winnipeg the Minister of National Defence gave another interview:
Ralston gives men warning on joining reserve army-may find themselves ordered to join up if they fail to do so voluntarily, defence minister says.
That was the heading of a Canadian Press dispatch from 'Winnipeg, dated April 6. The Minister of National Defence then went to Halifax to inspect our defences.
I have another clipping here, dated Victoria, B.C., April 1, headed: "May conscript men for reserve army-Ralston." That is what the Minister of National Defence said at Victoria, and he repeated this at Winnipeg on his way back to Ottawa.
Here is another clipping dated March 27, headed:
Married men of 30-35 may join reserve army, defence minister says-new order being issued permits those in these age categories to enlist. Previously recruits for reserve army had been limited to youths under 19 and men between 35 and 50 years. Colonel Ralston states it will cost nearly 600 millions to maintain army overseas in next fiscal year.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If the hon. member will permit a question to clear up a doubt in my mind, am I to understand that he does not entirely approve the Minister of National Defence?


Jean-François Pouliot: I hold the same views with regard to the Minister of National Defence as my hon. friend the member for Fraser Valley does.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then let me express mine for the rest of the evening.


Jean-François Pouliot: Since the minister does
not seem to know our views, I have to tell him what they are.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, I desire to ask a question of the minister.


Mr. ROEBUCK:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
a question of privilege.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman-


Thomas Vien: A question of privilege is in order at any time.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I want to call the attention of the hon. member for Temiscouata to something that he mentioned in the early part of his speech. He was denouncing racial intolerance in his rounded style, and of course he knows that I agree with him in any denunciation, no matter how vigorous it may be, of racial, religious or any other type of intolerance. The hon. member for Temiscouata spoke of some Jewish gentleman holding an officer's position in the province of Quebec and he asked: "What would be said were a similar condition to exist in the province of Ontario."


James Arthur Ross: What is the question
of privilege?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I think it is a question of privilege. At any rate it is one of indulgence, if not of privilege, and my hon. friend across the aisle waived his right to proceed.


James Arthur Ross: The Chairman said I must.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I am not saying that you must.


Thomas Vien: The Chairman must
consider the facts as he sees them. The hon. member for Souris sat down, I understand to allow the hon. member for Trinity to proceed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Only after the hon. member for Trinity had said that he was rising to a question of privilege. We want to know what the question of privilege is. The hon. member for Souris did not waive his right to allow the hon. member for Trinity to make a speech.


Thomas Vien: I understand that the
remarks which the hon. member for Trinity is proceeding to make are of the nature of a question of privilege in respect to the remarks that have been made pertaining to racial prejudice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But he
must state what his question of privilege is.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: It is with respect to my own province, Mr. Chairman, and with respect to my own constituency. My hon. friend intimated that there would be objection to

War Appropriation
a Jewish officer in the army in my province, and I think I am right in claiming privilege in order to set that right. There is where the privilege lies.
I want to point out to this committee that there are at least two Jewish officers from Ontario whom I can name, because they are in public life. One is, now, Captain Croll, from the provincial legislature; and the other is Lieutenant Factor, from this house. I want to state emphatically that I have never heard in Ontario or in the city of Toronto any objection based on those facts.
I do not want to claim for my Ontario compatriots greater virtue than they possess. I like to give them more credit, perhaps, than is their due, rather than less; I like to err on the side of too much rather than too little credit.
It is true that we have classes in Ontario. I do not doubt that Catholics like Catholics better than they like Protestants; that Protestants perhaps like Protestants better than they like Catholics, and the two may like themselves better than they like the Jews; Jews may like themselves better than they do some other class. That is natural. But I think it should not go abroad that there is any distinction in the position of officers in the army, as between these various classes of religion or race. I am satisfied that whatever intolerance you may meet with from individuals-and sometimes things occur in organizations such as the army which are regrettable; I have heard of them-the great masses of the people of our province would disapprove in the strongest terms any distinction being made as between the members of these classes. Our people are prepared to accord to Jew and Gentile, Protestant and Catholic alike, the credit which is coming to them for their ability and service, and the promotion 'which they may win in the army or anywhere else, quite irrespective of racial prejudice. I am sure that the hon. member for Temiseouata will be glad to hear me say that, and I hope that he will agree with me.


James Arthur Ross: I appreciate all that has been said by the hon. member for Trinity. We have listened to my good friend the hon. member for Temiseouata for two periods of forty minutes within a period of an hour and a half this evening, and I confess I think that in some respects he did his people an injustice. Many times in this chamber I have refrained from saying something which might foster racial misunderstanding in this country. He has given the results of quotas filled and percentages by provinces, and I believe that in so doing he placed the actual facts in a false
light, because quotas are not based on a population or per capita basis in this country; I think that is true. I have here a return given on December 31, 1941, on a percentage basis of voluntary enlistments for the active army, the air force and the navy. The percentages by provinces are as follows:
Per cent
Alberta	 5-0
Saskatchewan	 3-7
Manitoba	 5-7
Ontario	 4'6
Quebec	* [DOT][DOT][DOT] 2-3
British Columbia	 5'7
New Brunswick	 5-4
Nova Scotia	 6'0
I believe that those figures are based on the actual numbers who have volunteered for service in all of the armed forces. I listened some time ago to an explanation by the Minister of National Defence for Air of how these quotas were set up. I am satisfied that they are not set up on a per capita basis or according to the population of the various districts or provinces. Would the Minister of National Defence now explain just how those quotas are established? I believe he will say that they are not established according to population, and he might give us an explanation as to the basis upon which they are set up. I believe the public throughout the dominion would welcome this information at the present time.


James Layton Ralston: I may say to my hon. friend that I was asked -the same question last evening, and I stated ait that time the general principles on which the quotas were based. They are also set out in a return which must be somewhere near the return from which my hon. friend has quoted.


James Arthur Ross: They are not based on population.


James Layton Ralston: They are based on population and on activity in the particular district in connection with the active and non-permanent militia, and on recruiting records.


Mr. McCANN:: The hon. member for
Temiseouata has run the gamut of the most imaginative and exhaustive catechism which one can conceive of, but he has left one or two questions on which I should like a little enlightenment, and to which he did not refer.
One has to do with a call which is being made in military district No. 3. It appears that men from twenty-one to thirty years of age are being called there for military service, whereas in other military districts more thickly populated the call is for men from twenty-one to twenty-five. I can understand that probably the reason for that is that the quota
War Appropriation

in some of these districts would not be filled if the age limitation were not broadened to some extent. But there has been what is, I think, a legitimate complaint on the part of a number of men in the age groups from twenty-seven to thirty years who have been married since July, 1940, and who are now raising young families, but who for military purposes are not regarded as married, that they should be called from a particular district when young unmarried men of the same ages in other districts are not called. That, I think, is a reasonable complaint. I have had a large number of protestations in that particular regard.
Another matter, entirely different, on which I wish to say a few words has to do with the medical services of the armed forces. This afternoon, when the hon. member for Parkdale was speaking, he had something to say with reference to the rehabilitation of men in the armed services who suffered from certain disabilities. He made particular reference to those who suffered from hernia, and he gave it as his personal opinion that such men could not be rehabilitated, or at least that they were not being rehabilitated, and that if they were going to be operated on, it would be necessary for them to have expert surgical intervention. If I understood the minister correctly, he stated that that was the opinion of the medical staff. Am I right?


James Layton Ralston: I believe the Minister of Pensions and National Health said that. I do not think I did.


James Joseph McCann: I must take exception to his statement. I do not concur in that opinion.


James Layton Ralston: I think the only intervention I made in that connection was to ask the hon. member's opinion with regard to double hernia, whether that could be cured. I do not think I expressed that opinion on behalf of the officers of the department.


James Joseph McCann: That observation with
reference to double hernia was made, if my memory serves me aright, subsequently to the other observation. I say that I do not concur in that opinion, and while the hon. member for Parkdale is generally regarded as having been one of Canada's best surgeons, and he made a report on the war services for the war of 1914-18, I feel that he does not express the modern opinion of the medical and surgical fraternity in Canada when he makes a statement to that effect. There is no country in the world that has higher standards of medical services and medical education than we have in Canada. That is pretty generally accepted, and the proof of that is that of our hospitals, 
whether they be large institutions or the smaller ones in the smaller industrial communities, a great number have been given the approval of the American hospital association. That is perhaps the last word of commendation there is on this continent.
I want to revert to what I was speaking about with reference to what the hon. member for Parkdale said, having to do with operations for hernia. Every day from one end of this country to the other that operation is being performed by thousands of young Canadian surgeons who are rehabilitating men back into our industrial and agricultural life. That is proof that it can be done equally well by the medical services in our armed forces, because the medical services in the forces are exactly the same men, with very few exceptions, who had been in civil practice prior to the war. Having said something to the effect that our standard of proficiency, both in our institutions and as regards our medical and surgical men, ranks with the highest in any country in the world, it appears to me that when that service is translated into the armed forces, whether that be in the army, the navy or the air force, we have a let-down. There is a drop in that standard and those very same men who have been in civilian life practising are spoken of disparagingly and are as not as well regarded as they were in civil practice.
We have three medical services, one for the armed forces, one for the navy and one for the air force. I am of opinion that the three services are not necessary. There is duplication of service; there is duplication of expense ia connection with hospitalization. However, I am not going to labour that point. That, as a matter of policy, has been established and this would be the wrong time to change it. I did make suggestions along that line at the beginning of the war and they were not accepted. The three services have now been established and I am of opinion that perhaps it would be a serious interruption in our medical services if the policy were changed at this time. Not only is it expensive from the point of view of dollars and cents, but it is a very expensive service from the point of view of our man-power. Already to date about 2,000 medical men have been taken from the civilian services and put into the armed forces, all of them on a voluntary basis, men who rank among the very highest in the medical profession in Canada. Within the last few days a call has gone out from the medical staff asking for another 600 men. I am sure there will be a call very soon, if our forces are to be augmented, for more medical men for the navy and the air force. It is estimated that

War Appropriation
in all it will take another 800 men. That being the case, it would mean 2,800 men in the medical services.
We have about 11,000 medical men in Canada for a population of 111,000,000. These men are being asked to enlist. Our medical men are troubled. They are asking themselves whether they could perform a greater service by going into some of the medical services in the armed forces or by staying at home and continuing in their civil practice. There are communities in Canada, not in the cities I will admit, where medical men have to service as many as from four to five thousand people. Then there is the fact that we have in industry in this country approximately 700,000 people. If our industrial production is to be what we would have it; if it is as important as we are led to believe, then the men in industrial and agricultural life in Canada are equally entitled to medical service with those in the armed forces. Therefore it becomes a question whether these men should enlist in the armed services, or should remain at home and carry on their civilian duties.
I had something to say with reference to a let-down. The standard does not appear to be as high as in civil life. There must be some reason for that, and the only reason I can see is that there is poor distribution of the men who are in the service. There could be a better allocation of the work which the medical men have to carry on. We believe that every man in the armed forces when ill should have the advantage of the best and most skilled medical and surgical treatment and should be treated just as well as if he were a civilian. I sometimes wonder if the men are given that treatment, if they are given all the protection which the medical services can give them, or if some of the regulations or the concepts of those who are on the permanent staff are as up-to-date as they should be.
May I refer to two or three particular matters in regard to which I have some doubt as to whether or not they are being carried into effect; and I can. assure the minister that, with reference to some of them, I think our policy should be to carry out certain preventive measures. Let me refer particularly to the Wassermann test. According to my understanding, that is a matter of choice to those who are in the services, whether or not they shall be given that test. In my judgment the Wassermann test should be given every man who goes into the armed services. It should be given to him also upon discharge from the army. Let me call
this very interesting information to the attention of the committee. The number of syphilis cases reported in Ontario last year showed an increase of 66 per cent over the 1940. We medical men understand-


James Layton Ralston: That is in Ontario.


James Joseph McCann: Yes.	.


James Layton Ralston: Not in the army.


James Joseph McCann: No, not in the army. This is, in my judgment, a serious matter. If we had a 66 per cent increase in the number of cases of syphilis in Ontario in 1941 and a proportionate increase during 1940, then since the war started there has been a marked increase. It is generally regarded that in war time there is likely to be an increase in these social diseases; that is taken for granted. One can readily imagine the reasons. But knowing the facts as we do, our medical services in the armed forces should take every precaution that these men are protected both by preventive measures and by good social measures from contracting the disease, or, if they have contracted it, it should be diagnosed by means of the Wassermann test, and they can undergo treatment while in the army without losing any appreciable time.
All our armed services in all branches should be given protection against diphtheria. That is a very simple matter. A great number of the younger men in the forces have been protected by inoculation earlier in life. In Ontario we are proud that diphtheria has been almost entirely eradicated. That is due to the fact that the practice of toxoiding has been carried into effect. In England they had 63,000 cases of diphtheria last year. We are sending over 150,000 young men to England where diphtheria is prevalent and where they are not given the protection which they could be and should be given before they leave this country.
There is another matter along the same lines which I should like to mention. Every man in the armed forces should be typed as to his blood. That could easily be recorded on his identification disc. The way that would work out is this. If a man meets with a serious accident or has a serious illness, it may be necessary to give him a blood transfusion. He can be given a blood transfusion successfully only by being given blood of his own type. If he is brought to an operating room, if he has fallen from an aeroplane or has been hit by a truck or a tank and is in a desperate condition, that is no time to type his blood; but if you have his disc there and it shows he is type No. 2, it will not take

War Appropriation

long to have blood donors at the hospital who will give a transfusion and thus probably save his life.
With reference to typhoid and tetanus I believe the troops are being given inoculation and preventive injections which will fortify them against these diseases.
I make these suggestions to the department because I think these men are entitled to the very best service which can possibly be given them. If they were in civilian life they could of their own free will go and have these services, or if they were being brought up in ordinary family life they would likely be provided with them by their parents or at the schools which they attend.
With reference to the men in the medical services I think some of the reasons why they are not generally regarded as of the same standard as in civil medical work is the fact that there is not the allowance made for them to express their own individuality; the regulations are not flexible enough with regard to letting a man use his own judgment in a number of cases.
There is bound to be in this country a shortage of medical men. The government has recognized that by the policy it has adopted of assisting young men who are studying medicine to secure their education. The government is to be commended for its foresight and good judgment in adopting that policy. They recognize that thfere is likely to be a shortage. I suggest that that shortage in some instances could be overcome by utilizing the services of women both as X-ray technicians and as workers in laboratories. There are many women who have taken courses in these lines of medical service, and they could supplant a number of medical doctors who are urgently needed for other lines of work.
I respectfully bring these suggestions to the minister's attention, not that I expect an answer from him now, but that he may pass them on to his permanent medical staff for their consideration. What I am interested in is by no means an attack on persons, but rather upon system and policy. I think the policy with reference to the medical services in all our forces can be brought up to date and assurance given to the men in all the services and to their people that they will get the very best medical and surgical attention it is possible to give them.


James Layton Ralston: I want to thank the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) for his very constructive comments in connection with the medical services of the department. As he anticipates, I do not feel capable of following him. in the various technical

matters that he has brought up. Dealing first with his suggestion with regard to the Wasser-mann test, as he knows the subcommittee of the war expenditures committee made a recommendation regarding that matter about the end of last year. All I can say is that there does seem to be some difference of opinion among technical men about the adoption of it as a routine matter. I myself have had a number of discussions about it, and the adjutant general is I know, taking it up again. A report at this time would have to indicate that the test had not been adopted as routine in connection with the medical services for certain reasons which were given before the special committee last spring when the officers of the medical services were before them, but it is again receiving active consideration from the officers of the department. I am not sure whether my hon. friend was a member of that committee.
With regard to diphtheria treatment I did not notice anything in the report. I do not think that matter was discussed before the committee to which I refer; at least no report was made on it, but I have noted what my hon. friend said.
With regard to the typing of blood, even to a layman it sounds like absolute common sense that a man's blood should be typed at a time when it is easy to do it, and the simple matter of having it registered on his identification disc seems to make a complete chain of procedure in any case of emergency.
The point about the distribution of medical men has of course been forcibly brought home to me in connection with the proposals put forward for the assistance of medical students. It was then one came to realize just what my hon. friend says, that at least there are not going to be too many medical men in Canada, and probably there is going to be a shortage. The matter of distribution has received and is receiving attention, or perhaps I should say the matter of redistribution, as far as the medical services themselves are concerned. We realize that we can increase the supply of medical men not only by getting more into the service but by perhaps readjusting the services and duties of those we have, and that is being done.
At the same time we have in mind some plans with regard to helping to solve the problem which my hon. friend mentions, namely the problem which faces a great many medical men as to where their duty really lies and where they can be of greatest service to the community. In view of the fact that the directorate of national selective service has been set up, I have taken the position-I think this is the first time I have stated it

War Appropriation
publicly, but I think it is absolutely sound- that we in the army ^are, if I may put it crudely, simply the customers for a certain supply of technical personnel. That is not confined to medical men alone; it has to do with engineers, with some chemists and with some scientists. This directorate of national selective service, which has under it the bureau of wartime technical personnel, is able in the first place to state where the supply is, because it would have full records with regard to that matter-that is, the supply of medical men as well as the supply of other technical personnel-and at the same time it is able to receive requisitions from the army, navy, air force and any other branch of the service that needs technical men, and is able to make a distribution and to give advice which it is impossible for one particular service to give to these medical men. They know what the supply is; they know what the demand is, and those two can be put together. That bureau, it seems to me, is the place where the medical men should be assisted to solve their problem in connection with their duty to their community. I have already communicated that view to the president of -one university, in regard to a conference which is to be held here very soon with respect to another technical profession. I have said that I did not think it was the place of the army to attempt to do that, but rather that we should present our requisitions to the director of national selective service and ask him to advise us in the light of the supply and demand.
One point, the one with which my hon. friend began, is new to me; that is, with regard to the calling up of a certain higher age group in military district No. 3, compared with the other districts. That, of course, comes under national war services. I cannot explain to my hon. friend why men of the group from twenty-one to thirty should be called up in military district No. 3, while the group from twenty-one to twenty-five are called up in the other districts. Probably the reason he gives is the correct one, namely that a shortage has developed in the lower age groups in the particular district. I can only say to him that I will bring the matter to the attention of my colleague the Minister of National War Services. As I explained to the committee last night, I ask for a certain number of men; I do not ask for them by ages, and he supplies the number of men by issuing a proclamation calling up whatever age group may be necessary.


James Joseph McCann: The anomaly of the situation is that the reason why they are calling up men of the group from twenty-one to thirty
in military district No. 3 is that recruiting has been so successful that there is a shortage of younger men there. That rather reacts against them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know in my district we have had a large number of married men over twenty-five years of age called up.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member for Temiscouata mentioned several points. I am sure he will not expect me to go at length into a speech which rambled over a great deal of territory, but I want to refer to one or two salient points. I am not sure that I shall convince him with regard to the good disposition of the Department of National Defence toward French-Canadians. I can say, however, that I would hope to be able to convince the committee and the country.
First let me refer to the individual case to which he referred; that is, the case of the young man who was granted leave of absence for six months. The committee will remember that yesterday I indicated that the application was recommended by the national war service board. It was forwarded to the district officer commanding of military district No. 5, who recommended it; it was forwarded to headquarters, and headquarters approved it. That was all in order. But the regiment to which the young man belonged moved w7est, and the young man himself moved with the regiment. The district staff officer communicated by telephone with the district staff officer on the west coast, and he stated that the officer in command of the regiment advised him-that is, the western staff officer -that at the time notification to leave was received the result of a medical board was pending. Instead of transferring the man to No. 5 district depot, which is the district depot at- Quebec, they took him with the regiment to Nanaimo, notwithstanding the board that was pending. My hon. friend may know the officer commanding the regiment. After arrival at Nanaimo, during the confusion of getting settled the matter of the medical board was overlooked. It came to notice a few days later, and at some later time the medical board was held. I do not know whether my hon. friend will be relieved or otherwise to leam that a telegram has been received from the general officer commanding in chief, Pacific command, advising that this young man is being discharged, category E, and that no action was necessary on the question of leave. That was the result of two long distance telephone conferences with the west coast.
War Appropriation

My hon. friend referred to the matter of letters to soldiers. I can only say that I will take up that point. The hon. gentleman has sent me three envelopes. I can assure him- though I think he knows it without my assuring him-that there is no intention in the world to keep these men away from communication %vith their homes or to deprive them of their right to receive mail, the same as anyone else. There may have been carelessness; it may not have been realized that these young men were in these camps; apparently they were away by the time the letters arrived. I agree that there should be some proper system of forwarding mail; I am sure there is such a system in force, and I will see that these matters are looked into.
Then the hon. gentleman referred to my humble effort on the radio, and said something to the effect that I said I had the responsibility and then said that someone else, the people who actually had the responsibility, would give the facts. What I said was that I had the responsibility for the department, but that I would ask the people of this country to listen to the men who actually did the work. That is what I hope will be done in the course of the next few Sunday evenings.
I want to say a word to the committee with reference to what the department has done and is doing in regard to the matter of seeing to it that French-Canadian representation is properly maintained, and I make no apology at all for it. The hon. member for Trinity said something to the effect that race should not play any part in connection with military appointments. I agree with him; that is to say, that efficiency must not suffer. At the same time, however, I say, as I have said previously in this house, that I think it is a matter of national responsibility that we see to it that as far as possible, in connection with appointments in the army and in connection with commands, proper representation is maintained with respect to our French-Canadian fellow citizens. I want to say to my hon. friend that whether he believes it or not, if there has been any libelling or slandering done, as he complains, it has not been done by the Department of National Defence.
I want to tell him that I think the most thorough measures have been inaugurated in order to see to it that every possible encouragement, assistance and support is given to French-Canadians who come into the army and give their services. I want to pay tribute to the men who have come in and to the officers who have helped in that respect. It 
just happens that two of the three staff officers who are sitting before me to-night are bilingual. That only just happens. At the same time there are at national defence headquarters at the present time nearly fifty FVench-Canadian officers.
Let me say to my hon. friend that in connection with the Department of National Defence we have taken measures which we thought were appropriate and useful in order to make sure that French-Canadian representation was properly maintained. My hon. friend referred to a speech which was made by the late Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe some time ago in that connection. I want to bring to the attention of the committee two or three of the measures which have been taken and which we think have been of assistance in this respect.
We have organized a bilingual junior leaders school at Megantie, Quebec. The total capacity of this school is set at 210. The quota which has been provided for French Canadians at that school is beyond anything that has been supplied. I am not saying anything against the fact that the full quota has not been supplied; I only want to say that the quota has been just as generous as it could be in order to ensure that plenty of opportunities were given for instruction. This school was organized for the purpose of teaching English-speaking and French-speaking candidates the principles of leadership and enabling them to overcome any language handicap they might have.
With regard to training centres we have seen to it that there' are French-speaking instructional staffs at the training centres in eastern Ontario and in Quebec. I think the proportion of these instructors is fully up to the number of men in the training centres. In the officers' training centre the proportion of French-speaking instructors is even higher.
My hon. friend referred to mobilization and contended that there had not been proper representation. Let me say to him that in the army programme for the present year there is provision for the formation of the following French-speaking units:
One regiment medium artillery
One engineer battalion
Five field batteries
One search-light battery
Five infantry battalions
One R.C.A.S.C. unit
One field ambulance
One general hospital
One provost company
One Canadian forestry corps company.
In addition, there is a bilingual infantry battalion, the Sherbrooke Fusiliers, being incorporated into the fourth armoured division.

War Appropriation
One French-speaking battalion will form part of the second army tank brigade. I have here a list of the French-speaking units in Canada and overseas, and a splendid representation it is.
With regard to French-Canadian officers, we have made special provision in order that young French-Canadians may have an opportunity of overcoming any handicap which may exist in connection with their entering the school at Brockville. There were not enough French-Canadian officers in the reserve units who were coming forward. It is well known that our French-Canadian friends were not interested in the militia units to the same extent as men in some of the other districts. This has been so for years. There is no complaint, and there is no reflection whatever because this is a matter of a man's own choice. The result was that French-Canadian officers were not too plentiful. With this in mind we have made special provision for French-Canadian officers by having civilian committees set up-this is all covered in a return which was brought down in the house- in different centres which select young men who are of the calibre that they consider would make good officers. They ask these young men if they would care to come in and take training. A special training school was set up in St. Jerome, Quebec, where these men received thirty days basic training. If they qualify and appear to justify promotion, they are given another month as cadets preparatory to their going to the Brockville school. We expect to have something like 100 men a month going from the St. Jerome school to Brockville. I had the pleasure of being in St. Jerome a week ago last Saturday, and I was extremely pleased with the way they are taking hold and the manner in which this system is working out. It was provided for the purpose of seeing that there was no discouragement of French-Canadian recruiting because of a lack of officers. It was established for the purpose of encouraging French-Canadian officers to feel that when they go to school at Brockville or somewhere else where the atmosphere is English, they will not be under a handicap.
But we do not leave it at that. At Brockville we have a full French-Canadian instructional staff; there is also an English staff, so that these young men are able to receive instruction in their own language and can talk over their problems with instructors who speak their own language. The director of trades training advises that there is an adequate bilingual instructional staff at the
army trades school in Hamilton. With regard to French-Canadian representation on Royal Military College courses, except for the junior war staff course, for which the majority of candidates have been selected overseas, it is the practice to allot vacancies up to one-third of the total attendance of these courses to French-Canadian officers.
I may say with regard to the officers training centre at Brockville that the objective toward which we are working is to provide a quota of up to 125 French-speaking candidates in each month. With regard to staffs and command, the departmental selection committees are constantly-I can say this from personal knowledge-on the look-out for opportunities to recommend the appointment of French-Canadian officers, not only at national defence headquarters but at the appropriate district headquarters. As a matter of fact, I have a complete list of the French-Canadian officers who are appointed at headquarters.
In addition, I have in my hand a list of probably fifty training manuals, pamphlets, regulations and instructional books of different kinds of which French translations have been made by a special French translation bureau which we have at headquarters. I say this because I think it should be said in justice to the officers of the department. I do not think anything from the point of view of our national life is given more careful consideration than this matter of seeing to it that the difficulties which are bound to be found by French Canadians coming into what is predominantly an English army are overcome. I can quite understand that it would be the same for those of us who are English if we had to go into an army which was predominantly French. We would find some difficulty and sometimes would feel a bit lonesome. We would like more than anything else to have an opportunity to talk over our problems with someone of our own race. That is exactly the situation in which officers on national defence try to put themselves in an endeavour to help our fellow French Canadians in their desire to assist in the war.
I mention these matters in detail in order to indicate to the committee that the matter is one which has not escaped our attention by any means. My hon. friend made some remarks about publicity in the United States. He speaks of the poor publicity which is given. There again we endeavour to see to it that there is a proper representation of French Canadians in connection with publicity. At the present moment at national defence headquarters there are three French-speaking men
War Appropriation

under the director of public relations. In military district No. 4 there is one in charge of publicity; in military district No. 5 there is one in charge of publicity, and in military district No. 4 there is also a bilingual photographer. In addition to that, overseas there is a French-Canadian officer at Canadian military headquarters. These are in addition to the several French Canadians occupying editorial positions in the department of public relations in Ottawa. Then in Montreal there is a French-Canadian gentleman who represents the department of public relations. I mention this to show that publicity is done in French as well as in English. We endeavour to see that proper representation is given. I do not want it to go out from this committee that there is discrimination of any kind. The simple fact is that there are no better friends of our French-Canadian compatriots, our fellow Canadians, than the officers at national
defence headquarters, and it is constantly our endeavour to see to it that their effort in connection with this war is recognized, appreciated, encouraged and supported.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I asked the minister a question this afternoon with reference to an accident that occurred during a parade in Toronto, and the minister said that the only way in which anything could be done for the lady who was injured was by way of compassionate allowance. I will give the minister the lady's name. It is Mrs. Nellie Burke, 175 McPherson avenue, Toronto. I would ask the minister to look into the case and see if a compassionate allowance cannot be granted to this lady.
Progress reported.


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