Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a statement to this house in the course of which he read a statement from Hon. Leighton McCarthy in which these words occurred:

Mr. Coldwell says: "He (Mr. McCarthy) is still a director and vice-president of the parent company, the Aluminum Company of the United States."
Mr. McCarthy's answer was:
Mr. McCarthy is not now nor has he ever been a director or vice-president or officer of the Aluminum Company of America.
When I made the statement that he was a director and vice-president of the parent company I miscalled the parent company. I wish to lay on the table of this house an application made by Aluminium Limited to the Montreal Stock Exchange on December 16,	1942, and adopted by the governing
committee on December 19,	1942, which
showed that the Aluminum Company of Canada is a fully-owned subsidiary of the said Aluminium Company, and that the Honourable Leighton McCarthy, K.C., is a vice-president and director of the parent company, Aluminium Limited. I want to put that on the record and to indicate that I shall have something further to say as to the Prime Minister's statement and Mr. McCarthy's statement, when the Prime Minister is in his seat. Yesterday the house and the country were deliberately misled by a concealment of truth. At the moment I wish to absolve the Prime Minister, but someone was concealing the truth.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has stated that there was a deliberate concealment of truth. Does the hon. member mean that such deliberate concealment of truth was by the Prime Minister?


Major James William Coldwell: No, Mr. Speaker; I said it was not by the Prime Minister. I said there was a deliberate concealment of truth and that I shall have something more to say about it when the Prime Minister is here. I want to table this document.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Well, let us have the truth; it will hurt nobody.



STANDING COMMITTEES


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved:: That the name of Mr. Fontaine (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot) replace that of Mr. Lafon-taine (Megantic-Frontenac) on standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, several days
ago the house, on motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) seconded by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), unanimously passed a resolution of congratulations to the united forces in North Africa on the splendid victory they had achieved in that part of the war area. There has been received from General Eisenhower a reply to the congratulatory message sent to him, which I should like to read to the house. I may add that .this was addressed to the Prime Minister as Secretary of State for External Affairs:
On behalf of the forces of the united nations under my command I thank the Prime Minister and members of the House of Commons of Canada for their generous resolution of congratulation. Inspired by such sentiments we shall go forward with determination until the allies have achieved final victory.



STANDING ORDERS


Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth) moved:: That the first report of standing committee on standing orders, presented on May 14, be now concurred in.
He said: Yesterday the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) raised some question in regard to this report. This was his first statement:
The committee has not given the house adequate reasons why these funds, which are paid legally under the rules of the house, should be refunded to the company.
The committee on standing orders dealt with this point, and we did. find sufficient reason for making the refund. Last year the committee on standing orders dealt with the bill on July 1, 1942. The bill received second reading on July 22, was considered in the committee on banking and commerce on July 28, and on the same day was reported back to the house without amendment. It was standing on the order paper for consideration by committee of the whole when adjournment took place in January, 1943.
Perhaps I should at this point read the reference in Votes and Proceedings of Friday, May 14:
Your committee has considered an order of the house dated April 2, 1943, viz:
That the said committee be instructed to consider the advisability of exempting the
petitioners for the introduction of Bill No. 54 (letter C of the Senate), "An act to incorporate Canadian Alliance Insurance Company", from the capital stock charge and other charges levied during the last session of parliament, required by the rules of the house, said charges having been paid last session on Bill No. 116 (letter A-4 of the Senate), "An act to incorporate Canadian Alliance Insurance Company" that had received second reading and that stood for consideration by the committee of the whole when prorogation took place in January, 1943".
Your committee has ascertained that $700 was paid last session to the House of Commons by the petitioners, viz., $400 as a charge on the proposed capital stock, and $300 as penalty charges consequent upon the late presentation of the petition in the House of Commons.
Through circumstances beyond their control, the petitioners did not succeed last session in obtaining the act they desired, with the result that they were obliged to renew their application at the present session.
In view of these facts, your committee recommends that the petitioner be exempt from payment of the $700 levied last session, and that that amount be apportioned as follows:
Four hundred dollars to be applied to cover the capital stock charge required on the bill introduced at the present session, viz. Bill No. 54 (letter C of the Senate).
Three hundred dollars to be refunded to Mr. Jean Genest, K.C., of Ottawa, parliamentary agent for the petitioners.
The hon. member also said:
The strange part of it is they suggest in this report that the penalty of $300 should be repaid not to the company but to a private individual.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Read it all.


William Henry Golding: In this instance the private individual in question was acting as parliamentary agent. He was the man who paid in the fees and under the rules it is to him the fees should be returned. I do not think I need read the rule governing that point.
Perhaps the hon. member did not understand the motion throughly when he said the whole fee was to be returned. It was, in a sense; but the $400 having been paid last year on the capital stock, and the bill having failed to go through, we thought it only fair and reasonable that they should be allowed to apply that on this year's bill.
We did give careful consideration to the matter. I can assure the house that in this instance we have tried to do unto the other fellow exactly what we should like to have done to ourselves in similar circumstances.
Reading the hon. member's observations one would almost gather that the standing orders committee had been guilty of some new departure. With that in mind I had the clerk look up the records, and I should like to read the instances in which refunds have been

Standing Ordert
made in the last ten years. They are as follows:
Session	Bill	Amount
1032-33	Nipissing Central Railway
Company	 $200
1934	American Dairy Supply Company	 200
1934	Firth Brearley Stainless Steel
Syndicate Limited	 202
1934	The Bishop of the Arctic	2001938	Central Finance Corporation..	1,4001939	Central Finance Corporation..	1,4001942	Sarto Desnoyers-Divorce	100
I think the hon. member also raised the point in conversation with me, that under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act we would not be permitted to refund these fees unless by order of the house. In answer to that I say that if the house approves the recommendation of the committee, then an order of the house has actually been passed. There can be no difficulty about that.
So far as I know we have not tried to do anything wrong. Every member of the committee is interested in doing his duty. This is the decision of the committee and, as I have said, I hope the house will not be harsh in judging the actions of the committee, when we did try to do to the other fellow what we should like to have done to ourselves.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I have not looked up the rules of the house in regard to this matter, but I have consulted the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. If hon. members will look at section 34 they will observe at once that this is a special privilege accorded only under exceptional circumstances, and that refunds are never made except by order of the House of Commons. That is the general rule, not the exception. Section 34 reads:
Refunds of public moneys received in respect of proceedings before the Senate or the House of Commons, which are authorized by resolution of the senate or the House of Commons, respectively, or by the rules and standing orders of either house shall be notified by the proper officer of parliament to the minister and shall be paid by him out of the consolidated revenue fund.
That makes it quite clear that this is a very exceptional procedure, and that as a matter of right they should not be paid unless strong and substantial reasons are given.
I am aware of the golden rule. I am also aware of the fact that parliament has laid down rules and has established fees. The government has established fees for the incorporation of companies, and unless proper reasons are given for the refunding of any of those fees, they should go to the consolidated revenue fund of the country and stay there.

Yesterday I urged two reasons against this report. The first was as follows:
The committee has not given the house adequate reasons why these funds, which are paid legally under the rules of the house, should be refunded to the company.
What reasons are given? There is the old, time-worn, time-honoured suggestion that through circumstances beyond their control the petitioners did not succeed in obtaining the legislation. That is not a reason. I argued against the remission of the $300 to a private individual. The hon. member has referred to the rules of the house. I am not familiar with the rules of the house in this regard but I understand that they provide for the payment of these fees by the petitioner, whether it be a body corporate, an individual or a body of petitioners. But to refund the amount to a solicitor who may not be one of the, petitioners is, I submit, a departure from the rule, a departure from the practice at all events, and that part of the order at least should be altered.
Having made a protest on what I consider to be proper grounds, I take it that the responsibility goes to the Minister of Finance. The test is: whj' should the house remit a penalty which was imposed legally, and for the reasons alleged in the petition? I contended that no good ground had been asserted in the report of the committee. It now appears from the detailed statement given by the hon. member in his capacity as chairman of the committee

I presume he is speaking in that capacity-that these people not only were late in getting into the House of Commons, but that, because of the action of the government, consideration was not given to the bill after it had received second reading. That is not a ground for the remission of the penalty. In any event the $400 was a fee that should be paid, and the penalty of $300 was imposed for being late in the first instance.
The total amount of $700 has gone into the consolidated revenue fund and has formed part of the revenues of the country for the last year. They now seek to get it back. The officers of the crown and of parliament have expended their time on this matter without any compensation, and the consolidated revenue fund is to be out $700 to which it is legally entitled. They are to be saved $700 when they were derelict in their duty in the first place. I have made my protest and I do not propose to press the matter any further. I am going to leave

Standing Orders
it to the Minister of Finance, but I warn him and the house that this is just one more case of undue leniency.
It will be said that there are cases where people have been given back their fees for one reason or another. The fact is that most of these things go through without due consideration. Every case ought to be considered on its merits. If that is done I venture to say that there will be fewer remissions. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that this is not an instance in which the privilege ought to be exercised. If this penalty had not been imposed with all the sanction of law there might be something in the contention raised, but just to say that there are circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner who did not get all he wanted is no reason at all.
Mr. E. 0. BERTRAND (Prescott): As a member of the committee I think I am in duty bound to say a word, following the remarks of the hon. member for York-Sunbury in regard to this bill. The reason the Canadian Alliance Insurance company was penalized last year was that they were late. When the committee was sitting, their bill was considered, and the full fine was imposed.
It was a company and we did not have much sympathy with them because they were late. The hon. member for York-Sunbury now says that the old time-worn and honoured excuse has been given by the chairman of the committee, that due to exceptional circumstances the bill could not be dealt with during last session. The fact that this bill was not dealt with was not	the fault of the
company, it	was	because	of certain	circumstances which prevented the government from dealing	with	it. They	introduced	theirbill in time	this	year so	that they	werenot subject to any penalty. They were in order this year and they asked for a refund of the penalties which had been imposed last year. The hon. member has criticized the	recommendation that the
penalty be refunded to an individual. The only course open to the committee was to authorize the refund to an agent of the company. That is the whole story of this refund to the Canadian Alliance Insurance company.


William Henry Golding: When I referred to the clerk, I meant the clerk of the committee.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I cannot agree with the statement that when a report of a committee passes this house it becomes an order. Year after year reports ' are made by committees and adopted by this
house, but their recommendations are never put into effect. I have not all the facts before me, but I understand that this company appeared before the committee last year knowing that they were not within the time limit for presenting a bill. They knew that penalties totalling' $700 would have to be paid1 in any event. In my judgment if the committee saw fit last year to a&k for $700, that should still stand this year. I join with those who are protesting against this action.


Mr. G. A. McLEAN (Simcoe East):: I would not want the house to think that the committee made this recommendation without due consideration. The report of the committee in connection with this matter was unanimous. What has the hon. member for York-Sunbury suggested we should do? Last year this company petitioned for a private bill. They were late, and we amended the standing order in order to admit the- bill on condition that they .pay $300, which they did. Then the house wanted to adjourn on a certain day in July or August and we did not make available the half-hour or hour required to put the bill through.


Thomas Reid: The company took the chance.


George Alexander McLean: The hon. member says the company took the chance. When the standing committee met early in the session and said, after six weeks had elapsed, that they would amend the standing order to permit the bill to be entered but would charge a fee, surely the company had a right to expect that it would be dealt with. They come back this year and are willing to pay the fee of $400, but surely it would not be fair or equitable to charge them for being late last year when the house had not been able to deal with their bill. The committee considered this matter most carefully, as they did all other items in the report. The report was unanimous, and I feel sure that if hon. members will give this matter quiet consideration they will agree with the chairman of the committee. As- to the contention. that this money should not be -paid without another resolution, this is something that can be dealt with by another resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. H. GOLDING (HuromPerth) moved that the second report of standing committee on- standing orders, presented on May 14, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Foreign Forces

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like, to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. On March 31 of this year the Minister of Finance announced to the house that meat rationing would1 come into effect in Canada early in May. According to certain press dispatches the institution of this rationing plan has been delayed on account of the failure of officials to agree on all the details. Will the minister indicate to the house whether or not these details have been agreed upon, and when he intends to put the rationing plan into effect?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: The details have been agreed upon, and an announcement as to the date when meat rationing will come into effect will be made shortly, possibly to-day or to-morrow,, by the wartime prices and1 trade board'. I can say that it will be before the end of this month.



FOREIGN FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct two or three questions to the Minister of Justice, to whom I sent a copy of them just before the sitting opened, and if he has not yet had time to read or comprehend them I shall be glad if he will accept them as notice and perhaps answer to-morrow, because I realize that the answer might take some little time. These are the questions, and because they are of extraordinary importance I have not put them on the order paper. I hope I may have the consent of the house to put them now.
What is the position with respect to the claim or proposal that the United States has. exclusive jurisdiction within Canada to punish men of the armed forces of the United States for offences committed within Canada? Has that right been conceded by the government of Canada without qualifications or exceptions, or has the government of Canada reserved any rights? That refers to offences committed by United States nationals.
Is it a fact that the United States authorities vith respect to their military courts have been given concurrent jurisdiction with Canadian civil courts in any regard? That is in civil matters.
On what principle of international law is the claim of the United States based, and is the claim which the United States have made for such jurisdiction based upon any agreement between the two governments?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, I received the hon. member's notice just before I came into the house, and I was able to get from the department a copy of the case in the supreme court which contains all the material required to supply the hon. gentleman with the information sought.
The facts are that there was made on the 15th of April, 1941, an order, P.C. 2546, called the Foreign Forces Order, 1941.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Under what authority was that order made?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Under the authority of the War Measures Act. It was for the purpose of putting into force with respect to foreign forces stationed on Canadian soil with the consent of the Canadian government provisions similar to those which were adopted in 1933 in the British Commonwealth Visiting Forces Order. That order of the 15th of April, 1941, was modified on the 27th of July, 1942, by P.C. 6566. These orders have already been tabled with the other orders in the regular procedure of tabling the orders made under the War Measures Act. Subsequently, this foreign forces order was extended to the units of the United States forces stationed in Canada with the consent of the Canadian government by P.C. 5484 of the 26th of June, 1942. P.C. 5484 was amended on the 6th of April, 1943, by P,C. 2813. The visiting forces order had recognized in accordance with the teachings of the writers on international law that when a foreign force is stationed in the territory of another sovereign with the consent of that sovereign the members thereof are amenable to discipline by their commanding officers, but that did not extend to the charges or offences of murder, manslaughter cur rape. The consequence was that whenever there might be a charge of murder, manslaughter or rape, the commanding officers would have no authority whatsoever to interfere with the movements of the man accused because the order did not extend to those offences, and a commanding officer apprehending a man on a charge of murder, manslaughter or rape would have been committing an assault and the man would have been entitled to be freed on habeas corpus proceedings.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But it did not affect the authority of the Canadian jurisdiction?
:ilr. Golding.]

Coal Emergency
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	No, it did not, but
certain difficulties arose where there were offences committed, and the question was whether there was in one instance a proper charge of rape or a charge only of attempted rape. If it were a charge of rape the military authorities would have no jurisdiction! whatsoever, while if it were a charge of attempted rape they would have had jurisdiction under the visiting forces order. To remove the possible difficulties in that regard the exception of these three crimes was taken out of the foreign forces order in its application to the units of United States forces stationed in Canada for military purposes, and as the United States authorities claimed not only that they might exercise jurisdiction but that they had exclusive jurisdiction, basing their contention upon reputed writers on international law and upon decisions of their own supreme court, the Canadian government decided to refer to the Supreme- Court of Canada the question of determining to what extent they had jurisdiction.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In other
words we did not accept their thesis but referred the question to the courts?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	We did not accept
their thesis but referred the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine to what extent they might exercise jurisdiction and whether or not it was exclusive of the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts.
I hold in my hand, and will table so that it may be available to such hon. members as may wish to consult it, the printed case, which contains all the material with which the supreme court has to deal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does it
cover the orders in council?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, all the orders in council, those I have mentioned, and also P.C. 2931, being the order referring the question to the supreme court. On that reference the chief justice of the supreme court ordered that the attorneys-general of the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, be notified of the hearing of the argument on the said reference by sending to each of them by registered air mail on or before the 1st of May, 1943, notice of the hearing of said reference and a copy of the order, and that the case be set down for argument before the supreme court on the 4th of June, 1943.
I may add that several provincial attorneys-general have intimated their intention of appearing before the supreme court to contend that the admission of the armed forces of another nation into Canadian territory does not take away from them their privilege and responsibility with respect to the administration of justice. That matter will be determined by the supreme court.
I can only add that this was done because it was represented to us that the Supreme Court of the United States having held that our commanding officers would have exclusive jurisdiction over our men under their command in United States territory, we felt it would be only proper to give them the benefit of what our supreme court would decide as being international law on the subject. There had been some suggestion of making some treaty arrangement, but that would have required the consent of this parliament and of the congress of United States, and it was represented that so far as we were concerned this was not necessary because their supreme court had gone the whole way and had recognized that in the United States our commanding officers would have exclusive jurisdiction. But they had nothing more to offer to us than the decision of the supreme court as to what the state of their law was. It was felt that it would be proper reciprocity to have on these facts an opinion of our supreme court as to what the legal situation really is. As I understand it, this has to do with criminal jurisdiction and not with jurisdiction in civil matters.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Probably.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I will table the copy of this case, which contains all the material which is to be before the supreme court on the reference.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to thank the minister for the full explanation he has given, and to congratulate him upon the fact that, so far at all events, Canada has not surrendered any sovereign jurisdiction. A reference is probably the correct procedure. It did seem to me, as a former student-I will not say as a student-of international law that the United States government were asking a good deal. I am grateful for the opportunity of bringing the matter forward, and for the minister's reply.



EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY- MAN-POWER POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) announced to the
Coal Emergency

house issuance of a proclamation which declares a state of emergency with regard to the coal mining situation. I wish now to table copies of the order in council embodying a man-power policy with regard to the mining of coal.
There is little need of stressing the utmost importance of coal to our industrial and domestic life. Hon. members, I am sure, are thoroughly seized of the important part that this fuel plays, particularly during the present war. Coal for ships, for war industries including railroads, and for the maintenance of the health and welfare of the population, we must have.
I feel confident that, given the necessary man-power, the miners and operators of Canada's coal industry, coupled with our importations, will provide us with the coal we require to carry us through this grave emergency. However, it is necessary that extraordinary measures be taken to secure for the coal mines an adequate supply of workers.
It is estimated that for the fiscal year 1943-44 Canada will require about 41,500,000 tons of bituminous coal. Last fiscal year we used about 37,381,000 tons, of which 19,219,000 tons were imported from the United States and 18,162,000 tons were produced in the Dominion of Canada. With an increased consumption during the present year we must either raise our production, import more coal, or do both.
Our importations from the United States increased substantially in late years, from 13,518,556 tons in 1940-41 to about 20,000,000 tons in 1942-43. Owing to the United States needing more coal, there is no certainty that we can continue to increase our imports from that country. Therefore we must increase Canadian production from the 18,373,255 tons of last year, which, it will be noticed, is estimated to be slightly over our consumption. Our own production was increased by about one million tons in the two years from 1940-41 to 1942-43.
During the last fiscal year we imported nearly four and a half million tons of anthracite coal from the United States, about nine-tenths of our requirements in this regard. It is not certain that the United States can provide us with any larger amount of coal of this type during the present year, so that Canadian fuels will ha,ve to make up for the difference between imports and requirements.
I should like to stress the fact that the Canadian coal industry-workers and management-under the disabilities which are inevitable in Canadian war economy, has main-

tained a high level of production and has contributed substantially to our common war effort. The hope of further increases in production must rest largely upon the provision of additional workers to the industry.
In February of this year the total number of workers engaged in the coal mining industry was 25,089. As of April 29 of this year, unfilled vacancies reported by the coal mines totalled 2,329. The labour shortage each month during the winter was in like volume. At the end of April, 1,324 of the vacancies were in the maritime provinces and 995 on the prairies and in British Columbia.
In addition to the present mining capacity in the country, the government is seeking to find new sources of production and is helping in the financing of operations. New shafts are being opened in the northern area of. Alberta, some new stripping mines in Saskatchewan, and some additional operations in British Columbia and in Nova Scotia. This of course will require man-power in addition to the figures which I have already given.
I think the house will understand that labour shortages cannot be overcome by simply providing the number of men asked for, without regard to the individual's qualifications. It is estimated that seventy to eighty per cent of the present vacancies are for coal cutters, and1 the balance for haulage and surface workers. Cutting coal is a skilled trade., and coal miners cannot be made overnight. The provinces require two years' experience before issuing licences to miners. Therefore the main labour supply problem is to locate those who previously were engaged in the industry.
Provision of surface workers largely is dependent upon securing cutters; if cutters are not found, the work for additional surface workers does not exist. Therefore every effort must be made to find coal cutters. While a limited number can be provided through training courses, it is those with previous training and experience we must return to the mines.
The labour shortage at the moment arises in large part out of the urgent need for substantially increasing our production over last year.
Certain measures were taken last year to stabilize employment in coal mining. Undoubtedly these had a beneficial effect, but With the present situation facing us, earlier steps require to be strengthened. That is precisely the purpose of the present order in council.
Under arrangement with the armed forces, qualified miners in the forces here in Canada have been given the opportunity of applying for leave to return to their old jobs. This was

Coal Emergency
undertaken early last winter. About 1200 miners volunteered to return. The cases of others who have volunteered are being gone into at the present time. This is additional to the provision of the present order in council.
Also last winter some men were returned from west coast shipyards to the mines, but much more must be done along this line, other industries being brought in.
I should now like to recount briefly the provisions of the present order:
1.	Every employer, regardless of his industry, must advise his employees of the regulations, and he must assist in discovering whether any of his employees have hadi previous experience as coal mine workers.
2.	Every employee, regardless of his industry, who has had previous experience as a coal mine worker, must report that fact to his employer not later than Tuesday, May 25, 1943.
3.	A "coal mine worker" for these purposes is anyone who, since January 1, 1935, has worked under provincial certificate or licence in or around a coal mine, or who, since the same date, has been employed for a total of at least twenty-four months in the production of coal-with the exception, of course, of office workers and trade union officials.
4.	Every employer, not a coal mine operator, must report in w'riting to a selective service officer not later than Tuesday, June 1, 1943, full details on any of his employees who are ex-coal mine workers.
5.	Selective service officers are authorized to . require ex-coal mine workers to report for interview and to accept work at a coal mine.
6.	Selective service officers may require any man in any employment, if subject to mobilization regulations but rejected for military training, and certain others excused from military training, including conscientious objectors, to accept employment at a coal mine.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In a coal mine or at a coal mine?


Humphrey Mitchell: At a coal mine.
7.	No coal mine operator may terminate the services of any coal mine worker without written permission from a selective service officer.
8.	No coal mine worker may leave employment at a coal mine without written permission from a selective service officer.
These last two rules, of course, have been in effect for some time.
9.	Every ex-coal mine worker, returning to the industry under these regulations, will be paid wages at the established rate for the job at which he is placed; and the government
will pay wages of 40 cents an hour, eight hours a day and 48 hours a week, to any ex-coal mine worker required to leave his present employment under these provisions, but not placed immediately at coal mining.
10.	A board allowance of not more than $7.50 a week may be paid an ex-coal mine worker now returning to a coal mine, if required to live away from the residence of his dependents.
11.	Present and future coal mine workers will be granted postponement from military training to February 1, 1944, by virtue of their occupation. (This rule, too, has been effective for some months, to stabilize the industry.) A new and important rule, however, is that no coal mine worker will be accepted for voluntary enlistment in the armed forces of Canada, prior to February 1, 1944, except under permit to enlist from a selective service officer.
12.	No employer in Canada, except a coal mine operator, may solicit for employment or hire any ex-coal mine worker.
13.	Regardless of any dominion or provincial law, male persons at least sixteen years old may be employed as coal mine workers, and female persons at least eighteen years old may be employed as surface coal mine workers.
14.	War emergency training classes will be available for training men as coal mine workers.
The plans have been carefully worked out. The coal administrator and the chairman of the war emergency coal production board were both taken into consultation. The matter was brought before the national selective service advisory board, on which employers and workers are represented. Drafts also were discussed with the coal mining advisory committee, made up of employers and employees, and their views were secured.
The government is confident that the mining industry and the public will respond in the emergency. It will be observed that provision has been made to safeguard the rights of workers required to change their employment. We have to act in these matters in the light of the greater interest, namely, the interest of Canada's war effort and the national well-being.


Mr. MacNICOL:: How much coal was brought in from Great Britain?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have not the figures in front of me.

Coal Emergency


Gordon Graydon: Has the minister's
department full information in detail as to the number of coal workers, workers out of the coalfields, who have voluntarily enlisted since the war began, or who have gone into other types of occupation since that time?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would not say that we know where they are, but we know the number, which is approximately 7,000.


Gordon Graydon: That is, 7,000 divided between enlistments and those who have gone to other types of occupation?


Humphrey Mitchell: There are 3.000 in the armed forces and 4,000 in private industry. That is approximate. Account must be taken also of the 1,200.


Gordon Graydon: Do I understand the minister to say that men will be taken from the armed forces to the coalfields?


Humphrey Mitchell: They wall not be permitted to volunteer.


Mr. CHURCH:: The matters to which the minister has referred this afternoon were brought up a month ago and as recently as a week , ago, on May 10. Questions of mine as to making coal mining and distribution a national selective industry, as to federal bonuses and release of labour for coal, were made an order for return, one of the first by the minister's new parliamentary secretary; yet only yesterday an order in council was passed in regard' to coal, making it a national selective industiy, dealing with the same questions brought up in the house by me a month ago and a week ago. As a private member of the house I object to the way in which the business is being conducted along this line. Here are six motions with reference to coal which this house has had before it for a year and a half, and just yesterday an order in council was passed. Questions have been asked four times with reference to the 75 cents applying to Toronto, and over the heads of the ministers and of parliament we have this increase in Toronto again. If this is the way in which our business is to be conducted then the only thing the opposition can do is to bring up questions of this kind every time we go into supply.


Mr. JAQUES:: Has the government or the department considered the possibilities of the gold mines as centres for recruiting coal miners?


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend knew the difference between hardrock mining and soft-rock mining he would see the impractic-ablity of such a suggestion.


Norman Jaques: I have heard of it before.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member may have heard of it, but it is not practicable.


Norman Jaques: I believe the minister has told the house that they have been recruiting from the shipyards and from the active forces for men to mine coal, and I suggest that there are a great many thousands of men at present who are wasting both time and materials in mining an utterly useless product, namely gold, and to say that gold miners cannot be taken and put to work in coal mines-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. member cannot debate the minister's statement.


Norman Jaques: May I ask the minister if it is the government's intention in the future to look to the gold mines to recruit labour for this or other purposes?


Humphrey Mitchell: We will get workers where we can.


Mr. FULFORD:: Gan the Minister of Labour say whether the government contemplates importing coal from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? There must be a large number of empty bottoms coming back from Russia.


Humphrey Mitchell: I can assure my hon. friend that no one would be better pleased than I if we could import coal from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but in view of the shipping situation that would be a rather [DOT] difficult thing to do.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Any remarks I have to make with regard to fuel I will reserve for another occasion, but the question I wish to ask at the moment arises out of a telegram received from George Burt, director of the United Auto Workers Association. I sent the minister a copy of the telegram and I hope he received it. The telegram states that more than a score of Wallaceburg workers have been drawing unemployment insurance for eight weeks while local industries have been obtaining outside workers from selective service. It appears that industry has been asking for two hundred housewives. There is discrimination and the union intends to make a presentation to the national war labour board. They are asking the department for an immediate investigation pending their representations to

Privilege-Mr. Pouliot
the war labour board. Has the department knowledge of that situation? If so, what steps are being taken to remedy it?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of this question before I came into the house. I appreciate that. All I can say is that I will make inquiries and give an answer as soon as possible.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask a question of the government. I am not sure whether it should be directed to the Minister of Finance or to the Minister of Pensions and National Health. Noiv that supply for four months has been voted, has the government taken any steps to provide for the commencing of payment to certain widows of veterans of the last war of amounts as provided in item 205 on page 27 of this year's estimates?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): Legal advice was obtained in regard to the item now in the estimates, and we were advised that we could not make payments under it until this house had sanctioned the vote in question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the minister obtained an opinion from the Department of Justice in regard to the legality of payments to these widows? Has the Department of Justice given an opinion on that?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I can tell the hon. gentleman there are a good many women waiting for these payments, as I happen to know from my own experience.


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I point out that whenever interim supply is asked for the opposition always reserves the right to oppose any item; therefore the granting of interim supply does not carry with it the sanction of any particular item.



PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Minister of Justice whether the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has referred to him the legal point I raised yesterday with respect to parlia-72537-1754
mentary assistants; and, if so, what is the answer?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no application for an opinion by the Department of Justice on that question.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT

[Stage Direction]
REFERENCE TO STATEMENT IN l'aCTION CATHOLIQUE
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): I hold in my hand yesterday's issue of L'Action Catholique of Quebec, in which there appears a report of a meeting of the association or group called Le Bloc Populaire, somewhere in the vicinity of Quebec city; as a matter of fact I think this report covers two meetings. The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix) is reported as having said1:
(Translation) In connection with the billion-dollar gift, Mr. Lacroix said that Mr. Picard, the lion, member for Bellechasse, had undertaken to have it unanimously adopted with the help of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot). They have attained that result on the third reading. Mr Pouliot, he says, has attempted to camouflage his name under a division in order to ensure a more speedy adoption of the measure.
(Text) I know the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) very well; he is a good friend of mine, but I have not seen him since he made his speech early last week. I have not been afraid to cast my vote as I thought proper at any time, and I did so in this connection. Referring to the French Votes and Proceedings for May 6, at page 322, it will be seen that I voted for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) regarding the application of the noprofit theory of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group. The only other hon. members who voted for that amendment wrere Messrs. d'Aojou, Dorion, Lacombe and Roy. Then on May 10 on the second reading of the bill, two other opportunities were given hon. members to oppose the Mutual Aid bill. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) was supported by these hon. members: Messrs. Bertrand (Terrebonne), Cardin, d'Anjou, Dorion, Dubois, Lacombe, LaCroix (Quebec-Montmorency), Lizotte, Pouliot and Roy; the amendment moved, by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe), for the six months' hoist, was supported by these hon. members: Bertrand (Terrebonne), Cardin, d'Anjou, Dorion, Dubois, Lacombe, LaCroix (Quebec-Montmorency), Lizotte, Pouliot and Roy. I am very
War Appropriation
[Stage Direction]
sorry that the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) and: the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix) did not rote on either of those occasions.

[Stage Direction]
PROVISION FOB GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY-* INTERIM APPRORPIATION
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that a sum not exceeding $648,333,333.33 be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses or making any advances for loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending the thirty-first day of March, 1944, for the purposes and subject to the terms, conditions and limitations set out in the resolution presently on the orders of the day, to provide that sums not exceeding $3,890,000,000 be granted to His Majesty, and being one-sixth of the said amount of $3,890,000,000.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Air. POULIOT:: If I understand what is going on, this is a resolution to provide one-sixth of the military expenditures for the year. Who will audit those expenditures? There is an officer of the House of Commons, the auditor general, whose duty it is to check the expenditures of all departments. This officer originally was directly under the control of parliament, not only the House of Commons but also the Senate. What has happened? The duty of compiling the reports has been transferred from the office of the auditor general to the office of the comptroller of the treasury, which means that one of the prerogatives of members of parliament-and I use that expression in the widest sense as meaning members of the Senate and1 of the House of Commons-has been given to the Department of Finance. So that essential part of the work of the auditor general is no longer carried on by his office but by the comptroller of the treasury, an official of the treasury department. With the very best of good-will, we cannot approve of that. It means that some of the rights of parliament are transferred to a department which already is too large.
What has happened? In the first place there was a transfer of 125 employees from the office of the auditor general to the office of the comptroller of the treasury, to compile the reports previously compiled by the auditor general. First an establishment was made.

Then a treasury board minute was passed. There was some shifting of the staff, following which a pool was made of the transferables. An order in council was passed authorizing the transfer. Approximately 125 employees of the office of the auditor general were transferred to the branch of the comptroller of the treasury. The names of those employees appear in the Canada Gazette for the month of March. Following that the auditor general's branch made a request for a hundred new employees. That was done for the purpose of effecting some reclassification, and to give a chance to the pets of the officers in the department to obtain better salaries, under the pretence of improving the public accounting of the country. The real reason was reclassification; they got rid of employees they did not like, having them transferred to the office of the comptroller of the treasury. Then the way was open for the reclassification they desire. It is interesting to note that a man who had been fired from an experimental farm in western Canada twelve years ago, following a report from the office of the auditor general, is now one of the new appointees in that office.
I hold in my hand an ordter in council supplied at my request by the late Mr. Rinfret oh February 8, 1939. This memorandum was prepared by the auditor general on March 24, 1934, when he was comptroller of the treasury. At the time there were many who expressed the view that the memorandum was dictated by Mr. Bennett himself when lie was prime minister, and when in one of his outbursts he decided to remove the, accountants from various departments where they had chances of promotion.
This was done under the advice of the present deputy minister of finance. I do not know the position taken by other hon. members, but I have already expressed the opinion that the present deputy minister of finance should be superannuated. I still hold that view, in spite of the defence the minister has repeatedly made respecting this gentleman. Why? For the reason that he is always trying to do something to bring about more and more centralization, and to have more power. This time he gets part of the power which was under the control of parliament, but which is now under the control of the Department of Finance. Let me tell the committee once more that I know how this is done. It is worked in a very simple way. In the first place, if anything has happened it is due to the laziness and idleness of the auditor general and his officials. It is because.

War Appropriation
as the minister has said, the auditor general is not qualified for the functions of the position he now occupies as chief accountant for this country. He is not a certified accountant, but rather a lawyer who practised for some time in western Canada. He is a man who is interested in gathering historical facts. That is an interesting pursuit for a gentleman of leisure, but not for one occupying the position of chief accountant of a country like ours. That is the very reason, or one of the reasons, given yesterday by the Minister of Finance when explaining the shift of work from the branch of the auditor general to the Department of Finance. It is precisely because of that idleness and laziness that the reports were cut, and that, in the first place, all the items below $5,000 were not put in, and, in the second1 place, all the items below $25,000 were deleted from the auditor general's report.
.Now we find a shift of work. They drop 125 employees and take on a hundred more. Where is the economy? It is just a matter of giving those people an opportunity to give promotion to their pets. That is the way it goes. On the other hand it has satisfied the greed for more power and the desire for synchronization which fills the heart of the deputy minister of finance. On the one hand the lazy have less to do, and on the other the centralizer has more power at his disposal. He has a larger number of employees.
Do you not think, sir, that it is the summit of absurdity to have the audit made by an official of the House of Commons, but that the report of that audit should not be made by him but rather by the comptroller of the treasury? It is compiled by the comptroller. This I cannot understand, and in my opinion it requires an explanation.
Let me tell the minister that if he wishes to improve the situation with respect to the audit he must in the first instance superannuate-and I employ a euphemism-the deputy minister of finance. Secondly, he must repeal the Bank of Canada Act, abolish the Bank of Canada and put Mr. Towers on foot. In the third place he must abolish the foreign exchange control board, and in the fourth place he must abolish the wartime prices and trade board. Then he must restore the powers and duties the Minister of Finance exercised before. All this I believe sincerely the present incumbent is able to fulfil most satisfactorily for the public good. That is my humble view. But this takes courage. It takes courage to undo what Mr. Bennett did, without sufficient reason. It must be undone. When we are
on the wrong road, if we wish to make progress the only thing to do is to retrace our steps on the wrong road until we come to the intersection with the right road, and then proceed along- the right road. That, sir, is my humble view in the. matter.
The minister is entitled to think what he likes about his own deputy minister; he has the right to hold any view he wishes about him, just as I have. I will tell him some more about him. Some people consider it an insult to be called incompetent. A lawyer is usually incompetent as a shoemaker. It should not offend the lawyer to say that he would be incompetent as a shoemaker, no . more than it should offend a shoemaker to tell him he would be incompetent as a lawyer or a doctor. I suggest to the minister that he replace the present doctor of economics who is acting as his deputy by a man who has had sound and practical experience in banking, whether that has been obtained in Canada or in any other country. He should have a man who has considerable experience of life and a knowledge of facts, not a man who is ready to experiment on such a large scale as the whole Dominion of Canada. I shall not say more for the moment.
I should like the minister to give us a clear explanation of what has been done regarding the report of the auditor general.
I should like to know why employees are being taken away from the direct jurisdiction of parliament and transferred to his own department. I have indicated a few reasons why I think this has been done, but I know [DOT] there are others. I am sure the minister will find it rather hard to explain why this report of his own officers is not in the same form as it was in the past.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The reasons for changing
the form of the auditor general's report and the public accounts are set out in a speech which I made on July 31, 1942. If the hon. member will look at the proposals as outlined by me at that time he will find that no final or ultimate responsibility is transferred from the auditor general' to the Department of Finance. I think that answers his principal complaint. The details of the plan of the report will be found at the bottom of the second column of page 5082 of Hansard, where the following appears:
To be more specific, the contents of the single report would be organized substantially as follows:
(a)	Part I, to consist of an over-all survey and report of the financial operations of the year in such form as will clearly portray the policies followed.
(b)	Part II, to consist of the balance sheet of Canada, certified by the auditor general.
War Appropriation

(c)	Part III, to consist of the revenues of the year classified by departments and sources; t iis to be signed by suitable executive officers and certified by the auditor general.
(d)	Part IV, to consist of expenditure statements as submitted by the comptroller of the treasury and certified by the auditor general.
(e)	Part V, to consist of miscellaneous statements as may be necessary to report all transactions not included in the preceding parts.
(f)	Part VI, to consist of the report of the auditor general on the statements in the preceding parts and on such other matters as he is required to report to the House of Commons.
It will be found on examination of that plan that the auditor general does not transfer an3r of his responsibilities to the comptroller of the treasury or to the Department of Finance. With regard to the transfer of officials I may say that the writing or the compiling of the report will be done to a much greater extent by the comptroller of the treasury than heretofore, and to a lesser extent by the auditor general. As I explained last night, there are two documents. One is the public accounts and the other is the auditor general's report. To a considerable extent these are duplications. As I said in July last, the present plan is an improvement. Let me quote what I said on that occasion as follows:
It will, I think, be apparent at once to the bouse that a single report of this type will be an enormous convenience to members in their work of analysing and appraising the multifarious transactions which are necessarily involved in the receiving and spending of a sum of money approximating four billion dollars. When sums of this magnitude are expended in millions of individual transactions, the work of the member who seeks to understand the operations of government is bound to be difficult enough in any case; it is incumbent upon us, I think, to see that he does not have to wade through a chaotic mass of material scattered over two massive volumes, each covering largely the same field but in a different way. It seems to me, also, that presentation of the accounting records relating to expenditures on the same basis as the details in the estimates should facilitate a better control by the house when voting supply.
The hon. gentleman suggests that the scheme was devised for the purpose of enabling certain officials to obtain promotions. That was no part whatever of the purpose of the scheme. I do not know what the results have been in that regard1. The hon. gentleman says that there has been a transfer of 125 officials from the auditor general's department to the comptroller of the treasury, and that 100 officials had been appointed to the auditor general's department. The charge that these transfers have been made for the purpose of effecting promotions is unfounded. That may have been the result in some cases, but certainly this is the first suggestion I have heard that
(Mr. Ilsley.]
that was an integral part of the plan. I think those are the main points raised by the hon. gentleman.
With regard to the discussion of these matters on this motion. I suggest that this resolution and the bill to be founded thereon be permitted to go through. We will then take up item No. 3 on the order paper, which is the resolution preceding the war appropriation bill for this year. I submit that that would be a more appropriate time for a discussion of general matters, some of which have been discussed on this motion for interim supply.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the minister anything to say about the observations I made last evening in connection with the meagreness of the report?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman has complained from time to time about the lack of detail in and the meagreness of the reports. With regard to the new plan, I had this to say on July 31:
In regard to the degree to which itemization of detail will be carried, it will be noted that responsibility for decisions in this field will in effect have to be assumed by the Minister of Finance, because the deputy minister of finance and the comptroller of the treasury are his officials. Probably the Minister of Finance should be in a better position than anyone else to give directions as to the nature of the break-down necessary to elucidate transactions of interest to the house. If the minister does not go far enough to satisfy hon. members he can be called to account on the floor of the house.
In so far as I personally am concerned, my attitude will be to place primary emphasis on the necessity of disclosing to the house all information that is really useful in enabling it to perform its essential functions. Naturally, in regard to war expenditures, considerations of secrecy will have to be kept in mind because of the necessity of not giving aid to the enemy; in regard to all expenditures there are also considerations of man-power shortage and cost which call for every practicable economy consistent with the public interest. In this latter connection I may add that I hope the new procedure will lead to certain savihgs in staff and in cost by the elimination of some duplication existing at present in the accounting work of the Department of Finance and the auditor general's office.
The public accounts and the auditor general's report for the fiscal year 1911-1942 are now in the course of preparation and must be ready this autumn. It is impossible to effect the various changes in organization and staff and the necessary adjustments in accounting systems in time to implement the recommendations I have outlined above, in connection with the reports now in preparation. If, however, the recommendations are satisfactory to the house, they will he put into effect in time to have their results appear in the report for the current fiscal year, which will be issued in the fall of

War Appropriation
1943. I am advised, however, that the auditor general's report for the last fiscal year is being enlarged so that the house will receive a fuller disclosure of information, for which some members have been asking. Last year, for reasons beyond the control of the audit office, it was found to be impracticable to bring together a tabulation of payments to war contractors, charged to the Department of National Defence, at any figure under $25,000. That task, it wrill be noted, is statistical rather than audit, but the audit office has installed a punch-card equipment which will enable the record to be carried down to payments as low' as $10,000, a figure which should give a good over-all coverage. I believe an attempt will be made to make the record as illuminating as possible w'ithin the limits imposed by necessary considerations of secrecy. In regard to the departments generally, there w'ill be certain variations in the details of the accounting record. In some cases a break-down of expenditures under a particular vote into payments of $1,000 or less will be necessary to give a clear picture of what has happened, while in other cases a $5,000 minimum may tell the story fairly. That, I understand, will be the general objective of the auditor general-to tell the story in all cases in as clear and simple a way as may be practicable.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I shall take only a moment because I have no desire to prolong the discussion.
The minister in his statement a moment ago said in reference to the 1942 reports that last fall when the reports were in course of printing, they would perhaps ,be fuller. I cannot see how they could be any less full than they are. Take' the Indian Affairs branch of the Department of Mines and Resources, item 160, appearing at page 171 of the auditor general's report for 1942. Indian agencies are there referred1 to in one line. In the 1939 auditor general's report, the last of the formerly complete reports, eighteen pages are taken to refer to Indian agencies, of which there are 121 in Canada. I always felt it my duty to inquire into the auditor general's report to the greatest extent I could. I could not inquire into everything; that would be impossible, but one of the departments I always liked to inquire into was the Department of Mines and Resources, because it covers far-off areas through which I have travelled extensively. But how much information could I find in one line about Indian agencies in the auditor general's report of 1942? There are, as I have said, 121 Indian agencies. I have travelled on many an Indian reservation and made careful observations to bring matters up in the house. I cannot for the life of me see how this house is to keep track of expenditures unless we have before us some information upon which we can base inquiries. But when there is only one line of information we cannot inquire about anything, can we?
At page 171 of the auditor general's report for 1942 I find this: Indian agencies, appropriation, $654,893, expenditures, $630,435.46. I might want to inquire about an agency in Ontario or in Manitoba or any other province, but there is nothing in the report upon which I can base a question. Let me give the minister an illustration of what I mean. Some few years ago an item went through for approximately $7,000-I am giving it from memory-for a hospital. I asked where the hospital was to be built, and was told it was to be built on such and such an Indian reservation. The following summer, at a great deal of expense to myself, I chartered a boat in northern Ontario and went six miles down a small river to a fair-sized lake. It took me two or three days to get to and from the reservation to see that hospital. When I got there, what did I find? I found a log building, perhaps fifty by fifty, or it might have been fifty by sixty, or forty by seventy-I have forgotten the dimensions, but it was about that size. There was not a window in it, and it was full of hay. I inquired, "Is this the hospital?" It was to be a hospital, they told me, "but now we are using it for a barn." There was an item for several thousand dollars for a hospital that was without a window and was filled with hay.
There was another item, I have forgotten for how much money but it was a considerable amount, for a tractor for an Indian reservation. At great expense to myself, by boat and with Indian guides,. I visited that reservation, and what- did I find? A field of approximately ten acres on which potatoes could, be raised. Fancy a tractor for ploughing up a ten-acre field! There was no more ploughed land than the ten acres. In the following year I had not an opportunity to bring these matters before the house. I shall not name the reservation now, because it is so long ago, but I have all the figures. When the estimates came up for Indian Affairs the house was within an hour or more of prorogation, and when one attempts to bring up a matter so close to the end of the session there is no opportunity for discussion because all one hears is "carried," "carried," "carried." That is what always happens when the estimates come up in the last hour of the session. The Minister of Finance will not approve anything like that, I feel sure. I have the utmost confidence in him if he knows what is going on. Nor am I saying a word against the minister in charge of the Department of Mines and Resources, because he could not possibly have the time to investigate everything in his department. I happened to have
War Appropriation

the time to investigate these items concerning che Indian reservations. I like to: investigate and to present to the house what I find out, not by way of criticism, not by way of faultfinding, not suspecting that there is anything wrong, because I would not say there was; but merely so that I can present to the house reasons for making a change perhaps in what is being done.
That is the only reason I have been complaining in the last couple of years against the meagreness of these reports. I hope the minister will not think I am small in mentioning perhaps these minor items. They do not compare, of course, with the expenditure of millions, but if we watch the pennies the dollars will look after themselves.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not wish to prevent the minister from getting his resolution and bill through because I know the Minister of National Defence is waiting to go on with the war appropriation bill. But I do want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the things which are being done in the name of the war surprise not only members of parliament but the country as well. The government is taking altogether too much from the taxpayers, and it is costing too much to get it. Last night we voted one-sixth of the civil estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1944, and then we have the resolution for $3,890,000,000. You can only raise the money from two sources, one of which is taxation and the other, borrowing. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I rose in this house in 1940 after !he war had started and referred to the dead hand of the treasury as we spent money like water, and the waste and' useless duplication. I called attention that year, again in 1941 and last year, to the powers of the auditor general under section 41 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. At that time it was found that the auditor general did not have jurisdiction to audit war accounts in the appropriation bill although as auditor general lie was and is responsible alone to parliament. He is responsible to parliament for the expenditure of all the moneys. I took up this question of the audit during the estimates of 1940 and 1941 and again last year; and I went into the audit act, defining the powers and functions of the auditor general, responsible as he was to this house done for the accurate and complete examination of the accounts of Canada and the reporting of them to the House of Commons. I was very much astonished in this connection to find out that the auditor general had not the power to veto anything, not even a

single dollar. All he could do was to report to the House of Commons what he thought was out of the way.
When I found that the auditor general's report contained little or nothing by way of a check on these expenditures I called the attention of the house to the fact. Another official known as the comptroller of the treasury was appointed, I believe in 1931, by the former government, and the present auditor general had that position. He was a competent man, Mr. Watson Sellar, I knew him for years. He served a faithful Minister of Finance, the late Mr. Robb, who was mindful of the taxpayers' money. I wrote the auditor general a letter last June, and he told me that he had no power over the war appropriation bill, but the comptroller of the treasury had over the bill we are referring to now, that is, the war expenditures bill of nearly four billion dollars. I learned from the officials, regarding the rise of war expenditures, reflected in the items set out in this resolution and the bill before us, that if the comptroller of the treasury found that any item of this $3,890,000,000 was within the text of clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the resolution on the order paper, namely, the security, defence and peace of Canada, the conduct of her military affairs, the promoting of trade and industry, and the carrying out of any measures deemed necessary for the war, he must simply put his stamp on the account. I wrote the Minister of Finance a letter. The minister made a speech, a copy of which I have, on Fridaj% July 31, the day before the sessional business was practically concluded1-we closed on Saturday, August 1. The minister did make a reply, which is in Hansard of that date, suggesting some changes in our audit methods; I admit that.
While I have a great deal of respect for the government of the day and the war ministers, I am surprised to see what is going on in the name of the war. Some expenditures which are under civilian estimates are duplicated in other spending departments of the army, the navy and the air force. With this high taxation, I fail to see where the taxpayer is getting value for his money. If you vote this one-sixth you may as well pass the whole bill; the money is provided, and the three ministers with the Minister of Finance can do what they like about it and that is the end as far as the House of Commons goes. Once you pass this bill and this resolution you have lost for all time the control of every dollar of that war expenditure. That is the situation the moment

War Appropriation
you put the seal of approval on this particular resolution, which has to be backed up by the bill which is now before the committee of the whole house.
I had a reply from the Minister of Finance on this matter on September 12. True it is that he had a victory loan campaign on and no doubt it was impossible to give an explanation before. But he refused to give a tabulated comparison between current expenditures and what was spent before the war in the same departments, the number of officials, and the cost of them, to this house and to the committee. Probably he did not have it. But I can say that the members of the House of Commons are totally ignorant of what the war is costing from day to day. Although we have three good ministers in charge of the armed forces to explain in detail their departments, it is my opinion that the taxpayers are being charged too much, a lot of it not for war at all; money is costing too much, the war loans are costing too much, and we are not receiving the information we should have.
If all this money is necessary for the conduct of the war, nobody will have any objection. But if one goes about the country-and I have been around to a limited extent in Ontario-one can find evidence of where too much money is being spent and a lot wasted on home defence. I know there are such cases in Toronto. The taxpayer who has his eyes open is complaining on this score to members of parliament. At the same time, some members of our overseas forces are not getting the little pin money increase which they were voted last June.
I do not believe we are getting full value for our money. We have no sovereignty; we have too constantly an eye on Washington,- which seems to be the capital of Canada as regards finance and many other matters. If this sort of thing goes on -there may be some serious developments before next June. Our system of checking expenditures is all antiquated and wrong. You appoint a war expenditures committee to go over the expenditure of this $3,890,000,000, and what do they do? They might just as well never meet for all the reforms they present to the house. The reports are tabled and are never used.
For the supervision of these civil and war expenditures the house depends on two officials, the auditor general and the comptroller of the treasury. They are the only officials who can protect the taxpayer and see that the accounts are properly dealt with and audited, yet they cannot veto a dollar of it.
We might as well admit that we have the dead hand of the treasury in control. The moment you pass this resolution and this bill you are committing this country to an expenditure of $3,890,000,000. Your officials have very little to say about it and little to do beyond putting their seal and stamp on it.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: Mr. Chairman.
I understand we are discussing resolution No. 10 of the order paper to authorize the government to guarantee the Canadian National Railways debentures.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: No. I must inform the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) that we are discussing resolution No. 3 of the order poper.


Frédéric Dorion: Mr. Speaker, our seats are so far removed from the Chair that it is sometimes hard for us to hear what is going on.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 96, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time4 and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Bill reported.
M-r. ILSLEY moved the third reading of the bill.
Thomas Langton Church: I will not detain the passage of the bill for more than half a minute. During the last session,' under the war expenditure bill, I said there was a good deal of discussion of public controls and the officials of the department and it was found that we did not know from day to day, from week to week exactly what these departments and the controls and sub-controls cost the country. A mint of money is being spent like water and there is not a word in the auditor general's report about it. There are a good many of these gentlemen engaged in this control business and while I have respect for them I must point out that many of them are professors and mere academic theorists -who do not know anything about finance. They have had no experience in any competitive business and the result of these controls has been that they have done a good deal of harm to competitive business in Canada, wholesale and retail. They and their orders have ruined a number of storekeepers. I suggest that parliament should be kept better informed. Yesterday one of these gentlemen announced a 75-cent order in connection with coal, over
War Appropriation-Army

the head of parliament, and without any authority whatever. Once you vote these money bills that is the end of it, even if the amount involved is only one-sixth.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 14, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: This is the third and, I hope, the final chapter in the presentation of this statement with respect to the activities of the army during the past year and in the light of what is ahead of us. As I concluded the other evening I indicated that I had a few words to say with regard to the much discussed subject of man-power.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Why the final chapter? Does the minister mean that he does not want further discussion? Is his word the last, the final chapter?


James Layton Ralston: I hope my hon. friend
does not think I am of that mentality*


Joseph Henry Harris: I hope not.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think the question is really necessary. I am hoping that I can finish before six o'clock. I have a forecast of what are regarded as the estimated total manpower requirements for the three armed services for the fiscal year 1943-44. That estimate is: for the army, 100,000, of which number 75.000 will be for service overseas and 25,000 for service in Canada; the navy, 24,000; the air force, 53,000. The total is 177,000. These figures would represent what I might call the gross intake of the three services during the year in man-power, and the committee will remember that a month and a half have already gone. The 177,000 does not represent, however, the net drain on the man-power of the country, because while these men are being taken into the service a certain number of men are being discharged and are going back into the man-power pool. One can only make an estimate, but to give an idea, I should think that probably the net drain on the man-power pool as a result of this year's 
operations, and if these objectives are reached and these needs called for, would be about
150,000.


Mr. GREEN:: What is the total number discharged to date?


James Layton Ralston: Those figures I have not before me at the moment. With regard to man-power, the whole field is primarily for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), but manpower and the obtaining of man-power for the armed services particularly is a joint effort. The Minister of Labour and the national selective service branch are interested in the calling up of men under the National Resources Mobilization Act.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Does that 150,000
cover the three branches?


James Layton Ralston: Yes; army, navy and air force. That 150,000 is the estimate of the net drain on man-power. The Minister of Labour, in connection with his activities in directing national selective service, is also the minister primarily responsible for making the best adjustment of labour employment, so that men will be available-and I am speaking particularly of the armed forces

first, to be called up undter the National Resources Mobilization Act, so that they will be men who will not require to be postponed or to be replaced by others, and second, to volunteer for service in the navy, the army and the air force, or in, other words, so that they can be spared from pressure of their particular occupation. The Minister of Labour's job, the part of it particularly in connection with national selective service, is to help to release these men from their civilian occupations and have them replaced ,if necessary by others not qualified for military service. The navy, the army and the air force are a joint effort, and they have their responsibility in keeping the needs of the service before everyone, concerned, including the public, andJ in vigorously promoting the recruiting of enlistments and cooperating with national selective service and with every agency that can help to release men for service.
I believe it is only in close integration of the activities of these departments that the best results can be obtained, but those are only two of the agencies that have an opportunity to contribute and have responsibility in connection with the provision of man-power. This is a joint effort that cannot be successful without the support of the citizens of Canada. No department and no board can make necessary adjustments in

War Appropriation-Army
man-power, I suggest, with that ideal objective of putting every man and woman where they can serve best, without the help and genuine interest of employers and employees and of the citizens generally.
Here are some of the means which can be taken advantage of whereby men will be available to supply these requirements of which I have spoken. There wit, I am sure, be continuing readjustments in industry to substitute over-age,, under-age and unfit men for men who are eligible for military service. There will be some sort of readjustment in industry to replace men with women as far as that is possible. There will be continuing increase in the training of women to take the place of men, and in that connection there is a particular public responsibility that exists, namely, the continual education of emplojmrs and prospective employees respecting the needs for women in industry as well as in the armed services. There, are many fields into which one could go if one were dealing extensively wfith this particular point. Suffice it to say that it is not simply the idea of asking a woman to go into ani industry. There has to be the training; there has to be the provision of the social services; there has to be the provision of the living accommodation, and! everything that is necessary in order to make the occupation one which a woman might properly undertake and one in respect of which she could make a genuine contribution at this time.
In addition to these adjustments in industry, there is another situation which is just arising non". I should think there would be a shrinkage, as time goes on, in the requirements for men in industry, particularly war industry. The general expansion in war industries has stopped, and I underline the word "general." In most of them the peak has been reached; the feverish production efforts to produce initial equipment are now subsiding, except for some special items such as ships, planes and things of that sort. As my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply intimated the other day, future requirements -will depend more on usage and less on capital requirements. It does look as though production in many lines will be for maintenance and replacement rather than for first equipment. There will be some change-over, of course, but I should think this new condition would be bound to make it possible to undertake comb-outs of men who in the past have been postponed because they were essential in war industry, and in addition it should release men from the non-essential industries.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER :: Has the minister an estimate of the number of men it is expected
will be combed out within the next six months from industries now being closed down, or from changes in production?


James Layton Ralston: No, I have not. That is not a figure I would have; it would be a matter for my colleague the Minister of Labour. The point I should like to register with the committee this afternoon is that when we are discussing the closing down of industry, or the change-over, or the fact that we are going from initial equipment to replacement, so frequently I hear the question asked, "Into what other industry are they going?" I say that my colleagues the Minister of National Defence for Air, the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services and myself have an idea that some of these men now can be spared to go into the armed services. I point out that in addition to those pools or those sources there is still the class of married men above twenty-five years of age who have not been called as yet, and there is also what we always have, to take into consideration, the natural increase which takes place in the man-power pool of the country resulting from the gross natural accretion each year of about 113,000 young men who reach the age of nineteen. Of course many of these young men are not physically fit, and of course in connection with the available manpower pool for the armed services one has to reipember that while these young men are coming in, at the other end men are becoming forty-six and are going out. I have not the number of those men before me at the moment, but I have in mind that it amounts to something like 67,000 going out as these younger men are coming in. At the same time I wish to point out that our requirements take account of wastage by reason of age and physical unfitness so that those of the 113,000 who are physically fit are available to meet the needs for which we estimate.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the air force get first choice among the men who come of age, having regard to the fact that some 60,000 men annually are required for the air force?


James Layton Ralston: There is nothing I know of that gives the air force first choice in connection with the young men who come up.


John George Diefenbaker: But the natural consequence would be that the air force would have first choice, would it not? The need for young men in the air force makes that necessary, does it not?


James Layton Ralston: It is a matter of voluntary enlistment; there is no question of first choice. A man enlists in whatever service he prefers. It is possible that the air force may have more
War Appropriation-Army

attraction for some of the younger men, but there is no established priority as between the air force, the army and the navy. The committee will see that getting man-power from these sources calls for the team-work of everyone concerned, and I suggest that this team-work will not be really effective without the conviction that Canada cannot play its full part in helping to win the war unless the navy, the army and the air force are kept constantly supplied with fighting men as well as equipment.
I was going to deal for a moment or two, because I thought perhaps this was the time to do it, with one or two industries which may be said to be competing with the armed forces, and the regulations which are in force respecting them. I refer particularly to agriculture, coal mining, logging and1 base metals. I am sure there has been a feeling in some quarters of this house that the national selective service regulations respecting agriculture vis-a-vis the army were, shall I say, too tough. I want hon. members to see the other side of it, as it is seen by those of us who are concerned with the armed forces; and I should like to remind them that, until the passing of the emergency order in council referred to by my colleague the Minister of Labour, agriculture was the one vocation in the whole country specifically mentioned as being entitled to postponement under certain conditions. Under the provisions with regard to agriculture it was provided that any man who was employed in agriculture on March 24, 1942,-I think that was the date-should be entitled to postponement unless it was established to the satisfaction of the board that he was not essential to agriculture. That action was not taken with regard to any other vocation; and that regulation was administered not by a board which had to do with the armed services nor, as a matter of fact, by a board which had to do with agriculture directly. It was administered by a board presided over by a judge, which was selected by the Department of National War Services at that time and later by the Department of Labour, entirely apart from the military authorities; a board which made its own decisions on the evidence which it procured itself or which was submitted to it by the applicant, by the military people, by the employer or by whoever might be interested in that particular application. I do not think anything could have been fairer than that to agriculture; and I know there have been cases in which the representative of the district officer commanding has felt that considerable latitude was being allowed in connection with some of these applications, in which it was felt that perhaps the army might

have been fairly entitled to the benefit of the services of the individuals. Nevertheless that was the rule, and I think that rule was administered by the boards as fairly as possible having regard to the interests of all concerned; I am sure they were doing their level best to make fair decisions, having regard to the regulations which they were carrying out.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Has the minister the number of men who have been taken from the farms since that order was put through?


James Layton Ralston: I will tell the committee
what I believe-and I think it is a significant figure. This percentage was given to me last December. I understand that of all the applications for postponement made straight across Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, fifty per cent were made on- account of men to be engaged in agriculture. I understand, further, that of those applications made, eighty per cent were granted. I think that is pretty fair treatment by the board for agriculture.
May I say one further word in answer to my hon. friend. I cannot tell him the number of men. I think as a matter of fact one could get the figure, because the Minister of Labour would no doubt have it. I cannot tell the hon. member the number of men who have been given postponements, but I . suggest this, that for each man who has gone from the farms to the armed services, probably two men have gone to industry. I have not the figure 'before me to prove that statement, but I have some information, and I have heard the statement made more than once. In other words, the pull from the farm has not been entirely on account of the armed services, but rather through pressure and attraction of other lines of endeavour, and other lines of war work.


Mr. WRIGHT:: The minister said- that
eighty per cent of those who were asking for postponements were given them. Has he any figure as to the number of these who received temporary postponement and were later called? There were a lot of postponements granted temporarily.


James Layton Ralston: No, I have not. Those
figures are not given, unless we particularly ask for them, but even if we do ask, it would take some time, because a long time is required to make them up. However, I asked for this figure last December with regard to the percentage of postponements on account of agriculture, and the percentage granted.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Has the
minister the figures to substantiate what he

War Appropriation-Army
has said to the effect that two men have gone to industry for every one to the armed services?


James Layton Ralston: The information is obtained from the representatives of district officers commanding. In cases where applications were made for postponement, where the man was, shall I say, the last man or the second to last man on a farm, the question would come up as to where the rest had gone, and generally it was found1-at least this is the information I got-that if there had been a number on the farm, probably two had gone to industry or some similar occupation, as compared with one going into the armed services.
And, remember, I am not finding fault with that. I am only saying that sometimes the army, the navy or the air force is blamed for taking the men off the farms, when as a matter of fact they have gone to places other than farms.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My understanding was that the figures were about fifty-fifty, that of about 400,000 leaving agriculture, 200,000 went to industry and 200,000 went to the armed services.


James Layton Ralston: I would not expect there
were 200,000 from agriculture in the armed services.
One thing more:	Following up that provision as it stands, there was a further provision by means of an interpretative- letter whereby not only did it have to be shown that a man was non-essential- to agriculture, but further than that, even in the event of his being shown to be non-essential to agriculture, where he was working, he was entitled to three months' postponement in order that it might be found out whether some place could be found for him in agriculture.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is a recent provision.


James Layton Ralston: Yes; that is last January. I mention that to hon. members to let them know that we in the department feel that agriculture has not been unfairly dealt with, and I will not put it stronger than that at the moment, because I think perhaps understatement is preferable.
Then, with regard to coal mining, for a year or more, coal miners have not been encouraged to enlist. They have been deferred as being in essential industry when they have been called up. A request was made some months ago to the army to release men who had been in coal mining, with the
result that the army made an order directing that all men engaged in coal mining should be released, on their applications. Companies were allowed to get in touch with those men, in order that they might be persuaded to go back to their work.


Mr. LOCKHART:: That was voluntary on their part.


James Layton Ralston: Yes; it was voluntary. There was only one condition the army made, namely, that if military exigencies made their services necessary they could not be allowed to go. And it was expressly underlined in the direction that was given that military exigencies had to be real, not fancied. We did not use those exact words, but that is the effect of the order. Those men were given three months' leave.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the
minister the figure?


James Layton Ralston: I think it was 1,226. I understand there were about 3,300 miners altogether in the army, but that number would include more than coal miners, alone. The 1,226 in question were the ones who took leave under that order. When the extension was authorized, about 100 of the 1,226 did not ask for further leave, so that at the present time about 1,100 men from the army are in the coal mines. The house has heard to-day respecting- steps which have been taken concerning coal mining in general, having regard to the present emergency.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I should
think the minister's figure is low. My information is that about a thousand miners have enlisted from Cumberland county.


James Layton Ralston: Those are the figures I have. I am talking about skilled coal miners of course, and those are the figures given to me. It may be that a number from that county have enlisted in the air force or the navy. It will be understood that I am talking about the army, alone.


Percy Chapman Black: I do not think any distinction has been made. The figure is for the men enlisted from coal -mines in the armed services.


James Layton Ralston: I am talking only about the army. I do not know what the figures for the navy and the air force might be.
Then, with regard to base metal mining, provisions for deferment have -been the same as for coal mining. That is, the -men who were regarded as essential to the industry, those men who might be called skilled, key men, were deferred, when they were called up.
276S
War Appropriation-Army

Then, with respect to logging, that was another call made on the army. It was pointed out that an emergency had developed in the logging industry. We did the same as we had done in connection with the miners, and issued a similar order applying to the Pacific coast area, where the shortage was . alleged to have occurred. The result was that three months leave was given to the men to return to the lumbering industry of British Columbia. I mention these points because, as I have said1 before, I think there is a feeling that the army is tough in these matters. I want hon. members to feel that the army does its best, having regard to its responsibilities. It does feel that the regulations have been fairly generous, or that certainly they have not been unduly harsh in respect of these basic industries.
When the army has to look for men, get them in, train them, and then hand them over to coal mining, lumbering or some other industry, then I submit that the army has been showing at least an endeavour to cooperate, and to try to recognize the need of other agencies.


Mr. STIRLING:: Do the figures on exemptions include training centres as well as the Canadian army? For example, miners were granted an exemption for three months to return to the mines. Was the minister speaking only of the Canadian active army, or was he speaking of the training centres as well?


James Layton Ralston: I thought I was speaking for the whole command. I think the notice was sent out respecting the whole Pacific comifiand.


Grote Stirling: Did it cover the training centres also?


James Layton Ralston: I think so. I have not the order here, but I think that is right.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister say what number went back to the logging industry?


James Layton Ralston: No; I cannot remember now, but I will give my hon. friend the number. I wish just to make this statement and this appeal with regard to man-power. The situation is that for two years everybody has dipped pretty freely and probably too prodigally into the pool of man-power. This year comes the inevitable realization that there is a limit and that the supply is not inexhaustible. I should like to say a word for the army. It has seemed to me that when any agency feels the pinch for manpower, it is the armed forces, and particularly

the army,, which is expected to give back from its ranks. One reason is the fact that the army is in plain sight. It is harder to find the men who have gone into industry. The records are not so complete and hands cannot be laid on them so easily.
The pull of high wages in factories and in plants makes it more difficult to get the men to come back. I submit that these are not really good reasons for drawing men from the army. Canada has undertaken to raise and maintain the strongest and best army we can muster, and we cannot do that [DOT] if the army is to be extended or contracted like an accordion, by pulling men out each time a shortage threatens in some particular line of activity and thinking we can put them back again and go on as if all the while they had been, carrying on their military duties.
Speaking for the army, I would not be in as strong a position, if the army had not itself tried to practise economy in man-power. But the army has made some pretty drastic cuts, and we are keeping at it morning, noon and night. I know there has been belt-tightening in industry, both primary and secondary, but we must remember that the armed forces are still in numbers far below the army of agriculture, which is probably a million or more, or the army of munitions and supply, which is probably nine hundred thousand to a million, directly and indirectly. The army, navy and air force put together aggregate only a little over 700,000. I know it is uncomfortable to go shorthanded. It is uncomfortable and tough for the farmer, and the farms have done well in supplying men. But I think it is true that, taking Canada as a whole, for every man who has left the farm or the woods or the mines to join the armed forces, two men have gone into industry and other civilian occupations. It is uncomfortable and dislocating for the employer in industry, and I yield to no one in appreciation of the accomplishments of these three years in producing munitions, but men over age or unfit physically for the fighting forces, and women, can produce munitions. It is tough and uncomfortable for the storekeeper, the office man and the housewife to go shorthanded, but physically fit men for the armed forces, and women to take their places in the army and in industry, are needed.
I do not believe that the pattern for the army which parliament has authorized is one which cannot be lived up to, provided we are willing to make the necessary adjustments in our way of living and working. Combined armed forces of less than three-quarters of a

War Appropriation-Army
million out of a population, of 11,500,000 is not an undue proportion. I think we must realize that besides equipment, it will need all the men that all the allies can muster, even counting the man-power reserves of Russia and China. I think we must realize, too, that while the war cannot be won without the team-work of all three services, land armies are bound to be the final instrument for victory in this war. Surely this has been amply proved in Russia and North Africa. This means that all the united nations, Canada included, must have the strongest and best army that they can raise.
Neither in victory loans nor in materials nor in men has the real pinch come. We ration tea, sugar, gasoline, rubber and clothing; we create priorities for this, that and the other thing, but nobody in this house or this country has gone hungry or cold on this account. In [DOT]man-power we are really just beginning to be rationed now. The question is: Shall we see it through, or shall we, as it becomes harder to get men or as it becomes difficult to get material, simply throw up our hands and say, "It is too uncomfortable and too inconvenient, let us lower our sights and have less bother." I leave that question with the committee and with the country. If we have the stamina of the men of the navy, the army and the air force, there will be only one response, that we are going to stick it just the way they are sticking it in connection with the job they are doing.
I have mentioned man-power because it affects the army. I think the Minister of Labour intends shortly to make a statement with regard to man-power in general, but I have referred to it in order to indicate some of the sources and some of the ways in which I think members of the House of Commons and the Department of Labour and other departments can help in connection with the making available of these men.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister indicate the extent to which the army itself has been able to replace men with women to release men for active service?


James Layton Ralston: We have about 10,000 in the Canadian Women's Army Corps, of which probably 8,000 have replaced men. In the home war establishments, I would say that sixty per cent of the general service personnel are either thirty-five years of age or in a category unsuitable for overseas service under present practice. That gives my hon. friend some idea. I may say that in one district alone a saving of between 1,000 and 1,100 men has been achieved by a readjustment and
reduction of establishments and by a general reassorting in order to have work done by, say one and a half men which was formerly done by two men. A committee from headquarters is travelling constantly throughout the country doing nothing other than dealing with man-power problems. They are consulting with the district officers commanding and making reports. They stay in the district and go over the establishments in an endeavour to see just what can be done in carrying on with fewer men.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister mentioned that sixty per cent of the positions had been taken over by low category men.


James Layton Ralston: That is the home war establishments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will that
process be extended?


James Layton Ralston: You could not extend it to operational troops.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am thinking of the home war establishments.


James Layton Ralston: That is the place where we are making the greatest saving. As I explained the other day, these cover headquarters and services of all sorts, such as supplies and services of that kind, instructional staff, administrative staff and so on. These are the things in connection with which we are endeavouring to save as much as possible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To what
extent can the process be extended, or has the limit pretty well been reached?


James Layton Ralston: It is being extended in each district. Of course it is being constantly watched and dealt with by this committee which is doing nothing else.
Here I should like to put on record a word with regard to the Canadian Women's Army Corps. It fits in with the questions which have just been asked. The Canadian Women's Army Corps have given us perhaps the greatest satisfaction we have had in connection with operations for the fiscal year just closed. A year ago the Canadian Women's Army Corps numbered about 2,000; to-day it numbers about 10,000. At the present time we have in the United Kingdom about 400 members of this corps, and we have 100 in the United States.
In England the organization which corresponds with the C.W.A.C. is the Auxiliary Territorial Service. We were fortunate this year in having a visit from Major-General Jean Knox, the commanding officer of the A.T.S. General Knox gave two strenuous
War Appropriation-Army

months in travelling across Canada and visiting the various C.W.A.C. detachments. She conferred with the officers, addressed public meetings and discussed the whole problem of women in the armed services. Her tact, experience and judgment were of marked benefit. I wish to put on Hansard publicly our grateful acknowledgment to 'her and to Sir James Grigg, Secretary of State for War, and Lieutenant-General Sir Ronald Adams, the Adjutant-General, for their cooperation in making her visit possible. Our girls got a great deal of good out of General Knox's visit, and a sequence of that was that a number of our senior officers went to England to learn at first hand the methods of operation there. Most of them took an officers' administrative course, and some of them a field security course under A.T.S. direction. Most of these officers have now returned and the corps is getting the benefit of their experience.
McGill university agreed that we could make use of the whole of Macdonald college to provide the first training centre for this corps. An equally fine cooperative spirit was shown by the Alberta government, which gave us the use of the Agricultural college at Vermilion, Alberta. At the present time the non-commissioned officers and cooks all go to Macdonald college. At Vermilion basic training is carried on. We found the necessity for further basic training, and we converted what was the basic training centre for men at Kitchener to basic training for the women's corps. At the present time we have a total capacity at Vermilion of from 350 to 450 a month, and at Kitchener a capacity of something like 1,200.
With regard to the activities of the C.W.A.C., when we started out we thought the opportunities for operation of the corps were extremely limited, and they were divided roughly into four groups: clerical, motor drivers and mechanics, canteen assistants, dietetics-that is cooks and waitresses. But now the occupations for women tradesmen are almost as great in number as those of men. To give an idea of the variety, at the present time women of the C.W.A.C. are taking the following courses: night vision testers; provost duties; radio operators; photography; clerical and stenography; kinetheodolite-that is handling the technical equipment for anti-aircraft guns-ordnance.
In the vocations for C.W.A.C. personnel there are thirty-two different listings under the following main headings: medical, clerical, kitchens and messing, dental, draughting, automotive, signals, storemen, sundry. At the beginning of the fiscal year we had practically no separate accommodation for the C.W.A.C. personnel, but now there are barracks in no

fewer than thirty-seven localities, accommodating over 9,000 officers and other ranks.
I think the best compliment which can be paid to the efficiency and usefulness of the corps is the demand which is made for its services. I can say this for the C.W.A.C., that there is no corps in the army the demand for which has so exceeded the supply. Canadian military headquarters overseas did not at first receive with any particular enthusiasm the suggestion that some of the personnel might be sent overseas to release fit men for more active duty. Eventually two detachments went over, numbering in all about 400. Almost immediately after they got settled down to work a request came for 3,000. We have not been able to supply that as yet. Almost every district and certainly every branch of the service are clamouring for more C.W.A.C. personnel. The corps has more than justified our most optimistic expectations; Canadians as a whole are proud of the smartness of these young women and the way they are turned out, and I am sure we are gratified at the efficient service they are giving.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How is the recruiting for the corps coming along? What is the quota?


James Layton Ralston: About 700 a month are coming in just now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is the quota?


James Layton Ralston: We want more than that. All three services are recruiting at the present time. We have accommodation now for about 1,200 a month, but we shall have accommodation for 1,400 a month when some increases at Vermilion are finished. If by quota my hon. friend means the requirements of the three services, I would say that the requirements for women in the three armed forces for the present fiscal year are in the neighbourhood of 30,000.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I mean for the women's army. The quota is about 1,200, is it?


James Layton Ralston: We shall have accommodation for 1,400 soon, if we can get them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And you are getting about 700?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: Of the 10,000 which the minister mentioned a little while ago, how many are officers in the C.W.A.C.?


Mr. McIVOR:: They would not need any more officers than the army itself.


Gordon Graydon: It is part of the army.

War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: There are 349 officers and 9,640 other ranks. That is as of March 27. About four per cent are officers.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: In labour work we advocate that women who do the same work as men should get the same pay. Is that the, situation in the C.W.A.C.? Do women, who replace men in administrative work receive the same rate of pay as the men?


James Layton Ralston: No, they do not. The women began with a proportion of the pay of the men. There is a proposal being put forward now-I am not saying that it has been accepted-that while the basic rate for men and women will remain the same, when a woman goes into one of the trades, the trades pay will be the same as for men.


Mrs. CASSELMAN:: It is gratifying to hear the minister speak so highly of the C.W.A.C. They are pleased to have the opportunity to serve their country in this way. Has the minister given any thought to the question that was brought before him some time ago of dependents' allowance for women in the armed services? That is still a question very much to the fore.


James Layton Ralston: That question has been very much to the fore, also the question raised by the hon. member for Fort William, both of which are under consideration now. Even if the minister had not wanted to give any thought to the matter, I may tell the hon. member for Edmonton East that he could not have helped doing so because it has been forcibly brought to his attention.
Another branch of the army that deserves special mention is the reserve army. I know I am now talking to some members of the reserve army who probably know a great deal more about it than I do. The reserve army has in the last year taken on a new interest in life as a result of its year's work. The reserve army has been given a definite place in the defence plans of this country. In writing to a citizen not very long ago I said, "The purpose and password of the reserve army is preparedness." Some of its objects were to provide training facilities and opportunities for citizens who want to be prepared, but who still have civil responsibilities, to fit themselves for service if required. One of the outstanding features of the reserve army is that a citizen can serve in two capacities. He may be serving on a war job in the daytime and then serve on another war job in the evening, preparing himself in case the worst should come.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister, I assume, will give us figures showing the numbers in the reserve army.


James Layton Ralston: I will give the figures, but I had not intended to do so now. I can tell my hon. friend that, roughly, there are a hundred thousand in the reserve army. I have not the exact figures here.
Another task is to prepare primarily for community and local defence if the need should come, and to provide possibly for other service in Canada in case a serious national emergency should arise. One of the most important roles of the reserve army is to provide trained men as volunteers for the active army, not only directly from the reserve army ranks, but also indirectly, through responsible citizens giving genuine leadership, by training themselves and impressing their neighbours, first, with the fact that this country is in the war to the finish; second1, that the war is a long way from being won; third, that preparation is necessary for any eventuality either here or overseas.
In connection with this matter of recruiting, the figures I have show that for December, January, February and March an average of over seven hundred men a month enlisted from the reserve army.
The reserve army is officered by citizens selected from leading positions in civil life and from reserves of ex-officers. The training of the reserve army has been, I believe, very much improved by reason not only of the new syllabi which have been adopted but also by means of the amount of equipment we have been able to issue.
I do not wish to take more time in connection with this, because I have a number of other subjects to deal with. But I cannot refrain from expressing my admiration and appreciation of the turn-outs of the reserve army which I have seen. I am sure that they have been just as good as the turn-outs of the active army; and that is'saying a good deal for both of them. The keenness which has been shown, particularly by the veteran who perhaps is too old to take a positon in the active army, standing almost alongside the young fellow of seventeen or eighteen years of age, with the manager of a department store beside the dentist, or beside somebody in charge of a radio station; all doing their jobs, taking their training as if they really liked it, doing it because they feel it is worth while setting an example to the people of this country and imbuing them with the spirit that this country is at war-to this I would pay very sincere tribute. I thank the citizens of this country for their support of the reserve army. I know that quite a number of members of this house have set a good example and, if I may say so, have received some benefit
War Appropriation-Army

themselves from joining the reserve army. Veterans of the last war have given their experience and services to make it a success. It is a great stimulation to see these old soldiers and responsible citizens unite with the youths who are equally enthusiastic in willingness to back up the active army. They have been willing to forego time and comfort in order to be prepared. They have built a sound organization which can be relied on as an essential part of our defence plan.
We have noted with the greatest appreciation and gratification the rapid growth of the reserve army this year, and are taking active steps toward giving them additional operational responsibilities, particularly in the coastal areas. This will apply especially to infantry and anti-aircraft units.
Another organization, which used to be my favourite when I was in this position ten or fifteen years ago, and one on which whole debates on national defence estimates occurred, is the cadets.


John Horne Blackmore: Before the minister goes on, would he prefer that we ask him questions concerning the reserve army at a later time, after he finishes his whole statement?


James Layton Ralston: Yes; if my hop. friend is so kind as to agree. I suggested to the committee that I might put the statement on record as consecutively as possible; then there would be subjects which would suggest themselves to the committee, and I would try to be prepared to answer their questions.
The cadets this year have organized and started out on a line of activity which I think will be exceedingly useful. They are tremendously keen. His Majesty the King has been so gracious as to accept the appointment of Colonel-in-Chief of the cadets; and he was good enough also to allow the use of the word "royal"; so that to-day the boys belong to the Royal Canadian Army Cadets, ' and they have as Coloneldn-Chief His Majesty the King. They have been provided with uniforms, half the cost of which they pay themselves, the other half being paid for by the country. That the uniform has a good deal to do with the smartness of the soldier and the attractiveness of the service, there is no doubt. They have made the very best use of it. I do not think I have seen any smarter turn-out of the youth of Canada than the parade of one of the cadet units of this city that I had the opportunity of visiting a few weeks ago.
There are about ninety-four thousand cadets altogether, about fifty per cent of them being

seniors and fifty per cent juniors. Those over fifteen years of age are classed as seniors.
In addition to getting a uniform, they are receiving equipment. They have been given a new syllabus of training. We have tried to make it interesting as well as practical. We have endeavoured to make the syllabus such as would develop the skills of the new type of soldier in connection with the duties and the weapons which the modern soldier has to know about. We have tried to develop a syllabus so that the sense of discipline is based on knowledge, on logic, on enthusiasm and on pride. It is a syllabus which will give them a broader understanding of the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship generally.
The reserve army is assisting in a very particular way in connection with the training and development of the boys in the cadet corps. Many of the cadet units are attached to units of the reserve army. Many of the cadet units, as hon. members know, are in the schools; some of them are sponsored by clubs and other civic organizations; but they are all welded together into the Royal Canadian Army Cadets, and I must say that they are doing a good job.. Mr. Churchill the other evening, when speaking of the home guards, said, "with them came the lads of seventeen already trained in the army cadet corps"; and the boys of Canada are coming right along with the reserve army. We hope that their next step will be to go into the active army.
I wish to express my particular appreciation for the great help which has been given by the education departments of the provinces in connection with what has been a rather delicate and difficult situation with regard to the cadet movement, because, as the committee knows, there are air cadets and sea cadets as well. But I believe that difficulties have been ipretty well taken care of. We have had the greatest cooperation from the departments of education, from, the principals, the teachers and the cadet instructors. We try to qualify these instructors in every way possible by giving them special courses in connection with the work they will be doing with the boys.
While I am speaking of the boys, there is one more activity in the army which I should like to mention, namely, the course which we started quite lately for vocational training of boys. It was a development of this year; indeed all these things of which I am speaking are really developments of this year. I do not propose to deal with basic and advanced training centres, much as I should like to do so.

War Appropriation-Army
The idea of these boys' vocational training is to give lads of seventeen and) eighteen a head start, as they say, in trades training for the army. It provides them with trades training which will be valuable not only in the army but in civil life as well. It is open to boys who have completed grade nine. They send in an application to the principal, andi the principal sends in a report to the district trades training officer, who decides whether the candidates ought to be brought in for interview. Those who are accepted enlist, provided of course that they have the consent of their parents. First, they take at least two weeks' military training; then they go to technical and) vocational schools which have been established in western, central and eastern Canada. The courses last about ten months; and) during the course, in addition to their trades training, they have military training for nine hours a week. These young soldiers receive boys' pay, seventy cents a day, until they are seventeen and a half years old; they then receive sob diers' pay; and none, of course, go overseas until they reach nineteen years of age. They get training as fitters, mechanics, electricians, draftsmen, artificers and other trade specialists, and the object is to provide an opportunity for every boy to get that education which he would receive between the time he would normally leave school and the time he goes into the army.
In connection with selection of officers we have this year adopted a system w'hich is an innovation so far as Canada is concerned. It is not like the system in either England or the United States, but we felt that it was necessary if we were to have uniformity in the training of junior officers. We had boys coming in from different districts going to Brockville or Gordon Head, recommended by their commanding officers as fit and1 suitable as officer cadets to take up the Brockville or Gordon Head course. The general principles of qualification were laid down, but apparently there was a wide difference between these standards and the actual attainments of the men who came to Brockville. The result was that there were failures, and some of the boys got discouraged, although I may observe that the percentage of failures was remarkably small. It was our opinion, however, with respect to these future leaders of men, that they ought to have a preliminary look-over, so to speak, before being sent to Brockville or Gordon Head. We have therefore established two officers selection and appraisal centres, one in the east and one in the west. The eastern centre at Three Rivers
had as commanding officer Brigadier Foster, who has now taken the position of defence projects commissioner in the west, his place having been taken by Brigadier General MoCuaig. Brigadier Archambault is associate chairman of the board. In the west, either this week or next week, we shall have in charge of the work at Chilliwack, Brigadier Wilson, who previously was in charge of the Gordon Head officers training centre.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are these
travelling schools?


James Layton Ralston: These are not travelling
schools. The boys live as closely as possible under the observation of the senior officers. There is an officer from each corps-artillery, infantry, ordnance and so on. They put the boys through various tests and have interviews with them with a view to ascertaining their capabilities and their objectives in life. In short, they take a fatherly and intimate interest in them, and appraise them, as it were, to find out exactly what the boys are best fitted for. The object is to help a boy, first, to suggest what arm of the service he could best serve in; second, to give some preliminary idea of the responsibility with which he will be charged in the future as an officer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there
an educational standard or test?


James Layton Ralston: Yes; I believe it is grade nine.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The reason why I ask is that Major Rouse from my'city is doing this work at Three Rivers.


James Layton Ralston: The object is, first, to
give an idea of the responsibility of officers; second, to attain some uniform standard of qualifications; and third, to advise with regard to the adaptability of the boys to different branches of the service. Consideration had to be given to the boy who would not make the grade. If he went to Brockville or to Gordon Head, he might be ploughed and there would be a black mark against him. The idea was, therefore, to give that boy an idea of the further training he should undergo and to make him feel that he was not being sent back as turned, down for good. Rather it was to impress upon him the importance of obtaining further training inasmuch as he was setting out upon an important vocation in life.


Howard Charles Green: Do men from overseas have to go to these centres also?
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: No. So far they have
not. The school has worked well so far. It has been in operation for only three months, but the reports are extremely promising. There has been a classification of men: the top, 50 per cent; the next, 30 per cent; the next, 10 per cent, and 10 per cent.


Grote Stirling: These young men are
chosen by the commanding officers from the units?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are they
no longer taken from the C.O.T.C., from the universities?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then
they are not always from the units?


James Layton Ralston: I had in mind the commanding officer of the C.O.T.C. This brings me to the point raised by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling). As soon as the Chilliwack centre is established, what we shall be putting into effect is this, that any boy may make application to his commanding officer, if he thinks he can make the grade, for a commission. The commanding officer may not favour the application, but he cannot send it back. He must forward it to the board for consideration, and the board will have the boy come to them, or cause him to be examined by some board of their own, apart from the commanding officer. The object is to give the chap who has ambition an opportunity, on his own, to obtain a detached appraisal of his ability instead of having him entirely within the confines of a particular unit of which he may be a member. The new system stresses leadership particularly, and that is well brought out by the officers, whom we are sending there to be in charge. We also stress the qualities of character and practical knowledge as well as of military attainments, because they can get their military attainments by training.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Chairman, there were two or three other special activities that I thought might be of interest to the committee, though I do not intend to take very long with any of them. The training of officers, as the committee knows, is perhaps

one of the most important activities that we carry on, and I want to give the figures for Brockville and Gordon Head, which may be of interest. Up to the end of April of this year we graduated from these training centres 11,686 officers, including 669 who graduated not from Brockville and Gordon Head direct but from ad hoc training centres wdiich we set up in order to take care of additional needs while we were carrying on construction at these two centres. That construction wTill be finished very shortly, and then we shall have accommodation at Brockville for some 8.000 officers per annum and at Gordon Head for some 2,900.
I think I can say that the schools have done well; I think, too, they have had excellent material with which to work. At Gordon Head the cadets naturally are practicallj' all English-speaking Canadians, but I am sure it is a matter of satisfaction to know that at Brockville French-Canadians and English-Canadians in the proportion of about one to three have graduated during the last year. I do not think there could be any better evidence of a willingness, desire and determination, to make some united contribution to this war than is shown by the cordial association of these young men at Brockville and by the comradeships, the foundations of which are laid at that institution. Last year we had just started a new experiment in the way of pre-training for French-Cana.dian cadets at St. Jerome. That school began operating in February, 1942, and the output for the year has been approximately 1,000 cadets. As the committee will remember, we have had young French-Canadians selected by civilian committees. They went, first to St. Jerome, where they were given a month's basic training. If they progressed well and showed promise and a desire to carry on and enlisted, they were put into what we called the cadet wing at St. Jerome, where they were given another month's training. The training is not altogether similar but is generally in line with the idea of the new selection centres at Three Rivers and Chilliwack which I mentioned just before six o'clock, except that the French-Canadian boys have been at St. Jerome. They go to this precadet wing, where they have this month of training. This gives them some idea of the associations and the responsibilities of officers; it gives them some preparation which helps to overcome the bit of handicap which these boys naturally would feel in going to a school where most of the boys were English. Generally it gives them a

War Appropriation-Army
foundation' which is of extreme value when they go to Brockville and meet their English-speaking confreres. That school has been a success from the very start. It will be tied in, as a matter of fact, with the selection centre at Three Rivers, of which I spoke this afternoon.
Another innovation which was initiated this year and which I think is well worth noting, is our organization with regard to improvements in equipment, the development of mechanical and technical devices. There is always a great urge and a great rush in the urgent necessity of producing standard types of weapons, and that rush and urge very often obscure the necessity for constant effort to improve. The army research man is not always very popular with the production man. The production man gets set; he wants to get mass production going and is not too enthusiastic about any suggestion of change. Nevertheless changes have to be made; we are in a gruelling race with the axis for efficiency and more efficiency in connection with equipment, and we have set up two agencies which I think have done extremely useful work. First, we have formed a branch of the general staff called the directorate of staff duties (weapons). He represents the ultimate consumer; that is, the man in the field. He has to do with quantities of weapons, but he also has to do with something else, perhaps his most interesting activity, namely, w;ith developments and improvements of weapons. He is in constant communication with the army overseas to see what needs have arisen for new types of weapons and for the improvement of existing types. He is a clearing-house for new ideas which come from the army anywhere in the way of new or improved weapons, and it is the job of his section to appraise the probable usefulness of an idea which is suggested, assuming that it can be produced.
It is not very much good having a clearinghouse of ideas unless one can have somebody produce the pilot models or the mock-ups in order to find out whether or not they will work. Therefore it will be remembered that just about a year ago the army technical development board was formed under the chairmanship of the master-general of the ordnance; that was at the time General McNaughton was here. That board is tied in with representatives of munitions and supply and national research as well as the army. Its job is to take the needs of the army and the ideas which have been presented and suggested and, if I may put it in this way, to farm them out either to the national research council, to some other government organization or to
private industry, in an endeavour to have models designed' and built to see if the work required can be done. It may give a job to some particular commercial firm; it may go to the national research laboratories or to the army workshops, but the job of that board is to see that somebody does it and that ideas do not simply get pigeon-holed, as I am sorry to say is sometimes the situation.
Just to show that the activities of this board are not merely theoretical, there have been instances already of changes made which have shown its usefulness. I cannot give details of the weapons, but I can give the characteristics of weapons which have been improved or changed. Take the matter of range, for instance, the range of projectiles. In one case the range of a standard weapon was increased by 25 per cent by improving the projectile. That design has now been accepted. In another case it looks as though the development will increase the range not by 25 per cent but by 300 per cent, and the prototype embodying the new design is now in the United Kingdom under trial. In another case I remember a heavier weapon of a certain type was needed. That has been developed and the prototypes are under trial; there again the range of the projectile was more than doubled. Then several ideas came in for heavy mobile mountings for a standard weapon; those were perfected and the trials carried out, and orders for the new mountings are now in. The muzzle velocity of another weapon was increased by 200 per cent; the rate of fire of still another weapon was doubled, and pilot models are now under test in the United Kingdom. In another instance the design for a multiple mounting, namely a mounting from which the weapons fire in parallel, was perfected, and that has been passed.
These are some of the things that have been done. Needless to say, there are many others which are under development; and while the army organization has been the means of pooling these ideas and getting some practical action in connection with them, full credit must go to the Department of Munitions and Supply and to the national research council for the rapid strides that have been made in this very important field of weapon development. What we have tried to do is to make use of the very best scientific, engineering and industrial brains in Canada, for the purpose of seeing to it that we have the very best types, the most improved types of weapons that can be produced.
Another development which I know is interesting is that of the formation of the paratroop battalion, the authorization of
War Appropriation-Army

which took place just a year ago on Dominion day. This, of course, does not represent a large force. Until we could complete facilities at Shilo camp, we took advantage of the very generous offer made by the United States army authorities to have the training of officers and non-commissioned officers done at Fort Benning, Georgia. They intended to return to establish a training centre in Canada, when the facilities were ready. Then, to join the battalion, a number of officers and men were selected from the Canadian army overseas. They were brought back to take their training. We wanted to make progress quickly. Consequently we took advantage of a further offer made by our United States friends. Our battalion went to Fort Benning, with the expectation of coming to Shilo later. Then the United States authorities suggested that we keep the paratroop battalion at Fort Benning for the winter, and said that they would send up a contingent of army technicians, about a thousand in number, to conduct cold-weather experiments in connection with equipment. The arrangement was carried out, and we accepted the proposition. The result was that, all winter long, United States and Canadian equipment was being used at Shilo, under intensive cold-weather conditions. They worked in close cooperation with our own master-general of the ordnance, and a great deal of valuable information was secured.	.
The vice-adjutant general recently returned from a visit to our troops at Fort Benning, and the report he brought back with regard to that battalion of ours was most gratifying. Perhaps some hon. members saw the paratroops in Ottawa the other day, when they marched in the victory loan parade, and I am sure that any hon. member, or any person outside the house who saw them would have reason to be proud of that very representative paratroop unit.
As a matter of fact they are .training at Shilo now. The Shilo facilities are practically completed, so that we are training a battalion and reinforcements as well.
There is one other battalion of a somewhat similar nature about which I should like to say a word. Not much is said about it. I refer to the half composite battalion, known as the first special service force, which is now at Helena, Montana. I refer to that half of the battalion which is Canadian. It is a composite battalion, with a United States officer in command and a Canadian officer as second in command. It is formed of picked men who are skilled in parachute and marine landings, and in moimtain and desert warfare, and is being trained for special work. It is the

British commando, plus, becavise it has parachute and marine landing abilities, as well as ability in mountain and desert warfare. The Canadian troops include both officers and men, but the force is actually one body without any special Canadian or United States wing or section.


Gordon Graydon: From now on, will all paratroops be trained at Shilo?


James Layton Ralston: I just wish to say a word with regard to transportation, before I take my seat. As hon. members will readily understand, I could go on and on and on-to their sorrow-with regard to the activities of the department. In this speech I have mentioned only those things which have been discussed throughout the year. I have not mentioned the routine of training, or the extensions in connection with both basic and advanced training. I have said nothing about the training schools or the courses they are giving, or anything about the eighty-seven training establishments. I have said nothing about the auxiliary services or about the chaplain services. I have said nothing about the construction undertaken by the quartermaster-general's branch, or the tremendous amount of work which must be done by that branch in providing accommodation all over Canada. I have said nothing in regard to recruiting, victualling, housing, clothing and equipping. Perhaps those points will come up during the discussion in committee. Naturally, however, in a rapid review we cannot cover all points.
While I give credit to the officers who have been so zealous and so faithful in the conduct of all these lines of activity, at the same time I wish to say a special word with regard to transportation, It is something which is not very much in the public eye, but which is vitally important in connection with the organization and administration of an army. The laconic announcement that appears from time to time in the newspapers that another troopship has arrived overseas, bearing Canadian units and Canadian reinforcements, makes very little impression upon the minds of most of us. Most people do not realize much of what is involved in the steps preceding the time when that particular group of individuals steps on the boat at the dockside.. The details of those last few days require most meticulous planning and attention.
Before the draft is ready, medical examination, documentation, arrangements for leave and completion of clothing and equipment must be attended to. Then come the train

War Appropriation-Army
orders, the transportation and security arrangements in, transit, and the timing of the arrival of trains with the time of arrival of the troopship. Arrangements for the disembarkation and security arrangements at the dockside and on the ship, the space allocation and embarkation, are activities of which little is known and less is appreciated by the public.
In the last war everybody knew when a troop train was going through. Everyone flocked to the stations, and with cheers and bands welcomed the troops, and sped them on their way. The whole country had this visible evidence that we were in the war. Nowadays no one knows the time of the moving of these troops. Trainload after trainload moves in secrecy from various centres in Canada, all heading toward the port of embarkation. That takes planning.
I just wish to pay my tribute, not only to the departmental officers, but also to the railway managements, the operating staffs and the running crews of our two great railway systems. They have done a magnificent job in these days of overloaded rolling stock and congested trackage, amid all weather conditions and under the necessity of meeting almost instantly changing schedules on account of alterations in shipping arrangements. Their task has none of the glamour and none of the limelight of service which the public sees, but they give their best with a patience, a devotion and an efficiency 'which can only be, fully realized by those who know of the burdens which they carry, and the difficulties under which they work.
I shall not trouble the committee with further detail of departmental administration, except to mention the medical service, which has a very heavy job, and the organization of which has made remarkable strides in the past year.
Then, a final word with regard to the programme in 1943-44 for the Canadian army overseas. As is usually the case in these matters, one can say least regarding that which is perhaps of the most interest. The committee will not expect me to speculate as to what might take place in this year, as to what operations may develop, where they will be launched, or what the objectives will be. Any discussion of that kind would embarrass not only our own staffs, but those of the allied nations with whose fortunes and activities ours are locked up. What Canada wants to be sure of is that we are fully informed regarding the plans of those who have the direction of the war strategy, and particularly as they affect employment of Canadians, and that we are ready to participate in them when the zero hour strikes.
The army commander is in constant touch with the chief of the imperial general staff with regard to plans. The chief of the general staff here has been in the United Kingdom very recently and has had an opportunity of full discussion both with the army commander and with the war office.
With respect to armaments and equipment of our overseas forces, I can say that the situation has improved greatly during the past year and continues to improve in spite of the large demands from the active theatres. The committee will appreciate that army requirements run into thousands of items. In the case of most of these items we are not only equipped up to establishment but have substantial reserves. In the case of only a few is there an establishment deficiency, but these can be rapidly filled except where there is a universal shortage of supplies affecting all the armies of the united nations. All steps possible have been taken to equip the units and formations of the Canadian army overseas ready to undertake any task that may be assigned to them, but of course it must be understood that each task may require special preparation in the way of organization, rehearsal and equipment. I am confident that Canadians are in position to adapt themselves to any operation as quickly and efficiently as any troops in the United Kingdom.
I am not announcing any new formations for 1943-44. To put it simply, the Canadian contribution to the 1943 overseas programme is primarily' to maintain our forces overseas by replacements of men and equipment and by maintaining adequate reserves for the field forces which may be employed from time to time. We cannot tell, of course, what the exact requirements will be; that must depend on the operations which are to be undertaken. But we estimate, as I have said already, that to cover all contingencies our objective should be an intake, for the twelve-month period, of about 75,000 men for overseas service and about 25,000 men for Canadian service. The equipment situation is well in hand; but, as I have indicated, part of our task for the year will include keeping equipment fully up to date and maintaining adequate reserves.
That, programme does not take long to state, but the committee will appreciate that its brevity is in no way a measure of its importance; far from it. The large increase in the amounts allotted to the army in this resolution are mainly to make provision for activities which the year before us may bring. The battle of North Africa is over after six months of the most spectacular, the fastest-moving, the most relentless and the hardest-hitting offensive ever seen. But we must remember that that battle began over two
War Appropiiation-Army

years ago. The long hoped-for climax was made possible by two major victories. First, there was the glorious advance of the eighth army under the magnificent leadership of General Montgomery and the excellent cooperation between Montgomery's land and air forces. Second, there was the combined operation which began when United States and British forces landed in North Africa and tirelessly and persistently and not without hard fighting forced a debacle last week which must have caused Hitler more chagrin, more humiliation and more impotent rage than even the relief of Stalingrad.
These victories have shown that in brilliant planning and valiant fighting, both leaders and men are superb. Our field organization has proved to be sound, and our armament and equipment have matched and surpassed anything that our enemies have produced. The victories in North Africa, in Russia and in the southern Pacific are far-reaching in their effect; but, as has been said so many times, we must not overestimate the results. These victories have all been part of the preparatory, not the decisive phase of this war. Our armies, other than the Red army, have not yet secured even a foothold on the continent of Europe. Tunisia is not a stopping-place.
The year ahead looks like a year of action. If it is, Canadians will be in the thick of the events for which plans and preparations have long been under way. The Canadian army overseas has already carried out one of the most trying assignments that can come to fighting men, namely, the job of training and working month after month and year after year getting ready to strike and at the same time holding the line against possible attack by air, sea and land. In those dangerous days of 1940 our first division was a strong bastion in the none too rugged bulwarks of Britain. The second division joined them in the fall of 1940, and each year we have dispatched more divisions and more units to be ready to take Canada's share in land operations wherever they are needed. As a distinguished Canadian has put it, they have been the king's bodyguard on the-bridge of freedom.
These men have kept alert; they have maintained their spirit. An officer who came back a few days ago told me that never before has the .Canadian army been more ready, more determined and more keen than it is now after three years of waiting. That in itself is a great achievement for men who have separated themselves from homes and families for so long, men who have just the same ambitions in civil life as you and I, men who took on soldiering not because they preferred it but

because it was the highest duty of a citizen. These soldiers of ours have worked tirelessly to fit themselves for battle. They are well led, and their equipment is of the best. They are on a front which in all likelihood will prove to be the decisive front of the war. They may fight on that front or on some other. They may fight as an army or in separate formations. But wherever they are, they will be a power to be reckoned with, just as Canadians were twenty-five years ago.
The money to be provided by the bill which will be based upon this resolution represents, so far as the dollar sign can express it, the might which the Canadian people will put behind our men in this offensive. But the dollar sign is just a symbol. Translated into fighting power, it means men and guns and tanks and munitions of war. It means the spirit of self-denial and of unflinching perseverance. This year more than ever Canadians at home will suffer real inconvenience and probably some discomfort. But these are trivial troubles compared with the sacrifices which face our sailors, soldiers and airmen. They challenge us to see it through. They challenge us to a redoubled effort until the job is done. Success depends on us just as much as it does on them. If that is so, the nearer that those of us at home can come to matching the steadiness and the enthusiasm of our fighting men, the surer will be the victory and the shorter will be the war.
This statement may be regarded as having been all too long, but there was a great deal of ground to cover. It is at best, a very sketchy resume of the activities of the Canadian army during the past year, having regard particularly to the programme which we set out for ourselves, both in Canada and overseas, the activities which have taken place and what is ahead of us. I submit it to the committee for whatever use it may prove to hon. members. I would assume that members of the committee will want to deal with this matter as if we were in the estimate stage, and that we shall endeavour to make it our objective to give all possible attention to the items which were set out in Hansard by the Minister of Finance, the break-down for the army, so that we may as far as possible ensure an orderly discussion and, I hope, accelerate and facilitate the procuring and production of information.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Defence has made a lengthy statement to the committee concerning the affairs of the Canadian army, distinguished, of course, from the affairs of the navy and the air force. In opening the discussion on army

War Appropriation-Army
affairs, I do not propose to cover all the points dealt with by the minister; I shall deal with only three or four which seem to be of major importance. Other important points will be dealt with by my colleagues as the discussion proceeds.
First of all, I should like to discuss Canada's overseas army, dealing with two points, the question of reinforcements, and then the question of giving that army battle training. In the last war Canada had four divisions overseas organized into one corps, which, as hon. members know, was called the Canadian corps and which made an, enviable name for this nation of Canada. In that war approximately
425.000	Canadians went overseas, and approximately 620,000 enlisted. In this war we have one more division overseas, making a total of five divisions; those divisions have been organized, not into one Canadian corps, but into two corps, and the two corps have been organized into a Canadian army, as the minister explained to us in his statement. He has also said that we have overseas approximately 190,000 men, as compared, of course, with a total in the last war of about 425,000. Then he stated that there are in Canada about 100,000 general service personnel, as distinguished from home defence personnel, who might be scraped up to be sent overseas as reinforcements for the Canadian army. That would make a total of 290,000 men overseas.


James Layton Ralston: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but I think he is misquoting me. I did not suggest that 100,000 could be scraped up. What I said was that over 50,000 are actually in training centres. So that there is not much scraping up about that. I said that the others could be made available by orderly replacements and withdrawals. There are from 150,000 to 185,000 general service personnel in Canada, not 100,000 as my hon. friend said.


Howard Charles Green: The minister was not
following me closely. I did not say how many general service personnel there were in Canada; I said that the minister's statement to the committee was that we could get about
100.000	general service personnel in Canada for reinforcing the Canadian army overseas. I used the words "scrape up," because that certainly was the impression I got from the minister's speech.
The minister went on to say that there were 50,000 home defence personnel who could also be sent overseas as reinforcements if they were needed and if the government saw fit to change its policy with regard to
72.537-176
these men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act. If that were done, it would, of course, wipe out for all practical purposes the sixth, seventh and eighth divisions which are now stationed in Canada.
The minister also stated in the course of his remarks that enlistments were down in March and April, and that May had not begun too well, showing just what we are facing in raising reinforcements in this country. Furthermore, I believe that last year there was some difficulty in meeting the requisitions made by the defence department for troops. Press dispatches on January 27 of this year stated that compulsory mobilization delivered 107,678 fit men to the Canadian army in the period from March 20, 1941, to December 26. 1942. as against army requirements for 150.390. In other words, about
43,000	men short of the requisitions made by the Department of National Defence. This statement, which was issued apparently by the government, in January last, went on to say:
Between the 17th call-up period (May 15, 1942) and December 26, the number of men accepted at training centres totalled 52,428 compared with requisitions for 94,000.
That is a shortage of 42,000 men. The article goes on to say:
It will be seen that the number of men secured as compared with the number requisitioned dropped sharply at midsummer, 1942. The percentage continued to drop until almost the end of the year.
It is a well known fact that of these men who are called up only a percentage go "general service", or, in other words, enlist for service overseas. The minister knows better than I do what that percentage is, but according to the figures which he gave us on Thursday last it is only about twenty per cent. In addition to that, I believe that many men, when they know they are about to be called up, join the active army, the navy or the air force. But the percentage' of men called up or about to be called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act who enlist for general service is comparatively small, and I think I may safely say is well under fifty per cent. So that the situation with regard to replacements is by no means as rosy as the minister's statement would lead us to believe. That is a situation which must be given careful consideration by members of the house and also, I suggest, by the Canadian people.
There can be no doubt whatever that the Canadian people and the members of this

War Appropriation-Army

house are entitled to a definite assurance from the ministry that there are and will be sufficient reinforcements to keep all the units of Canada's army up to fighting strength. That assurance has not been given by the Minister of National Defence. He has talked all around it in his statement, but has given no definite assurance that Canada's army will be adequately reinforced. Events will prove whether or not we have sufficient reinforcements. But the responsibility for adequate reinforcements rests right on the shoulders of the ministry. Certainly our Canadian army overseas must be reinforced at all costs, and so must the divisions which are serving at home in Canada, the Sixth, seventh and eighth divisions. So much for reinforcements.
One other question with regard to the overseas army which I think should be considered carefully by the members of the committee is this: Is the Canadian army overseas to be thrown into battle as an army without the units first having had a chance to get battle experience? Canadians overseas have been given very little opportunity to get battle experience. Some of them, a comparatively small number, did get such experience at Dieppe, but of the number who got that battle experience very few came back from Dieppe. Many hundreds of Canadians, unfortunately, were left on the beach there, and the Canadian prisoners lost at Dieppe number, I believe, almost as many as all the men that were lost by Canada as prisoners during the last war. Casualties were out of all proportion to the number of troops engaged. One cannot praise too highly the valour of the Canadian troops; and in that connection, residents of my city of Vancouver are very proud of the valour of their own Colonel Merritt, who commanded the South Saskatchewan regiment and was awarded the Victoria Cross, upon a citation which I have never seen surpassed in connection with any award to any Canadian. But why should the people who planned that action receive such praise? Why should Dieppe be treated as a great victory? I saw at close quarters some of these "victories" in the last war, in which several hundred or several thousand men were sacrificed. It is not good1 enough, in this second world war, that Canadians should be thrown away by the hundreds unless the plans have been most carefully laid and most carefully carried out. In my opinion the minister went much too far and made much too extravagant statements with regard to this action at Dieppe. He said on Friday last, as reported in Hansard, at'page 2690:
The losses were heavy

Certainly there can be no dispute about that.
[Mr. Green.)
-but although the price was great, when history comes to be written I believe it will be recorded that Dieppe did a service of untold benefit not only on the Russian front and later in North Africa, but to the cause of the united nations generally.
He went on:
It was practically the beginning of the offensive.
Then he excelled himself in these words:
Some day it may well be considered as having sown the seeds of our final victory.
That assertion, I am afraid, is the result of a vivid imagination. I suggest that, rather than exaggerate this action as has been done, and paean it as a great victory, we should be examining the methods which were used in planning it and make sure that those who planned it deserve to continue as leaders of our troops overseas.
Let me now come back to the question of battle training for our troops. There has been much talk of the Canadian army forming the spearhead of the invasion of the continent. That has, of course, a glorious sound; but it would mean, if the Canadian army were to be used as a spearhead at the present time, putting a force of five divisions which has never fought as an army, which has never been in action as a unit, against battle-hardened German troops sitting behind fortifications. It would entail far heavier casualties, as those of us who were in the last war know, than if the units of the army had had battle experience, and if, also, their commanders had had battle experience; because, remember, in a war commanders gain battle experience-unfortunately -at the cost of the lives of troops.
The situation was shown clearly, I thought, in a dispatch from Tunis describing the meeting of the United States second corps with troops of the British eighth army in the course of the fighting there. I quote from the dispatch:
Lieutenant Alvin J. Parker, of Odessa, Texas, who was in charge of a reconnaissance party at the junction, expressed the sentiments of the Americans when he said, "We ivere damned glad to see the British. They have done a great job. We have a lot to learn, but we are finding out how to take care of ourselves."
The last words are the important part. The units of our Canadian army should be given an opportunity to find out how to take care of themselves in the midst of battle. Consequently, if battle experience is advisable for the units of the Canadian army, why have they not had it? Why do they not get it?
Some believe that Canadian government policy has been to insist on holding the whole army together, to insist on keeping it

War Appropriation-Army
from fighting until it can fight as an army. Some believe that that has been the policy of the Canadian commanders overseas. Now, in his statement to the committee, the minister says that such is not the case. He says that the government has offered to allow units to be detached; that the Canadian commanders overseas have offered to allow units to be detached, but that the British government has not accepted, that the British government has said it did not want that done. That may or may not be accurate, but to me it sounds a great deal like placing the blame in a very subtle manner at the door of the British, which has been done by this ministry on more than one occasion since the outbreak of the war. If battle experience is desirable for our Canadian divisions and troops before the Canadians fight as an army, it is the duty of the Canadian government-it is not a matter to be left necessarily to the British-to see to it that our units get that battle experience before the Canadian army goes into action as an army. The government of the day cannot evade the responsibility for seeing that our boys get the proper amount of battle experience. So much for our army overseas.
I should now like to draw the attention of hon. members to the human side of the Canadian army. The minister has not said one word about that, in the course of his long statement.
In Canada vre regard our men as individuals. We look upon our troops, not as cogs in a machine, not as cannon-fodder, but as individuals. When Canadians in general think of the army they think of their sons, their husbands, their brothers or their friends. It is a personal matter; the human side of the army appeals to us. And I suggest it is the duty and the responsibility of the defence department of Canada to find ways of helping the men in the forces. But the defence department seldom show any signs of recognizing that responsibility: they leave it to some other department, such as the Department of Pensions and National Health. I propose this evening to give several examples.	.
First of all, there is this practice of discharging men as unfit too quickly. Some provision should be made so that such men will not be discharged until it is known whether they are to get a pension. There is too much of this business of throwing men out of the army as soon as they are able to walk away from the hospital and leaving them to worry for months as to whether they are to get any pension.
In the same connection, the defence department should insist on a change in our pen-
72537- 176J
sion law, so that men disabled in the service will be able to get a pension. In very many cases men go into the army as category A and are discharged later as category E, yet they are unable to get a pension. One of the reasons is that our pension law is such that if a man has not served outside Canada, he can get a pension only if he shows -I quote from section 11, subsection 2 of the Pension Act-that-
.	.	. the injury or disease or aggravation
thereof resulting in disability or death . . . arose out of or was directly connected with such military service.
In other words, he must show that his disability arose directly out of something he was doing as a soldier. That was not the law in the last war, and it was not the law in this war, in Canada, up to May 21, 1940. Since then, it has been the law with regard to men serving in the army in Canada. It is far too rigid. It should be changed, and it is the responsibility of the defence department to see that some change is made.
It is true that provision is made for hardship cases. Where there has been serious disability, and the applicant is in necessitous circumstances, the pension commission may in its discretion award such amount as it deems adequate. But that is not wide enough to cover the cases of many of these men; many have gone in as category A, and have come out as category E, and yet cannot get a pension. Everyone knows that in many cases it is only too obvious that these men would not have been category E if they had not been in the army, although the disability may not have arisen out of anything they did directly as soldiers. I say, that has hurt enlistments across Canada for many months, and the act should be changed.
Another provision that should be made for the troops is this. Something should be done about helping their dependents to get homes. They should be able to get into wartime houses, and they should be able to take advantage of the National Housing Act; the Department of National Defence has a responsibility to take some interest in getting this consideration for the men.
A few months ago there was an increase in pay, but now we find that there are jokers in this increase. The idea got abroad in Canada that if a man served for so many months he would get an increase in pay, but now we find that there are provisos. He must be efficient, his conduct must have been good, and of course the test of that depends in many cases on the whim of his commanding
War Appropriation-Army

officer. There are too many penalties attached to the increase in pay. The provisions are not fair to the men in the forces.
Again, some provision should be made for protecting the insurance of men who join the forces. A man joins up and does not receive enough pay to pay his premiums, and some provision should be made to safeguard him against the cancellation of his policy.
These are a few of the points that should be of interest to the department. I think the situation may be summed up by saying that the men and women in the armed forces are making great sacrifices for Canada and that they and their dependents must be so treated, both during service and thereafter, that they will be adequately compensated for such sacrifices; and the responsibility rests upon the Department of National Defence to see that this is done.
The third subject which I wish to place before the committee this evening is this. The minister has made no declaration concerning the government's policy in the Pacific, in the war with Japan. He referred to two theatres of war, the European and the North American, if you please. I would remind him that there is also a Pacific theatre and that Canada is vitally concerned in that theatre. We may wake up one of these mornings to find that the Japanese have attacked our west coast. We may find that we have a war of our own right on our own front door-step. The minister said that Germany was the backbone of the axis. There can be no doubt that Germany is one of the backbones of the axis, but I suggest that there are two backbones, the other being Japan. She is a great distance away and is very hard to get at. She has a great navy, which is not the case w'ith Germany. She has a great army; her troops are filled with fanaticism, to a far greater degree than the German troops, and she has all the resources she needs, thanks to the conquests she has made in this war. In our war with Japan there is no Russia fighting on our side, and doing most of the fighting, as Russia has done against Germany.
Japan went into this war knowing exactly what she was doing and exactly what she wanted, and she went in with one aim, namely, world domination. Canada must never forget the deadly menace of Japan; yet apparently the government's policy is that Canada should turn her back on the Pacific war and fight a defensive war in that theatre; that Canada should fight what we may describe as a holding war. Well, at the moment Japan is doing all the holding in the Pacific. She has done the conquering, and now she is doing the holding and is being given time to consolidate her gains, with very few exceptions.

The actions of the Department of National Defence are in line with this policy of fighting a holding war in the Pacific. Canada's Pacific army has been stripped of general service personnel. They have been replaced by home defence personnel who cannot be sent abroad. Further than that, men sent to the units have not been men from the district or even the province to which these units belong. Men have been sent into units helter-skelter from all over Canada, which makes a complete hodge-podge. Hon. members can imagine what effect that has on the esprit de corps of a unit. No troops, so far as we know, have been sent to Australia, even for battle training against the Japanese, let alone being sent there as a token force to help the Australians and to show that Canada is beside them. The United States could send troops to Australia, but Canada, so far as I know, has not sent a man. The whole training of the Pacific army has been for defensive fighting, and I suggest to the minister that you cannot build a real fighting machine if it is for home defence only. One result of this defensive role is that many demands are made that the men from that Pacific army be taken away and put into logging, into the mining industry and into farming. The argument is used that they are only there for defensive purposes and that they should be put into these other industries instead of being kept in the army. That is the position and it is not a good one. Canada in the Pacific is leaving it to Australia, New Zealand, the United States, the Netherlands, China and Great Britain to fight the Japs, although we are a nation on the Pacific.
Perhaps Canada is not expecting to fight Japan at all unless it be on the shores of Canada, or it may be that the government expects men from the Canadian army overseas to fight Japan after they have finished fighting Germany. I suggest that the Canadian government should give a definite assurance to the other nations I have mentioned that Canada will fight in the Pacific beside those nations until Japan is conquered. Great Britain gave the United States that assurance a few weeks ago, but Canada has not done so.
I suggest further that we should prepare our Pacific army for offensive action; that we should make it available for service anywhere, just as the United States has done. American troops on the Pacific are available to fight wherever they are sent. I suggest that we send some units to Australia for battle experience; or, if the government will not do that, let them send at least some men from the various units. If this change were made; if the offensive spirit were instilled into the army, it would change the whole outlook on

War Appropriation-Army
the Pacific coast. I suggest that Canada should take her place in the offensive against the Japanese wherever they can be found, and that we should join with Australia, New Zealand and China in complaining about the indifference to the Pacific war. Instead of that, there is never a word from Canada; you would not think she was the slightest bit interested in what is going on in the Pacific. In January of this year Prime Minister Curtin of Australia issued a definite and timely warning to the world, when he said:
The southwest Pacific area is too crucial to be left to a force of caretakers.
Then, just last month Doctor Evatt, who is Australia's minister of external affairs, was quoted in the press as follows:
The "beat Hitler first" strategy was never intended to limit the Pacific war to a holding operation, yet allocation and assessment of supplies for the Pacific area have not been sufficient to "give effect to the major strategic decisions."
The dispatch went on:
As in speeches of Madame Chiang Kai-shek, who has also argued the Pacific ease in the councils here, Evatt's -words betrayed again the acute anxiety of people in the front line out there lest Canadians and Americans underestimate the present and potential power of Japan. "Often," said Evatt, "our fate has been balanced on a knife edge."
I demand a statement of government policy on the Pacific war. We should know whether Canada is in the war with Japan or whether she is not. The Canadian government was the first to declare war on Japan, but now apparently it expects other nations to fight that war.
Finally, the fourth subject I propose to bring to the attention of the committee is the question of man-power. This afternoon the Minister of National Defence said that Canada was getting near the bottom of her man-power pool.


James Layton Ralston: I did not say anything of the kind.


Howard Charles Green: Well, it sounded like that to me; certainly it was very much like that. We know now what our objective is with regard to the armed forces. We know that we must maintain five divisions overseas together with two corps headquarters and an army headquarters, and that we must maintain three divisions in Canada. All the men not required for the forces should be available for work in Canada. Apparently there is quite keen competition for these men as between the Department of National Defence and the Department of Munitions and Supply. This afternoon the Minister of National Defence said that he
expected to get some men into the army on account of the shrinkage in the number of men required in war industries; then he went on to say that some of the men from industry could now be spared to go into the armed services. I would remind him that on the day he commenced his statement, May 13, which was only last week, the Minister of Munitions and Supply had another idea. In speaking of the closing of some of the war factories, or the reduction in staff, the minister is reported at page 2622 in Hansard as having said:
When the men will be laid off is a matter that is indefinite, but I would point out that there is a very serious over-all shortage of man-power in war industry to-day. I know of very few plants that have the number of men required to permit them to obtain the desired output. What will happen will be a transfer of labour from plants making less urgently required equipment to plants making equipment for which there is greater urgency.
Canada is now in a position where she cannot afford any wastage of man-power. Men are needed on every hand; men for the forces, men for farming, men for logging, men for mining and so on; and the present call-up system is wasteful. The need now is and will be for reinforcements. We are getting our reinforcements only by reason of the call-up under the National Resources Mobilization Act. As I said earlier in my remarks, many men go into the forces as soon as they know their turn is coming to be called; others go in after they have been called. If the present policy is followed, it will mean that more than fifty per cent of the men called will be home defence personnel. In other words, under the present government policy there will be a pile up of home defence personnel, of men who will fight only if Canada is invaded. Soon there will be more home defence personnel than Canada requires. Then, eventually, if we are to reinforce our army, we shall have to use these men as reinforcements.
Why not stop this farce now? WThy.not stop
this farce with regard to the use of man-power
and make all the men called up available for
service anywhere? The armies of the united
nations are moving to the offensive. Canada's
armies must be with them. Home defence
armies are out of date; they' are a thing of the
past. The time has come when all the men
the government decides should be in the forces
should be available for service wherever they
may be needed. This afternoon the minister
said that Canada must have the strongest and
best army we can raise. I agree with him on
that, but he will never have that army under
the present system of using man-power. If he
follows my suggestion and makes men available
for service anywhere, it will simplify the
*
War Appropriation-Army

problem of reinforcing our army overseas. It will give us a fighting army in the Pacific; it will require fewer men-


James Layton Ralston: They would be exactly the same men the hon. gentleman was talking about, and I thought he was objecting very much to their men going to the Pacific.


Howard Charles Green: The position now is that these men cannot be used in offensive action; they can be used only for home defence.


James Layton Ralston: But the hon. member was objecting to mixing these men in the Pacific. They would be the same men.


Howard Charles Green: But they should be made available for service wherever they are required, in whatever theatre of war they may be needed. We shall require fewer men called up if those secured under the National Resources Mobilization Act are made available for service overseas. Therefore it will bring about economy in man-power. It will help to equalize sacrifice. It will get us away from the position where half the army will fight and the other half may not have to fight. The present man-power plan is not and never has been one to help win this war, but it has been a plan to win votes. Oh, I did not expect the ministers to like that. The Canadian people know this; they have no faith in the manpower policy for the army. I point out to the ministry-and if they are not interested, as perhaps they are not, then I point out to the members of this house-that the time has come to change this plan, and the lead should come from the Minister of National Defence. This afternoon he pleaded fervently for the Canadian people to have the conviction that men should go into the army, the navy and the air force. I suggest that before making that plea he should put his own house in order on this question of man-power.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say .a brief word about what I consider the most important part of the armed services, namely, the chaplain service. By some this might not be considered as having first place; but the equipment of a soldier, is he is to be a real soldier, is that which is imparted to him through the chaplain service, and begun in the home. Any agency which stimulates a man's faith in God does the best possible service for that man. Through it the man must have in him the belief that he can never die because, as the young soldier has said, "The cause is bigger than I am,"
When some of these young fellows get away from home they forget what they have been taught. They slip, and they do the things for which they condemn themselves in their 
own eyes. Then comes the army chaplain who shows how that young soldier can be forgiven. He sets the soldier on his feet again, so that he can go out and do his duty. These chaplains are not sissies. I know many of them who were athletes of the first water, men who did not carry their hearts on their sleeves, but who were not afraid of the faith and belief they had in them, which they practised every day. If the young man in the army feels that through his chaplain-I care not whether he be Protestant, Roman Catholic or Jewish-there is a means through which he can be forgiven, and made fit, then that chaplain is doing something to make the young man a first class soldier.
There is, in my opinion, no service rendered by any agency, in equipping soldiers, which compares with the chaplain service. A Frenchman once said to an Englishman, "When do you hope to retake Calais?" The Englishman replied, very intelligently, "When your sins become greater than ours". That is one of the things we hold up to our young men to-day, and one of the reasons why we lend our money in victory loan campaigns. That is one of the reasons why our young men are offering their lives. They believe that we are right, and that we are going to win out in the end.
I pay this tribute, as intelligently as I can in this hurried fashion, to the outstanding service rendered by the chaplains in all branches of the services.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the minister this afternoon gave a very long and comprehensive statement respecting his department. I have a great deal of feeling for the position in which he finds himself. Owing to the fact that we have been secure from attack; that the Canadian forces have not been in action to any great extent-with the exception of one operation-and that there have been no extensive casualty lists, it is inevitable that the urgency of obtaining men for the army, the tremendous need for raising and equipping that army, and having it ready, is not as close to the minds of many people in Canada as might otherwise be the situation.
I agree with the minister when he says there is a tendency, every time man-power is required, to look to the army as the source from which it should come. I for one support the minister when he says that this tendency ought not to be allowed to continue, and that this war in the final analysis will have to be won by an invasion of enemy territory, through the use of a powerful, striking land force. If that is to be done, these men will have to be

War Appropriation-Army
raised, trained, equipped and ready. It is not a game which can be played in an in-again, out-again, on-again fashion.
I am sure all who are connected with the reserve army will be pleased with, the commendation he expressed this afternoon. As one who plays a very humble part in that army, I would say that in the last year it has taken a new lease on life. There seems to be a new grip, or a new sense of reality in the work it is doing. That is so at least in. the limited field in which I have had experience.
It has better equipment, and the men feel that they are now doing a really worth-while ^ job. However, there are things to be done yet. In many places they have difficulty in obtaining training equipment and suitable accommodation. That, of course, may be on account of local conditions. In the main, however, I have found a much better esprit de corps among the men of the reserve army, and the feeling that they are being permitted to fill a very useful role in Canada's war-time effort.
I believe an excellent job has been done in connection with cadets. At first there was a tendency to lay all the emphasis on air-force cadets, and as a result of the romance which comes of an age which belongs to the air, the army cadets had a tendency to fall behind. Emphasis is now being properly placed on army cadets, and a greater number of young high-school boys are being directed to army cadet units. I believe a real service can be rendered in that respect. A number of boys have written me asking my opinion about joining cadet units. I have replied in every case that, having served in those units, when the time comes for their entrance into the army they will make better soldiers, after having taken advantage of that preliminary training. I have pointed out that they will be better able physically and mentally to render the best possible service as a soldier.
May I now say a word about something the minister discussed a few days ago. It had not been my intention to say anything more about the Dieppe operation. I asked a question with respect to it on February 15, and on Friday last the minister gave me his rather belated answer. At that time he enunciated, in my opinion, a strange doctrine of responsible government. As reported at the top of page 2689 of Hansard, he said:
I do not believe, and I do not think the committee believes-I am of opinion that the country will agree with me in this-that to give our military leaders the impression that every time they plan an operation they must bear in mind that they will have to justify every detail
of that action before a tribunal of civilian strategists in Ottawa or elsewhere, is a good thing.
That seems to me to be a new doctrine of responsible government. I confess to being a civilian, and make no apology for it; it is not my fault that I am. I make no claim to being a strategist, and least of all a military strategist. But I do say to the minister that so long as I sit in this chamber-and I believe I can speak for my colleagues-I intend to hold the minister responsible, and I expect him to hold his senior officers responsible., and them in turn to hold responsible their subordinate officers, for every life that is lost by virtue of negligence, carelessness or stupidity. I have no objection to the men who are planning the operations having to keep in mind that they will be held responsible for what they do; that they in turn will be held responsible by their superior officers; that those superior officers will be held responsible by the general staff; that the general staff will be held responsible by ' the minister, and that in turn the minister will feel he is being held responsible by the House of Commons. If that is not to be done, then we have not responsible government, and we shall have merely a military dictatorship.


James Layton Ralston: I suggest that the hon. member read the passage again, and see if he has not set up a straw man so as to knock it down.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would refer to the statement which the minister made and in which he quoted General Marshall as follows:
. . . individuals with only a superficial knowledge of military matters or of the actual facts in the particular case. I submit that there is a clear line of demarcation between the democratic freedom of discussion, which we are determined to preserve, and a destructive procedure which promotes discontent and destroys confidence in the army.
I wish to say to the minister that I am not one of those persons who have indulged in the throwing of brickbats at brass hats. That is very often a cheap form of entertainment. Neither am I one of those who think that brass hats are infallible. There are veterans of the last war who will tell us, and the history books bear them out, something of the story of Passchendaele and other great blunders that were made by some of the military leaders. In our own day and generation most people have not forgotten Singapore and Tobruk, and the leaders of the general staff in Great Britain who said in 1940 that Hitler had missed the bus.
War Appropriation-Army


Humphrey Mitchell: Does the hon. member not think Hitler did miss the bus?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: H he missed the bus., he certainly caught something much faster when one considers the way in which he moved around for the six weeks following the time that statement was made.


Humphrey Mitchell: He is missing the bus pretty badly right now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I suggest that one of the functions of democratic government is the responsibility which we in this house have to ask questions, to query certain things which are done. In connection with the Dieppe operation I would refer the committee to some questions which were asked at Westminster and which are reported at page 767 of the British Hansard of September 30, 1942. I quote:
Mr. Henderson Stewart asked the Prime Minister whether he has now been able to consider the full reports from the service departments on the Dieppe raid and in particular, upon the support afforded by the Royal Air Force to the army; whether he is satisfied that that support was adequate and effective; and whether any further measures are to be taken to meet the demands of the army for still closer support from the air arm m future actions?
The Prime Minister: During the course of the operation the military force commander made a signal which included the statement that air support was "faultless". The answer to the second part of the question is "yes." As regards the third part of the question, the problem of air support for the army is under constant examination.
Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. gentleman any information regarding the performance of the tanks that were landed, and is the report encouraging?
The Prime Minister: I have not in my mind at present any special information on the subject. I understand that they were held up by the altogether unexpected strength of blocks at the ends of the streets, which it had not been anticipated they would not be able to destroy by the fire of their guns. I have not any other particular item in my mind on the subject. They were. I believe, Churchill tanks, which no doubt explains the friendly interest in their performances, but I have not heard that they acquitted themselves with any marked lack of propriety.
. Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. gentleman give some attention to the matter of the gun mountings of these Churchill tanks that were used in the Dieppe raid?
The Prime Minister: They are under the most continuous study, change and improvement. A very large number in this country are being tested in every way, hut the point that the "?n* gentleman has made will, I am sure, attract the attention of the service departments concerned.
Then follows a series of questions with reference to casualties and certain equipment. 
I cite these to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that these men who were civilian strategists had a responsibility to discharge. In a democratic form of government we do not necessarily expect that every person who asks the minister a question must be an authority on military affairs. I noticed that when I asked the minister some questions the Ottawa Citizen did me the great honour of printing a long editorial which made the sarcastic suggestion that it was too bad the general staff had not sent for me to help them plan the operation for the invasion of Dieppe. I have long passed the place where either [DOT] bullying or ridicule will frighten me away from something which I deem to be my duty.
I do not propose to refrain from asking questions simply because I cannot pose as an expert in a particular field. As a matter of fact, I would imagine that the Ottawa Citizen would not want to carry that principle too far. If that were true, one could not discuss currency and credit in this house unless one had been [DOT]a banker. I am certain the Ottawa Citizen would not agree with that. Nor could one do what the Minister of National Defence did when he led the attack on the wheat board act' unless one had grown wheat. The Minister of National Defence was quite an authority on wheat in this house, although on the prairies they used to say that they did not think he knew the difference between May wheat and Mae West.
In asking these questions-I shall deal with them more fully in a moment-I did not do so for the sake of embarrassing the government, but because I had had contact with men who came back from Dieppe. A unit raised in my own constituency, the South Saskatchewan Regiment, took a prominent and gallant part in that operation. I have talked to men who have seen some of the confidential reports of the operation, and I felt it was only right and proper that these questions should be asked.
I would draw the attention of the committee to the opinion, not of a civilian strategist with only superficial information, as the minister says, but of certain people who are authorities. For instance, I draw attention to an article written by Henry Peterson, who has become one of the best known writers on military affairs at the present time. This appeared in Saturday Night of October 17, and reads as follows:
And if Dieppe was an army show, army intelligence should have been able to discover, in a friendly city-Dieppe is not a German city -the weight of the tank traps set up against invasion, without having to test them with 6-pounder guns, at the price of heaven knows how many lives.

War Appropriation-Army
And again:
For more than two years we have been saying that if our land forces only had proper air protection, proper equipment and proper training they would make short work of the enemy. Well, wre had all three at Dieppe, and Dieppe was a severe failure, for the losses far outweighed the gains by any measure that is not corrupted by wishful thinking. What, then, was wrong? There is only one factor left, a factor which we must put in a foremost place in our thinking if we are ever to learn this business of war; and that factor was generalship.
And again:
Does not the Dieppe affair smack most distressingly of Passchendaele-a four-square plan worked out "scientifically" and then launched without regard to what might happen between the sailing of the invasion ships and their arrival on the enemy coast?
And again:
. . . but still the four-square plan was pushed through, irrespective of the changed circumstance. . . . Surely this is to trust to heaven knows what, but certainly not to brains.
I would refer to another gentleman who can hardly be classified as a civilian strategist with only superficial knowledge, the Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Keyes, who formerly was in charge of combined operations and who is probably one of the best authorities in the world on amphibian warfare. Lord Keyes, speaking at Cambridge, England, on March 10-I shall not read all his statement because some of it has to do with British matters and has no point in our discussion-had this to say:
"As events proved the main landing at Dieppe against a heavily defended position did not take place early enough to secure the beach and permit the tanks which were timed to land after daylight to make good their landing," Lord Keyes said.
"They were all knocked out by well-sited anti-tank guns which could not be dealt with either from the air or the sea."
He conceded that the fact that more than 300 vessels crossed the channel through a minefield which had to be swept and that with the exception of one, that carrying the third commando, they arrived at their destinations at the appointed times was "greatly to the credit of the navy."
But, he said, it was never explained why this convoy was not reported to the naval officer in command in time to have it intercepted and dealt with before it could report the presence of a large force of troops, approaching the coast, as it evidently did with disastrous results.
Lord Keyes criticized the "pernicious system" of inter-service committees which he charged had frustrated British initiative and daring in this war.
"It is humiliating to us sailors that it should have been left to the Russians, Germans and Japanese to show us the way to wage an amphibious form of warfare, a form of warfare in which I am positive we could excel if only our high command could be induced to face some risks to win a great prize."
I refer to another who could hardly be classified as having superficial knowledge, Wallace Reyburn, who has written a book on Dieppe under the title, "Dress Rehearsal for Invasion." He of course landed with the troops at Dieppe. This is a report from London, dated April 8:
Wallace Reyburn, correspondent of the Montreal Standard, wrote to-day in a book, "Rehearsal for Invasion", based on his trip to Dieppe with the Canadian forces last August 19, that many lives were lost because invasion barges were not fitted with ropes by which troops in the water could climb aboard.
Reyburn said he himself was one man who did not have the strength to clamber up the flat side of a barge, rising four or five feet above the waterline, while under constant machinegun fire. The man next to him was shot and killed.
"The time wasted while men struggled to get into the landing craft at Dieppe cost many lives, and unnecessarily," Reyburn said.
"Most ships in the navy carry lengths of wide-mesh rope netting which are suspended out on a beam over the water when they are picking up men from the sea.
"It would have been a simple matter to have this type of rope netting suspended from each side of the landing craft and it would have been no trick at all for men to have climbed up it."
I refer to one more item reported from London, April 19, which states:
Hannen Swaffer, veteran London journalist, writing in The People, a Sunday paper with a circulation of more than 300,000, said Major-General J. H. Roberts, leader of last August's Dieppe raid, who recently was promoted to command all Canadian reinforcements overseas, has "been kicked upstairs."
He goes on to say that the transfer of the Canadian commander has added to the bewilderment,. That is the statement of Hannen Swaffer, a correspondent writing from Great Britain. He refers to the promotion of General Roberts as kicking him upstairs. The general feeling, he said, would be that people would be bewildered to understand why a man who had carried out operations supposed to have been successful should be retired to the training of reinforcements.


James Layton Ralston: Is he a newspaper correspondent or a military man?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He is a newspaper correspondent, but a man who has some reputation as a military correspondent.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What is his name?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have already given his name-Hannen Swaffer.


Humphrey Mitchell: A correspondent for the News of the World, I think.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He writes in a paper called The People.

War Appropriation-Army


Humphrey Mitchell: It is the same sort of paper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is some other evidence that cannot be discarded as being superficial. I refer to the photographs that were dropped over England by German planes. These photographs do not show a particularly pleasant picture. They show pretty clearly large numbers of tanks immobilized on the beach at Dieppe and some submerged in the water. I notice in the Montreal Standard, of May 8, an article by Wallace Reyburn which states that the newspapers correspondents have just been shown a German film which was being sent to South America and was intercepted by the British, and the picture was shown to the newspaper correspondents and was not a very pleasant picture to see. Naturally, of course, the picture was touched up to suit German propaganda purposes. It gives the impression that the Canadian troops did not even get into Dieppe, which Reyburn says is not correct. He says that most of the newspaper men came away from seeing that picture rather grim and depressed. As a matter of fact, I would suggest to the minister that if that picture could be secured, it might be a good idea to show it to the newspaper men and the members of the house, and it might be a suitable film for study by officers planning tactics with a view to invasion.
I come now to the four questions which I asked the minister. The minister prefaced his answers by saying that he was not going to answer any more questions. He might just as well have not answered at all, if I may say so without giving offence, because 'his answer was so delightfully vague and beautifully evasive that it served no purpose at all.
My first question to the minister was why there had been no preparatory aerial bombardment. The minister answered that question by asking some questions. He said:
Does this committee for a moment suppose that in the careful planning and preparation for this operation that question was not discussed by the military planners?
Then he answers his own question:
I do not think so.
Then he says:
I cannot give the committee the reasons for the changes that occurred.
Well, Colonel Fraser, who came back, gave reasons. He said that the reason was that it was felt that aerial bombardment would cause so much debris and rubble on the streets as to make it difficult for the tanks to operate. If that is the reason, the minister might have

told us that. If that is not the reason, Colonel Fraser ought not to have been making statements of that kind to the public.
But the strangest thing of all is that the minister answers the question by saying this:
Let me ask: is there anyone in this committee who would say that those officers were wrong? Is there anyone in this committee who would say that the results of the operation would have been different had a different plan been followed?
Well, is there anyone who would say that the results would not have been different? It is just as easy to answer the question one way or the other. What we do know is that the operation was not an unqualified success, and for the minister to say that we do not know that the results would have been different even if there had been an aerial bombardment does not answer	the	question,	because	there isequally the	possibility that	the results	might
have been different had the invasion been preceded by aerial bombardment.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend wants to be fair, I think, but he has left out the most important part of what I said in that connection. I	said	that the	matter	of	aerial
bombardment had been the subject of consideration by senior Canadian and British officers and that they had decided on the plan after the changes were made. That is the part my hon. friend has not read. It seems to me that that is the most important part of the answer to his question. What I said was this:
I cannot give the committee the reasons for the changes	that	occurred.	To do	so	would
mean that I must recall senior officers from England to give a full account of deliberations and discussions that covered weeks of time, and the result would be that we would disclose our whole hand to the enemy. But senior Canadian and British officers agreed on the final plan after the most thorough and exhaustive deliberation of the matter, and aerial bombardment was one of the features which were the subject of discussion.
It seems to me that one does not have to go very much further than that unless my hon. friend has some ground for questioning the judgment and the ability of the officers who made that decision.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Nothing but political
grounds.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That, of course, is just the cheap sort of remark which we expect from the hon. member for Parry Sound. I will not give serious consideration to it at the present moment.
I do not think the minister's point alters the case I am presenting. The minister said

War Appropriation-Army
that it was given serious consideration, but he cannot give the grounds. I am not pressing him to give the grounds; I am merely pointing out. why he could not give the grounds. Colonel Fraser, who came back, did give as a reason-


James Layton Ralston: Unfortunately I was not
there as Colonel Fraser was, but I did see the report of the committee, and I stated I could not give the reasons. I said, however, that changes were made, and were made by a committee of extremely responsible and senior officers, not only Canadian but British. I mentioned some of them in another part of my report.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I know. I merely point out that that does not answer the question.


James Layton Ralston: I would think it would,
for most people.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then that should have been the end of the answer, instead of going on to ask hypothetical questions as to whether it would make any difference one way or the other.
The next question was as to landing at high tide or low tide. Again the minister indulges in a rhetorical observation, that he does not think the committee can conceive of officers planning such an operation and not taking such matters into account. The fact is, whether they took them into account or not, that that was the actual situation; these men did land at high tide and were taken off at low tide, when they had to cross some four hundred yards of open beach under heavy machine-gun fire.


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend prepared to express the opinion that they would have been safer to stay on the beach an hour or two more until the tide came up, under fire such as he has described?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the minister will let me finish, I will say what I intended to say. At the bottom of the column I find this statement:
The decision to withdraw the troops was a military decision, taken at a time when our men were actually engaged in combat with a determined enemy.
If the point the minister is making now is that it was a matter of taking them off rather than at a later time; that it was a military decision dictated by the exigencies of the moment, that is one argument. But when the Dieppe operation was first being publicized in the newspapers the statement was made that these men were taken off within six
72537-177 J
minutes of the actual time that had been set out in the plan for the operation prior to leaving England. That does not jibe with the minister's statement. If these men were taken off within six minutes of the actual time set out in the plan of operations, it must have been planned to take them off at low tide. That is a very different thing from having to take them off on account of any given military situation.


James Layton Ralston: It is a different situation altogether. There was fire on the beach. Are you going to leave them there?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They were not on the beach at the time they were withdrawn. They were brought from the town and across the beach.


James Layton Ralston: The operation was supposed to be over.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister is not going to twist me out of the point.


James Layton Ralston: I have my hon. friend's point exactly. I have not looked at the plan, and I have not in mind the exact hour for withdrawal: I do not know that I have seen it. The exact hour for withdrawal might have been eleven o'clock, and that would have been perfectly all right, but that hour for withdrawal was no doubt based on the fact that the operation was complete and that the troops had made their circle of the town and come back. The withdrawal which was made, however, was in the face of heavy fire; and my hon. friend is suggesting that they should have stayed on the beach for an hour or two longer until the tide came in.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister knows I am not making any such suggestion. He is a clever courtroom lawyer, but he is not going to make me say something I did not say. I at no time suggested that they should stay on the beach.


James Layton Ralston: Where would they go?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I say that if this statement is correct, that these men were taken off within six minutes of the time that it was planned to take them off, and that was when the tide was out-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Who made that statement?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That statement was made at the time that the operation was being lauded in the press right across Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: By whom?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think we are entitled to an answer to that question.
War Appropriation-Army


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: The minister is not entitled to anything. I did not ask him to interrupt me. I have the floor, and I do not propose to have the Minister of Mines and Resources bobbing up and down. I do not mind the Minister of National Defence bobbing up and down. But one is enough.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I think it is within the discretion of the hon. member who has the floor whether he will answer questions asked of him.


James Lester Douglas: My third question was with reference to the breaching of the sea wall; and again, the minister says that this task had been assigned to engineers and they were unable under the circumstances to breach the sea wall. The minister then says that some tanks did manage to get into the town. I asked the minister, how many? He would not say how many. My information was that it was one tank. The minister says it was more than one. I see now that, according to "Combined Operations", a booklet which has been printed by the British war office, three tanks managed to get by the tank blocks which had been put at the end of the street, by breaking through some houses, and made their way into the town of Dieppe.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend's statement is:
What astounds me is not that none of the tanks got off the beach but that those who planned the operation ever expected them to.


James Lester Douglas: That is right; and at that time my information was that none of them did get off. Since that time the statement has been made in "Combined Operations" that three of them got off. The minister knows that this was three out of a very large number; I do not know that it is wise to state how many there were, but there were many times three, as the minister knows. *The three that did get into the town were not able to effect the objective. The statement I made then is borne out by the minister's own statement that the engineers were unable to breach the wall- that the inability to breach the wall, plus the fact that, as Mr. Churchill said in the statement I just read, the tank blocks at the end of the streets were much heavier than they expected, because they thought they could blast them with their 6-inch guns and found that they could not, made it impossible for those tanks to get in.
While I was wrong in saying that none got off. that was my information at the time. Three getting off is not very many tanks to succeed in the tactical objective which had been set by those outlining the plan. The fact remains that the failure to breach the sea wall
and the failure to remove these tank obstacles constituted one of the contributing factors in the inability to crown the operation with complete success.


James Layton Ralston: And to what does my hon. friend attribute that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I beg the minister's pardon?


James Layton Ralston: The failure to breach the wall and to remove the obstacles; to what does my hon. friend attribute that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would say that one of the things is that one would have thought the intelligence service would have been able to give the necessary information as to the location of such prominent tank traps as blocks of concrete at the ends of the streets. The same would be true as regards the sea wall-a twelve-foot sea wall. While the minister says that there are places where the sea wall dipped-I have walked along it, although not recently, but probably it has not greatly changed-it is quite a formidable obstacle, even to infantry, let alone armoured fighting vehicles.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I a^k the hon. member if he has ever taken part in a landing like this?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the
minister?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have. That is just the difference.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sure everyone has heard about that. It is not necessary to advertise it.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member knows now, anyway.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The fourth question I was asking was with reference to the supply of small arms; and the minister said-and I am satisfied) with that statement -that the scale of supply was as generous as the means of transport and the conveying capacity of the men would) allow in operations of this kind. I believe that is correct. I should like the minister to have gone a little further, although, as reported at page 2688 of Hansard, he made a statement which I think will commend itself to the committee:
If there were lessons to be learned, they have been noted, and if there were things which might be considered as faults or defects those have been given particular attention.
I think that is the kind of spirit which this committee and the people of Canada will want, because it is only by actual experience
fMr. Crerar.]

War Appropriation-Army
that we can know what these men require and whether or not the equipment we have is suitable.
I do not know whether the minister has reports-I imagine he has-with reference, for instance, to the Sten gun. I suppose he has reports with reference to mortars. My information is that since the Dieppe operation the number of mortars per unit has been substantially increased, and I sincerely hope it has. All the information I was able to get from men who have been over there was that the efficient use of the mortar by the Germans was terrifying, and they are using a much heavier mortar with a very much longer range and much more effective technique than we have been able to master. The same will no doubt be true of the need for more anti-tank guns per unit. All I was asking the minister for, and I am glad to have his assurance, is that some of the lessons which have been learned from the performance of our weapons, as compared with the weapons which the enemy had, have taught those who are responsible such lessons as will enable' them to plan for the coming invasion on a scale that will make it possible for our men to meet the enemy on equal terms.
There are only one or two more observations which I wish to make with reference to this matter. Nothing has been said yet as to who was actually in command of the Dieppe operation. We do not know whether it was carried out under General McNaughton as commander of the Canadian forces overseas, or whether it was under Lord Mount-batten who was in charge of the combined operation. I do not know why this should have been left in doubt. Major-General Roberts was in charge of the Canadian troops, but who was in charge of the general operation? Who planned it? That is information which the people ought to have. We should know something also of the real purpose. The minister said that it was for information and experience. If that was the purpose, whether it was for battle experience or in order to sound out the enemy position and to ascertain their relative strength, we ought to know.
I am sure the minister will be prepared to give an assurance to the committee that as a result of the Dieppe operation everything necessary is being done to bring about the closest possible coordination of the different arms of the services. As Lord Keyes said, amphibious warfare is the most intricate of all kinds of warfare, and the closest possible liaison between the army, the navy and the
air force is necessary if an operation like this is to be a success. In view of the fact that an invasion of, the continent will involve operations much more complicated and on a gigantic scale, I am sure the minister will be glad to give the committee the assurance that the fullest possible coordination is taking place in training between the three services in preparation for the invasion.
Before leaving the Dieppe operation, I should like to make a suggestion to the minister with reference to some of the men who took part. I do not know who is responsible for giving awards or recommending them to his majesty, but a story came back from Dieppe which was printed in most of our papers about one of the padres who succeeded in getting to a barge when he found that some Canadians would have to be left behind. He left his barge, dived into the sea and went back to join the men on the beach.
I think that is one of the most gallant things, one of the finest examples of self-sacrifice that has come out of the war, and if it lies in the power of the minister I hope that some recognition will be given to that man, whoever he is. I do not know his name, but the chances are that the minister does.
This booklet on the combined operation, issued by the British war office, mentions some heroic Canadians, and I hope that consideration will1 be given to them. I refer particularly to Lieutenant Patterson of Canning-ton, Ontario, who managed to break through the tank obstacles at the end of the street. Then there are Private Sodden of Vancouver, Major MacTavish of Moose Jaw and Major David Orme of Weyburn. Both the latter showed, according to this booklet, outstanding gallantry in actually leaving their landing barges and going back to silence German machine-gun nests that were firing on the men who were being loaded into boats. These gallant officers did not return and are prisoners of war in Germany to-day. Talking to men who have come back, I find that some of them feel that they owe their lives to the courage and resourcefulness of these two officers, Macintosh and Orme, and there is a feeling that some recognition should be given to them for these outstanding feats of gallantry.
I wish to say just one or two more things before I sit down so as to avoid rising again when the committee proceeds. I cannot agree with those who, in the press and in the house, have been constantly urging the minister to have the Canadian army broken up and sent to various theatres of war. I noticed that the minister reiterated throughout his speech the
War Appropriation-Army

fact that the Canadian army had been kept together not by any wish of this government or its commander, but at the request of the British government. I do not think the minister needs to make any apology, even if his government is responsible, for keeping the Canadian, army as a unit. It is true there is a great deal of value in taking non-commissioned officers and officers and sending them to Africa or elsewhere to gain battle experience, but I think the great majority of the Canadian people-I cannot speak for the majority of Canadian soldiers, but certainly I can say the same of hundreds of them to whom I have spoken-feel that the Canadian army should be kept as a unit under its commander, and that when it goes into battle it should go in as a Canadian unit under a Canadian commander. I do not think the minister needs to apologize, nor do I think he needs to bow to the pressure of those who are suggesting that the army should be broken up and sent to various theatres of war.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: The minister did not do
either.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member for Parry Sound can make his own statement. The minister is capable of stating what he did or did not say without the assistance of the hon. member for Parry Sound.
I would mention a matter discussed by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), namely, the question of pay. There was considerable elation when it was announced that pay was to be increased in the army, and it certainly was about time. But on account of provisos there have been some strange anomalies. For instance, there is the proviso that a man must have taken basic training. The other day I spoke to a young man who had been instructing. When he joined the army, as a result of previous experience he had had he was told that he did not need basic training, and accordingly he was sent to take a special course. After a while he was instructing. Under the new regulations he must be 6ent back to basic training, and there he finds other instructors who have been sergeants and sergeant-majors who are now also taking basic training in order to qualify for increased pay. That seems to me to be an anomalous situation, and I am sure it is something that has been overlooked. I direct it to the minister's attention. There is also the proviso that a man should have been an efficient soldier. That sounds excellent, but it leaves room for discrimination and makes it possible for an officer who has taken a dislike to a man to punish him by refusing to recommend him for this 
increased pay. I think there would be a better feeling all round if the increased pay came into effect automatically when a man had reached a certain period of service in the army. The minister has said that consideration is already being given to raising the pay of the Canadian Women's Army Corps and particularly the raising of their trades pay; also that consideration is being given to the matter of dependents' allowances for the women. In view of the fact that these matters are being considered, I need not take time to advocate them now.
I should like to make one statement with reference to reinforcements. I think some effort should be made to retain the identity of the units. I have in mind, for instance, the South Saskatchewan Regiment, in which naturally I am interested. After Dieppe they required some sixteen officers. The second battalion of the regiment supplied over forty reinforcement officers, if my memory serves me correctly; but not more than one, if any, of those officers went to the first battalion; they were sent to other battalions, while officers from other units were brought in to the South Saskatchewan Regiment. There is a value in having together men who come from a particular community, particularly when men come out as reinforcements. They have seen the boys' friends, their parents and their sweethearts; they bring news from home, and they have a community of interest. I think that is something worth while, something that helps build up morale. When men go from the second battalion to the reinforcement pool it seems to me that if at all possible those men should be forwarded to the first battalion, in the interests of efficiency and morale. They know the men with whom they are going to work, the men whom they are going to lead into action.
All I wrant to say in closing, Mr. Chairman, is that we in this corner realize that the minister has a difficult task. I should not like him to think that we propose to spend the time, while we are discussing the estimates of his department, in mere carping criticism. He has a tremendous task ahead of him. There have been a great many things come out of the training of the past few years, and particularly out of this Dieppe operation. There are two things the minister is not, in my opinion. He is neither complacent nor indolent, and I have confidence that the lessons which have been learned will be vigorously applied.
I express the wish and the hope that the minister will do everything possible to see that if there have been mistakes, if there have been weaknesses, if there have been defects, they will be remedied, because it will be our

War Appropriation-Army
responsibility in this house to hold him responsible, just as he must hold his senior officers responsible for the welfare and safety of every man under their command.


Mr. WHITE:: Before proceeding to discuss any of the points raised by the minister, I should like to refer to the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Fort William and the hon. member for Weyburn, who spoke in particular of certain men who had made heroic sacrifices at Dieppe, and went on to refer to the padre who jumped off the invasion barge and swam back in order to remain with his men on the beaches of Dieppe. The name of that young man is Captain Jack Foote, who was born and brought up in the village of Madoc, my home town. At the date of his enlistment he was in charge of the Presbyterian church at Port Hope, Ontario. His mother is at present residing in the city of Ottawa, where his sister holds a responsible position in the department of naval services. I might say further that only this week in speaking to the mother of this gallant young chaplain I was told that within the previous day or so she had received a letter from her son, who is now a prisoner of war in Germany. He stated that he was very glad he had jumped off the boat and swum back to remain with the boys, because he felt that in his position as padre he was able to do and was doing something worth while. This only bears out what was said by the hon. member for Fort William and the hon. member for Weyburn, that in this war the padres are doing a real job. I should like to join with the hon. member for Weyburn in drawing this gallant act to the attention of the minister, and I hope that in due time it will receive adequate recognition.
The minister stated that during the past year enlistments in the army had totalled some
125,000.	Would the minister be good enough to place on Hansard or to make available to the committee a break-down of these figures by military districts, at the same time showing the number of men called up during the past year in the military districts under the National Resources Mobilization Act?


James Layton Ralston: Has that not been done? I know it was done up to December 31.


George Stanley White: It has not been brought up to date. What I should like is the number who enlisted during the past year in each military district.


James Layton Ralston: Has there not been a statement since December 31?


George Stanley White: I have not the copy of "Canada at War" containing that statement, but I think it was the February issue.


James Layton Ralston: I am speaking now of the document published, I think, by the war information board giving the figures up to December 31, showing the number enlisting and the number called up in each district. I have an idea that has been brought up to date; if not, that can be done.


George Stanley White: I believe that shows the number who have enlisted and the number who have been called up from the beginning.


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend is right.


George Stanley White: In connection with the 125,000 men the minister says enlisted during the last year, I am asking that he give a break-down by military districts, also showing the number called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act, by districts, because I think it would be very interesting to hon. members of the committee to know what part or parts of Canada are supplying a steady stream of recruits to the various branches of the armed forces. In reference to the number required for the present year, the minister stated that enlistments were down for March and April and that May had not started off any too well, but he did'not elaborate to any extent on the means by which he intended to raise the required number of men. It is quite true that in his remarks this afternoon he did make some reference to replacing men with older men and those in lower categories; to replacing men with women, and so on, but he did not go farther than that. Nor did he make any reference to the principle of compulsory selective military service for anywhere in the world.
I was disappointed that the minister did not make any reference to this very important matter. Surely, with the hour of the offensive drawing closer each day, the time is long past when we should allow this muddle in manpower to continue. I think this committee is entitled to know from the government, and especially from the Minister of National Defence, whether or not he is in favour of compulsory selective military service for members of the armed forces. As the hon. member for Vancouver South said, let us put an end to this farce of recruiting as it has existed up to date. The minister said this afternoon that to obtain recruits the department intended to carry on a vigorous course of recruiting.
When the minister makes a statement about compulsory selective military service, let him go a little further and say why the act has not been put into force. What is the reason? Is there some political reason behind it, or is there some fear on the part of the government that they will offend some section or
War Appropriation-Army

part of the dominion? Or is it just a continuation of the old; policy of isolation and appeasement? Surely it is only reasonable that if there are large numbers of trained men in Canada, those men should be available for service overseas, if they are required. When the minister replies he might state whether there is any truth in the rumour that at the present time regulations are being drafted under which home defence men will be available for service anywhere.
In regard to the training in Canada I would point out that the minister has made very little comment as to the types of such training. All hon. members remember the Hong Kong disaster, and the record of training up to that date. Perhaps when he speaks again the minister will explain the changes made, and how training in Canada has been improved since the time of the Hong Kong disaster.
In the March issue of the little booklet issued by the war information board, entitled "Canada at War", we find the following statement with respect to the army in Canada:
The training of troops is being brought to a completion as far as practicable in Canada, so that when they are sent abroad they will be prepared for actual combat.
I hope the minister will enlarge upon that statement, because I remember a previous statement made by him in which he explained that when the troops left Canada, upon arrival in England their qualifications and training were checked very carefully, and that they then embarked upon further intensive training.
. Would the minister also give the committee information as to the minimum training required in Canada before troops proceed overseas? I understand that the average course at basic training centres is about eight weeks, and that a further eight weeks is required for the advanced course. I have heard, however, that at some training centres it takes as long as twenty weeks or more to complete the eight weeks' course. I wish the minister to correct me if I am wrong, and state whether there is any truth in that report.


James Layton Ralston: Would the hon. member name the centre?


George Stanley White: I am told it is at Rimouski, Quebec.
_ Then, this afternoon the minister gave some information as to what had been done in respect of the training of parachute troops in Canada. However, he did not mention anything further about commando training, the training of a special service force or training in mountain warfare, nor did he say anything about what is contemplated with regard to the training of air-borne troops in Canada. Surely that type of training is ideally suited 
to Canada, in comparison with England. Then, would the minister give the committee information as to whether gliders are being used in Canada, or whether it is expected that glider troops will be trained.
During the debate last year on a similar measure the minister was good enough to place on Hansard a syllabus showing the types of training carried on in the various training centres, for the various branches. Would he be good enough to place a similar syllabus on Hansard this year to indicate the changes, and the advancements, if any, which have been made? At the same time would he include a record of the number of rounds fired by individual troops.
The minister stated there were some 190,000 troops overseas, and about 250,000 in Canada, which number would be reduced by some
15,000.	But will the minister go further and tell the committee why it is necessary to have 250,000 or even 235,000 troops in Canada? Surely he must know that the Canadian army overseas will certainly be in action long before the troops in Canada.


James Layton Ralston: Did my hon. friend hear what I had to say about that? I made an explanation.


George Stanley White: Yes; and of that 235,000 a very large number are fully trained troops, ready to go overseas.


James Layton Ralston: Did my hon. friend hear what I said respecting the uses to which the Canadian army was put? I pointed out that a certain proportion were for home war establishment, a certain proportion for operational troops, and a certain number in training centres. What does my hon. friend suggest cutting down?


George Stanley White: I do not think the minister broke down the figure, or said how many were to be kept for the defence of the east and west coasts.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. I referred to the
operational troops. I said that 80,000 were operational troops, and I gave the posts, including Newfoundland, Labrador, Jamaica and Alaska. I gave the number of posts, and the number of areas to be defended. My hon. friend now asks me to give this information, but I have already given it once. I am interested to know what my hon. friend's comments will be, or if he has any suggestions as to where reductions might be made. I would welcome any such suggestions.

War Appropriation-Army


George Stanley White: According to what the minister says, if he breaks that 250,000 into three parts, and keeps 80,000 for a home defence force, he will still have 160,000 for overseas.


James Layton Ralston: I would point out that about 55,000 of another 80,000 are general service men in training centres, to go overseas, and the other 80,000 are in home war establishments.


George Stanley White: When the minister refers to home war establishments does he refer to troops called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act?


James Layton Ralston: I refer to everything. I am afraid my hon. friend did not pay me the compliment of listening to or reading what I said.


George Stanley White: I listened to it, and read it.


James Layton Ralston: Then my hon. friend did not get very far in understanding it. I said that of the 80.000, right off the bat about 32,000 were administrative and training staffs in the eighty-seven training centres, and that that left about 50,000. The veterans' guard came next. Then there were the servicing detachments both east and west, and the administration in connection therewith, and national defence headquarters, and the headquarters in all the districts.


George Stanley White: Something has already been said by two hon. members respecting pay, and comment was made by the minister. I would pass on to him an argument which has often been used with regard to the members of the women's army who are taking the places of men. It must be admitted that in many instances they are doing just as good and perhaps better work than the men wTere doing. In such cases it is urged that the women should receive at least 81.30 a day, or perhaps the 81.50 received by the men. I was pleased to hear the minister say that members of the women's corps would receive the same trade pay as is given to the men.
A point which has been raised in connection with earlier legislation of this kind has to do with the $20 a month paid to a mother, as compared with the S35 paid a wife. I have not heard any explanation from the department or the minister as to why the allowance for a mother was placed at $15 lower than that paid to a wife. I trust the minister will give us the yardstick or whatever means were used to arrive at the rates of these allowances.
When the minister speaks again, will he state whether any consideration has been given to increasing the rehabilitation grant to men
who have been discharged? At the present time it is only one month's pay. Speaking on a previous occasion in the house, I mentioned various safeguards that should be used in connection with property and insurance of members of the armed forces, and I should like to know if anything is contemplated to protect soldiers' property from being seized under distress warrants for taxes, mortgage .payments or anything of that kind. While I realize that these things come under the various provinces, perhaps the minister will tell the committee whether anything is being worked out in this connection. I should like the minister to give the committee at the proper time information as to the number of men who have been discharged from the armed forces and the number of those who are in receipt of pensions at the present time.
I wish to deal rather briefly with the question of Dieppe which has been referred to by other speakers to-night. I read very carefully the remarks of the minister, especially that part where he said that he hoped there would be no further discussion on this matter.


James Layton Ralston: I did not hope that at all. I could not possibly hope that, knowing my hon. friend. What I did say was that I could not undertake or hope to answer all questions with regard to Dieppe, particularly those which would require my getting details from officers overseas or those who were busy on other matters.


George Stanley White: The minister has dealt quite extensively with the Dieppe affair in the house, and he has made at least one speech outside the house. During the course of his remarks the hon. member for Weybum made reference to a certain editorial which stated that the Dieppe affair smacked of Passchendaele. There are many soldier members of this house who have most vivid recollections, some of them not very pleasant, of the ghastly mistakes and blunders that were made in the last war. I recall one quite well myself which occurred in connection with my own unit, which was the 44th battalion of Winnipeg. On October 24, 1916, during the battle of the Somme, there were between 300 and 400 casualties suffered in that one unit as a result of a blunder by some of the higher-ups.
The minister has been asked on previous occasions if he would make a full statement on Dieppe during a secret session, but apparently he has decided that there will be no secret session or further report from him on the Dieppe affair. I would point out to the minister that during last session there was a
War Appropriation-Army

long debate on the Hong Kong expedition, during which the minister made a lengthy defence of his department, the officers concerned and all the rest of it. At the conclusion of that debate, or some time afterwards, the minister announced in the house, if I remember correctly, that there had been some twenty or more changes in the staff of his department, directly as a result of the Hong Kong affair. If I am wrong in the number, perhaps the minister will correct me.


James Layton Ralston: I will correct my hon.
friend about the whole thing. I made no statement that there were twenty changes.


George Stanley White: Were there not various
changes made in the minister's department as a result of the Hong Kong affair?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend said I
made a statement, and I have no recollection of making a statement that twenty or any number of changes had been made as a result of the Hong Kong affair.


George Stanley White: Do I understand the minister to say that there were no changes made in his department as a result of Hong Kong?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend does not
understand anything of the kind.


George Stanley White: I accept the minister's word,
and I will check on that. It is rather interesting in connection with the Dieppe operation to notice that only to-day, if it is safe again to mention the Globe and Mail-


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member does
not mention much else.


George Stanley White: The minister may find out that I do mention much else. Perhaps he is still smarting on account of some of the editorials in the Globe and Mail.


James Layton Ralston: I would be raw if I
bothered with the editorials in the Globe and Mail.


George Stanley White: Perhaps the minister reads only the flattering ones. The objectives of the Dieppe operation were set out as being, first, a six-inch battery to be put out of commission; second, a wireless station to be demolished; third, an ammunition dump to be blown up; fourth, to gain information and experience; fifth, to inflict casualties on the enemy; sixth, to get prisoners and, seventh, to terrorize the enemy. The first three objectives, the battery, the wireless station and the ammunition dump, surely could have been achieved by means of the air force. Three, four, five or six bombers could easily have destroyed those

three installations and would probably have caused a great deal of damage to the enemy with only a few casualties.
The minister dwelt at some length on the information obtained and the experience gained which were used in future operations, but he overlooked entirely the other side of the picture. He made no mention of what our enemies gained from this operation. We can only guess at the number of German casualties, but I do remember a dispatch in a New York paper which placed them in the neighbourhood of 500. I have no recollection of ever reading in the press or hearing any statement about the number of prisoners brought back. One- can only assume that the number was very small. This may have been as a result of the fact that many Canadian troops had to swim out to the invasion barges, and naturally it would be rather difficult to take their equipment or to bring back prisoners, if they had taken any.
I should like to refer briefly to what information and benefit the enemy obtained and gained from this raid. It is well known that the enemy obtained complete copies of the operation orders, and as a result of this hundreds and hundreds of Canadian prisoners are still shackled up to a very recent date. The Germans were given a splendid opportunity to observe our invasion tactics, and it is safe to assume that they have taken all necessary steps to protect themselves and to deal with similar tactics in the future. If our invasion tactics were good at Dieppe, we have told the Germans all about them. They have obtained copies of the operation orders instead of their being kept secret for large scale operations in the future. The element of surprise in future operations has been eliminated.
The Germans were presented with at least several of the latest type of Churchill tanks and were given an opportunity of examining the armour, the guns, the engine .and everything else about them. I believe I am correct when I say that all the tanks landed at Dieppe remained on the shore. In addition, large quantities of rifles, Bren guns, mortars, tommy guns, revolvers and other equipment were left with the Germans. Signal equipment was also left behind, and at least one or more of the latest type of invasion barges was left for the Germans, thus giving them an opportunity to examine it and find out its most vulnerable spots, so that they can decide how best to deal with such barges in future operations.

War Appropriation-Army
The minister said during the course of his remarks that the percentage of casualties suffered at Dieppe is not a proper yardstick by which to measure future casualties. Well, so far as the Canadian army is concerned, Dieppe was either a ghastly failure or a great success.


James Layton Ralston: There is no middle
ground?


George Stanley White: We will come to that. If it was a failure, it was unfortunate. If it was a success as claimed by the minister, I think it naturally follows that the casualties at Dieppe are a fair example of the casualties to be expected in the future in similar operations. It has been stated time and again over the	radio and	in	the	press	that theCanadians are to be the spearhead of the invasion of the continent. This attack when it comes must necessarily be over water, assisted 'by the navy; but unlike the Dieppe operation	which lasted	only	some	eight ornine hours, when there is a permanent invasion and	the troops	are to	stay,	not onlymust they make a landing in the face of fortified positions, but they must immediately fan out if they are to survive. Not only will there be	casualties	on	the	first	day, butcasualties on the second day, the third day, the fourth day and so on, as long as they stay there. Such landings would naturally bring on heavy counterattacks. They would be subject to intense shelling and to dive bomber attacks. It is only reasonable to expect that the enemy would throw every possible bit of his equipment against them in order to knock out the attack before the attackers could land and fan out. Naturally, with an attack over water as must take place in any invasion of the continent, the attacking forces cannot have the protection of an artillery barrage.	On the other hand, the
enemy will have his own artillery to use against the invaders. Any comparison of the number of prisoners lost by the Canadian forces at Dieppe with the number of Canadian prisoners lost during the last war will show that practically the same number of Canadian prisoners were taken from 1914 to 1918 as were lost in eight or nine hours at Dieppe.
The actual number of casualties at Dieppe works out, I believe, at sixty-seven per cent of all the troops that were engaged, and this includes the troops on various ships who did not disembark. The percentage of casualties among all those who did disembark is, I believe, well over seventy per cent.
The minister made certain references to reinforcements which are now overseas and are available to reinforce the army overseas.
But will he assure this committee that if the Canadian army is engaged in future operations of the same nature as the Dieppe operation, where the same percentage of casualties will apply, whether there are sufficient reinforcements to keep the two Canadian corps in England up to strength and to enable them to carry on as fighting units?
The chief of staff, General Stuart, has made certain remarks about the Dieppe affair which appeared in the Vancouver Sun of August 22.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend said something about the two corps being engaged in similar operations to Dieppe. Does he mean that the two corps are a landing force?


George Stanley White: I said future operations.


James Layton Ralston: The whole two corps will be a landing force?


George Stanley White: If they are all engaged. We do not know.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend used the word "spearhead". He is mixing up bridgehead and spearhead.


George Stanley White: I know what a bridgehead is and what a spearhead is.


James Layton Ralston: I understood that a spearhead was used after the landing force had landed and made what they call a spearhead, that it was a force other than the landing force, and that the spearhead was landed afterwards to push on.


George Stanley White: The minister knows that the Canadian corps has often been referred to as a dagger pointing at the heart of Berlin and that the Canadian forces would be the spearhead of the invasion.


James Layton Ralston: Was my hon. friend
visualizing the two Canadian corps in a landing operation similar to Dieppe?


George Stanley White: It will be like Dieppe, only on a much larger scale.


James Layton Ralston: And he was visualizing that because the two Canadian corps, he said, were to be the spearhead. Isn't that what gave him that idea?


George Stanley White: They will be part of the spearhead.


James Layton Ralston: My understanding of a spearhead-probably I am wrong and my hon. friend is right-is that the spearhead would be something which landed and pushed on after the bridgehead had first been formed by other troops. The spearhead would press on.


George Stanley White: Perhaps the minister is right. He is Minister of National Defence and would know more about it than I would.
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend said that he knew what a bridgehead was, and I thought he was mixing up bridgehead and spearhead.


George Stanley White: General Stuart, chief of staff, is reported in the Vancouver Sun of August 22, 1942, as follows, describing the Dieppe operation:
Our soldiers walked into the hun's parlor through the front door at their own chosen time and left by the same front door when they wanted to leave.
I suggest that the actual facts are slightly different from the picture which General Stuart attempted to paint. This is the same officer who was chief of staff at the time of the Hong Kong disaster.
The minister himself has made reference outside the house to the Dieppe affair and is quoted by the Vancouver Sun as follows:
Dieppe was a thrust and a menace to the hun, and I believe it had something to do with the situation as it has since developed in North Africa and in Russia.
If Dieppe was the brilliant success which General Stuart and the minister state it was, perhaps the minister would be good enough to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Weyburn as to why General Roberts, one of the senior officers overseas, was taken out of a combatant position and placed in charge of reinforcements, which after all is purely an administrative post.


James Layton Ralston: Far from it,
Mr. WHITE,:	Further, if Dieppe was the
brilliant success which it has been claimed to be by our chief of staff, why has Dieppe not been followed by operations of a similar kind by other Canadian or British or United States troops? If it has not been repeated by other similar operations, is it not because the cost in killed, wounded and prisoners of war, together with the loss of weapons, ammunition, equipment, ships, barges, and the loss in morale, make such operations prohibitive?


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: At the opening of
the session this winter I was one of those who asked the government to assure this nation that our army as now organized would be properly reinforced should they go into battle. Having followed very attentively the statement of the Minister of National Defence, I am not yet satisfied that this can be done if our army goes into battle as now organized and as an army. I am, on the contrary, of the opinion that this army has been overexpanded and overorganized-probably, as my

colleague from Vancouver South said, for political purposes rather than as an active army for operations.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


James Arthur Ross: He was speaking of
man-power; and after all, they are both closely associated. I listened while the minister emphasized the fact that he had made it plain to Mr. Churchill, to Sir James Grigg, and to Sir Alan Brooke, the chief of the imperial general staff, that our army was available for service anywhere, either in whole or in part. He went on to explain that the army could be separated for service purposes. He rather left the impression, with me at least, that they were under the direction of British officials as to where they should serve, and in what manner. However, I have heard the minister state before that this government was entirely responsible for their operations; and on May 13, speaking of the Dieppe operation, as reported in Hansard, at page 2670, he also stated:
Reference was made to Canada to the war committee, which took the responsibility for authorizing Canadian participation.
That is, in that operation.
As to the matter of the Dieppe raid, I have been of opinion that we are not in a position to debate that operation properly. True enough, there is much information we cannot have until the war is over. I am of opinion that this operation probably resulted in the nazis obtaining more useful information, by the capture of operational orders and the many prisoners they took, than our authorities obtained. I believe that when the story can be fully told it will be shown that the nazis benefited from the operation more than we did.
In speaking on this matter I should like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough concerning the action of Padre Captain Jack Foote, who came originally from his constituency. I trust that the padre will receive proper recognition of his splendid work and of the gallant action he then took, followed up with work among his men in the prison camps, as conveyed in the message of which my colleague spoke.
This afternoon, when the minister was discussing man-power, I believe he stated that the need for men in industry had reached its peak and that there would now be many men available for other purposes in this country. If that is the situation, consider the statement

War Appropriation-Army
which was made by his colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply, as reported in Hansard, at page 2622:
... I would point out that there is a very serious over-all shortage of man-power in war industry to-day. I know of very few plants that have the number of men required to permit them to obtain the desired output. What will happen will be a transfer of labour from plants making less urgently required equipment to plants making equipment for which there is greater urgency.
I suppose that will be carried through with other departments of government. It is proof to this committee and to the country that today there is still a lack of proper coordination between departments of government in the allocation of man-power. One has only to refer to the two statements of the two ministers most concerned in Canada to-day as regards man-power and the absolute contradiction expressed by those two ministers.
The minister went on to point out that there had been a number of postponements of cases of young men called from the agricultural sections of this country. I agree with him that there have been many postponements, but I do not agree with him in the policy which is still enunciated by this government. I am sure from his experience he knows as well as T do that many of these young men, when they receive their call to-day, despite the fact that they may realize they can render greater service on the farm, do not feel like asking for postponement; and it is simply a coercive method of forcing these chaps into the armed forces, because, when they receive their call, they have many pals overseas, and no matter where they may render the most useful service, they do not hesitate in many cases to enlist.
I have heard the minister say that national selective service would not benefit the air force. I think it is proven to-day that many of those young men who received the call but afterwards volunteered for service, when they were called, have rendered outstanding service in the air force. It was as a result first of all of conscription within Canada that many of those young men joined the armed forces, and yet they have proven to be the most outstanding chaps in the air force to-day.
There is one matter about which I am much concerned. I have addressed questions about it to the minister in the past; it is the medical branch of the army. He made some references this evening in rather slighting terms to the Globe and Mail. I wish to refer to a couple of articles which appeared in a newspaper which he will certainly regard in a different light from the Globe and Mail; that is, the Winnipeg Free Press, which through stormy weather or
fair believes that no wrong can be done by the present Prime Minister or his government. The Free Press of January 8 contains an article headed:
Suggestion to Mr. Ralston
It proceeds:
In these days when the shortage of doctors and nurses has become a matter of increasing danger to the civilian population of Canada, the Minister of Defence might usefully make inquiries into the extent of the training and activity undergone by No. 3 casualty clearing station which, mobilized in March, has been in these parts ever since.
That would be a year ago in March.
During that time it has made virtually no contribution to the war, and it has of course made none to the home front. The unit contains a large number of doctors and nurses, all of whom gave up useful practice in their sorely-needed and shorthanded professions for their country's sake. Since then they have been marking time.
Civilians are often properly told not to try. to probe into military secrets, but since it is the civilians who are paying the bills, their servant, the Minister of Defence, might well make the inquiry on their behalf and thereby allay the widespread feeling that there is both incompetence and inefficiency in a system which withdraws men and women from civilian life, gives them no useful training, and debars them for many months from making the very useful contribution they were formerly making to the life of the country.
That appeared, as I stated, on January 8, 1943. The same newspaper published the other day-I am not quite positive of the date-another editorial entitled:
Tlie Waste Continues
They state:
Last January on this page the Free Press addressed a short note to Mr. Ralston . . .
They go on to deal with the same subject, and ask him for an answer. I suppose he knows something about this, and I trust he will make an explanation to this committee regarding these questions which have been put to him, in a very pertinent manner, by a newspaper which is the staunchest supporter of the government of any journal in Canada. I will not read this article, because it is lengthy, but it is much to the point as far as the minister and his department are concerned.
Another article, of which I will read only a few lines, appeared in the Montreal Gazette of March 19. It begins:
Heavy drains upon the personnel of the medical and nursing profession here and in the United States are causing concern. They are the consequence of a commendably high sense of duty on the part of physicians and qualified nurses who believe their services should be given to the fighting forces. Their attitude is entirely praise-worthy. It is the resultant
War Appropriation-Army

difficulty which the civilian population is under in attempting to secure medical and nursing attendants that is giving rise to some anxiety.
It is part of the general manpower problem but it has its own exceptional features and these are of such importance from the general standpoint of public health as to call for immediate consideration. "Can we afford to waste medical skill when it is so limited?"
I trust the minister will have a proper explanation to give with reference to these matters. I am rather directly concerned at this time, because officials of the municipality of Roblin inform me that there is an area in southern Manitoba from Killarney east to Crystal city and north for a considerable distance from the United States border, covering an area of probably 2,000 square miles, without a medical practitioner, and the doctors at Killarney and Crystal city are old men. They cannot travel with the facility that they used to and there is a distinct lack of cooperation between the armed forces and the civilian population of the country.
With regard to this question of health, I should like to ask the minister a question as to just what the medical examination of a candidate is when he offers his services for enlistment.


James Layton Ralston: The ordinary recruit?


James Arthur Ross: Yes, any recruit.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member means
the medical examination of the recruit?


James Arthur Ross: Yes, especially with regard to venereal disease. I believe a report was brought down this session, if I remember rightly, which indicated that he did not receive a proper examination at this stage, and the reason given was that it might hinder enlistment. I hope that is not regarded as a proper answer.


James Layton Ralston: Was that a return?


James Arthur Ross: I am not positive about that, but at any rate I trust the minister will make a statement in that regard.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think that reason was given.


James Arthur Ross: Can the minister say whether the men are examined for this disease at the time of enlistment?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think they are, but immediately after.


James Arthur Ross: I understand that they are not examined for it until they are sent to hospital for some condition. In my opinion this is very bad, and I say this because from my own province recent returns in the depart-

ment of health indicate that this disease is spreading, more particularly among the younger people, the teen-age people. It is assuming alarming proportions, and I certainly do not think our armed services are rendering the service to the nation which they should be when the authorities neglect to make this proper examination at the time men are taken in as recruits. I hope the minister will see his way to have a proper examination conducted, if it has not been the practice, because this disease, as a result of carelessness, might spread among the civilian population. This, I submit, is something to which the department should give serious consideration.
May I refer also to the question which the hon. member for Vancouver South brought up with reference to insurance of members of the armed forces, provided they are on active service, whether in Canada or overseas. He pointed out that there was no discrimination until May 21, 1940-I am not certain of the date-when by order in council the provision was rescinded so far as those serving in Canada were concerned. I could cite many examples from my owm community of men who offered themselves for active service, and the other day the minister, referring to a question on the order paper, stated that when a man offered his services he received orders as to where he should serve and should not be embarrassed by questions as to whether he was serving at headquarters or anywhere else. If that is so, the same principle should apply when a man offers his services for active service anywhere. Provision should be made that he be brought under the insurance principle that obtains overseas if he has offered himself for active service anywhere and serves in Canada, and I trust the department will see their way clear to bring all these men under the insurance principle.
There is another matter that has been bothering me for some time. In Great Britain, Prime Minister Churchill is recognized as commander-in-chief, and his word is law in any operation so far as the British empire is concerned. I believe the same applies in the United States; the President is commander-inchief. I do not think we have any recognized person in Canada in that capacity to-day. I do not believe that anyone is recognized here as commander-in-chief, and I submit that at this stage if we are to play our part as a nation-and we hear a great deal about our independence and our national status in this war-this question should receive attention, and someone in this government should be recognized as commander-in-chief, not only in military operations but as regards any

Public Accounts
difficulties such as we have had in the past in connection with man-power. If someone had had the backbone and the authority to issue orders as commander-in-chief, many things with respect to man-power might have been different from those that actually occurred. This is certainly something that should receive the attention of the Department of National Defence. Either the Prime Minister or someone else should be recognized as the proper authority in the capacity of commander-inchief throughout the duration of the war, with respect to man-power in and out of Canada, especially as regards those Canadians who are connected with the war effort. Mr. Speaker, may I call it eleven o'clock?
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 19, 1943