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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered1 orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	When did the Wartime Food Corporation come into existence?
2.	Is it still in operation?
3.	If not, when did it cease to exist?
4.	What was the total cost of administration of the Wartime Food Corporation?
5.	How many months did this corporation operate?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Wartime Food Corporation was formed under letters patent dated May 8, 1942.
2.	The said company is still in existence.
3.	The said company is still in existence.
4.	The total cost of administration to March 31, 1943, amounted to S27,129.68.
6.	The company actively supported the cattle market from June 28 to August 17, 1942.


WARTIME FOOD CORPORATION-PURCHASE OF CATTLE
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	What was the total cost of the cattle purchased by the Wartime Food Corporation?
2.	What were the total receipts from the sale of such cattle?

3.	What was the total profit, or loss, between the purchase and sale of such cattle by the corporation ?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Total cost of cattle purchased was $5,391,810.88 (as of March 31, 1943).
2.	Total amount received from sales was 14,559,529,19 (as of March 31, 1943).
3.	The loss on trading was $832,28169 (as of March 31, 1943).


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-FLIN FLON
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	Who are employed by the wartime prices and trade board at Flin Flon, Manitoba?
2.	What salary is being paid to each?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Salary
Campbell, Duncan		 $3600.
Broadfoot, John A.	K	
1,500.Chadwick, Norman	Steele ..	1,800.Morrice, Miss M. J	
900.Nowosad, Mrs. Frances ....	900.


CANADIAN SECURITIES HELD IN GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	What is the estimated value of all Canadian securities held in Great Britain and/or Northern Ireland?
2.	What is the value of dominion, provincial, and municipal bonds and debentures so held?
3.	What is the value of bonds and stocks held as above of, (a) Canadian Pacific Railway and/or subsidiaries; (b) Hudson Bay Company and/or subsidiaries; (c) Canadian Industries Limited and/or subsidiaries; (d) Dominion Textiles Limited and/or subsidiaries; (e) Lever Brothers Soap Limited; (f) Courtaulds Limited?
4.	Which of the above stocks held in Britain are subject to Canadian corporation income tax?
5.	Are these subject to any corporation income tax in Great Britain and Northern Ireland?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The value of United Kingdom residents' holdings of Canadian securities varies from day to day in accordance with fluctuations in market prices. The only official information available to the Canadian government relates to United Kingdom residents' holdings of Canadian securities denominated or payable solely or optionally in Canadian dollars. These include a relatively small amount of securities for which the principal market is in the United Kingdom.
In addition to securities denominated or payable solely or optionally in Canadian dollars, residents of the United Kingdom also own substantial amounts of Canadian securi-

Questions
ties denominated' ot payable solely in sterling. The Canadian government has no official information regarding the amounts of securities so held, but an estimate has been made. This estimate is necessarily rough and must be treated with reserve.
United Kingdom residents' holdings of Canadian securities of the two types referred to above were valued towards the end of 1942 at market prices prevailing at that time, and the figures set out below have been adjusted to allow for reductions in United Kingdom residents' holdings of these securities up
to May 1, 1943. The figures given below include only Canadian securities for which a market price is obtainable in Canada or the United Kingdom and do not include direct investments of United Kingdom corporations in subsidiary companies or branches in Canada.
Subject to the above qualifications, and to the further necessary qualifications that the market value of large holdings at any particular date does not necessarily indicate what value would be realized if such holdings were liquidated, the answer to questions 1-3 is as follows:
Value of U.K. holdings of Canadian securities denominated or payable optionally or solely in Canadian dollars, at market prices prevailing near the end of 1942 (in millions of dollars)
Estimated value of U.K. holdings of Canadian securities denominated or payable solely in sterling at market prices prevailing near the end of 1942
(in millions of pounds sterling)
1. All Canadian securities
107-7
2.	Dominion government bonds and debentures	 nil
Provincial and municipal government
bonds and debentures	 69-3
nil
3. (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Bonds and stocks of Canadian Pacific
Rail wav and/or subsidiaries	39-8	57-2Stocks of Hudson's Bay Company and/or subsidiaries	nil	5-1Stocks of Canadian Industries Limited and/or subsidiaries	47-9	nilBonds and stocks of Dominion Textiles Limited and/or subsidiaries	1-0	nil
Lever Brothers Limited is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lever Brothers and Unilever, Ltd., a United Kingdom corporation. The stock of the Canadian company is not bought and sold on a stock exchange and its market value is therefore not ascertainable.
(f) Courtaulds (Canada) Limited is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Courtaulds Limited, a United Kingdom corporation. The stock of the Canadian company is not bought and sold on a stock exchange and its market value is therefore not ascertainable.
4.	All corporations and joint stock companies resident or carrying on business in Canada are subject to corporation income tax and excess profits tax on their Canadian profits.
All persons (whether individuals or corporations) who are resident outside of Canada are subject to an income tax of fifteen per cent in respect of dividends received from Canadian debtors. This tax does not apply, however, if the Canadian- debtor is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a parent company resident outside of Canada.
5.	Great Britain and Northern Ireland do not levy a corporation income tax, but corporations are required to pay tax on profits when distributed, the shareholder being entitled to take credit for his proportion against his personal income tax liability. Persons (whether corporations or individuals) carrying on business may be subject to excess profits tax, depending upon volume of profits earned in the taxation year as compared with standard profits.
Questions


WARTIME FOOD CORPORATION-BUYERS
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Who was the buyer, or buyers, for the Wartime Food Corporation?
2.	What was the salary of each per year, or per month?
3.	How much money was paid to the buyer, or buyers?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	The names of the buyers for the company and their rates of salary were: A. B. Quinn, Toronto, $125 per week; D. McIntyre, Winnipeg, $125 per week; W. G. Barber, Saskatoon, $250 per month; J. E. Patton, Edmonton, $250 per month; J. Wilson, Sr., Calgary, $150 per month; G. A. Davidson, Vancouver, $5 per day.
The undermentioned were remunerated on a "per car" or "per head1" basis:-F. Armstrong, K. G. Bums, J. L. Coughlin, R. L. Flanigan, H. Fainstein, W. C. McKenzie, W. J. McGougan, W. J. McIntyre, J. C. Staples, A. I. Slotin, W. A. Torrance.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The total paid to buyers was $9,173.65.


SHIPMENTS TO U.S.S.R.
Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	What commodities make up the shipments to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the special agreement with Canada, .mentioned by the Prime Minister on May 11, last?
2.	What is the total value of our shipments to the U.S.S.R. under this special agreement?
3.	What is the total value of our shipments to the U.S.S.R. out of the one thousand million dollars given to the United Kingdom last year?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1 and 2. As was stated in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister on May 11, the protocol -for the provision of war supplies to the U.S.S.R. is under negotiation and has not yet been concluded. As to the commodities to be included in the protocol, nothing can be added to the information given in the following extract from the statement of May 11:
"The protocol will cover the supplies to be provided during the year beginning July 1, 1943. To avoid giving information which would be of great value to the enemy, the contents of the protocol must remain secret. It is expected that under it the three countries will undertake to make available for shipment to Russia stated quantities of munitions, war materials and essential supplies, subject to modification after consultation, in the event of unforeseen developments in the war situation."

3.	As reported by the Minister of Finance to the house on May 11, 1943 (see Hansard,, page 2576) supplies to the value of $61,000,000 (including tanks and armoured fighting vehicles to the value of $49,000,000, shells and ammunition to the value of $3,000,000 and base metals to the value of $9,000,000) are known to have -been transferred to Russia out of supplies given to the United Kingdom under the War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act, 1942.


Mr. GAUTHIER:: Will the supplies furnished by Canada to the U.S.S.R., under the protocol recently negotiated, be included in the billion dollars granted this year to the united nations, or will they constitute a special item of our war expenditure?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Negotiations for the protocol have not been concluded. The expenditures incurred in furnishing the supplies to the U.S.S.R. however, will not constitute a special item of Canadian war expenditure.


ASSISTANCE TO CHINA
Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	Has Canada given assistance to China from the beginning of the Japanese aggression to the time Canada declared war on Germam' on September 10, 1939?
2.	If so, to what amount in dollars?
3.	Has Canada helped China, either directly or indirectly, from September 10, 1939, to the present day, through another government, or through the Red Cross?
4.	'If so, what is the total value in dollars of such assistance?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 
JOHN INGLIS AND ANGUS PLANTS-WORKERS LAID OFF
Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	How many workers have been laid off in the Angus shops and in the John Inglis plant since March 1 ?
2.	How many of these are reemployed in high priority industries, or in the armed forces?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	1,090 men laid off at Angus shops between March 1 and May 20, eighty-nine of whom transferred to other departments.
495 male and female workers laid off at John Inglis plant between May 12 and May 20.
2.	567 from Angus shops placed in high priority industries.
369 from John Inglis plant placed in high priority industries. (We are advised that of the number laid off within the last few days many are withholding applications for reemployment during the seven-day period following lay-off.)
No record in either case of number of men enlisted in the armed forces.


WAR SAVINGS STAMPS AND CERTIFICATES
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	What is the value of, (a) war savings stamps; (b) war savings certificates, sold since the beginning of the war?
2.	What is the value of each of the above
redeemed to date?	*


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	To April 30, 1943: (a) $32,604,715.75; (b) $217,540,196.00 (purchase value).
2.	Stamps redeemed through use in war savings certificate purchases, $27,013,578.00; war savings certificates redeemed (purchase value), $30,424,276.00.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-F. M. ROSS


Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What percentage of men in the army, in Canada, who, by reason of length of service only, would be entitled to an increase from $1.30 to $1.40 per diem, have been awarded such increase?
2.	What percentage of men in the army, in Canada, who, by reason of length of service only, would be entitled to an increase of $1.50 per diem, have been awarded such increase?
3.	What percentage of men in the Canadian army overseas, who, by reason of length of service only, would be entitled to an increase from $1.30 to $1.40 per diem, have been awarded such increase?



Questions as Orders for Returns
4.	What percentage of men in the Canadian army overseas, who, by reason of length of service only, would be entitled to an ir crease of $1.50 per diem, have been awarded such increase ?


Mr. RALSTON:: I hope I have disposed
of this question, satisfactorily in the answer I gave last night, as reported at page 3021 of Hansard, which purported to be an answer to this question.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What was the total number of housing units built by Wartime Housing Limited as at December 31, 1942?
2.	What is the total number of bedrooms provided in the various hostels?
3.	What were the total expenditures incurred by Wartime Housing Limited up to December 31, 1942, for, (a) housing units; (b) staff houses, dining halls, etc.; (c) administrative costs?



HOUSING-PRIVATE DWELLINGS

Mr. NICHOLSON:: Since the construction controller was appointed, how many private dwellings have been built in Canada in each of the following categories, and what were the total expenditures for each category, (a) over $25,000;	(b)	$15,000 to
$25,000; (c) $10,000 to $15,000; (d) $5,000 to $10,000; (e) under $5,000?



MOBILIZATION ACT-MEN REQUISITIONED AND ACCEPTED .

Mr. PURDY:: As at April 30, and by military districts, what are the percentages of men, (a) requisitioned, and (b) accepted, under the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act to. (1) the total male population between 19 and 45, and (2) the male population in above category less voluntary enlistments?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: For a return showing the names and vocations of members of local advisory committees of Wartime Housing Limited; also a statement as to what organization, if any, they represent on these committees.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of .the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: A press dispatch from Hamilton,

Ontario, states that G. V. Haythorne, an official of the national selective service, Ottawa, on Monday last told the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science association that 60,000 additional farm workers, without making allowance for farmers who have joined the armed forces, are needed to obtain the extra quantities of farm products required for the current year. The press dispatch goes on to say that this official outlined measures taken by the government and selective service to relieve the manpower situation, and told of suggested measures which might be put into effect.
I desire to ask the Minister of Labour if the estimate of farm labour requirements made by this official is in line with the information which the minister has in this regard ; and also I should like the minister to tell the house whether the measures mentioned in this statement refer to those which have already been announced by the minister in the house or whether they include some further measures not already communicated to the house.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen Mr. Haythorne since he made the statement to which my hon. friend refers. Mr. Haythorne, of course, is one of the senior officials of my department. The probability is that he was speaking about labour for the crop year, including the harvest; I say that is the probability. We all know that a large number of persons will have to be recruited in Ontario and other provinces for the harvest season, and I think Mr. Haythorne was discussing midsummer and early autumn labour needs.
With respect to the last part of my hon. friend's question, Mr. Haythorne's statement was based on the measures already announced in this house. He would have no authority to speak publicly of anything else.



QUESTION AS TO INTRODUCTION OF FEDERAL .COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MEASURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: A prominent labour leader has asked me to put the following question to the Minister of Labour-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Name?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Oh, I cannot give his name; he is but one of a multitude. In view of the fact that certain provinces have passed or are passing collective bargaining bills, would the Minister of Labour care to advise the house whether the federal government is considering

Labour Conditions
the introduction of a uniform collective bargaining bill as an example which might be followed by all the provinces?


Humphrey Mitchell: That, of course, is a matter of government policy. I would add, however, that as no doubt the hon. member is aware the national war labour board is now conducting an investigation into labour relations and wage conditions, and under the circumstances I think it would be inexpedient for me to make any comment on the question raised by my hon. friend.



TRANSFER OF COAL MINERS FROM SHIPBUILDING PLANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford') :	I should like to direct a question to
the Minister of Labour arising out of a telegram which I received this morning; I have given the minister notice of this question. The telegram reads:
Have wired Premier from mass meeting to-night protesting disruption of shipbuilding industry here by conscription of miners. Over two hundred mainly trained shipbuilders affected. Unnecessary hardships of moving families and finding non-existent houses in mining centres added reason for unwillingness of men to leave here. Please demand extension of time limit for investigation into need for such action.
George McEachern,
Chairman.
Will the Minister of Labour investigate the situation in Pictou, Nova Scotia, before further enforcing the regulations?
Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member and the
house will realize that the movement of coal miners from any industry must proceed in conformity with the terms of the order in council recently passed after consultation with labour organizations and employers. It should be pointed out that some criticism has been expressed by hon. members of this house with respect to the principle of compulsory transfer, in that the government has not gone far enough in this regard. I need hardly repeat that a grave emergency confronts the country so far as the coal supply is concerned, and of course coal mining in itself is an important basic industry, particularly in this country where we are on an import rather than an export basis. Without coal we cannot have ships, and it is essential that all members of the House of Commons lend their support to the government to face up to the fuel problem that confronts us at the present
time and, I might say further, will confront us more particularly when the cold weather comes next fall.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I sent notice to the
Minister of Labour of a question similar to the one asked by the hon. member for North BattLeford (Mrs. Nielsen). What machinery is being provided for the moving of employees from other war industries back to mining? At the plant in question .there are 200 miners who were specially trained in shipbuilding. But many of those men are not physically able to return to the occupation of coal mining. If they are to be moved en bloc the net result will be a good deal of unemployment, and this will affect men who are now doing an essential service. Are special precautions being taken against this condition?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am sure the hon. member will appreciate the difficulties faced' by national selective service. In the course of the last two weeks I have listened to many speeches in the house respecting the principle of selective service. It has been suggested that we are not moving with expedition. I said a year ago, when this responsibility was placed upon my shoulders, that you had asked for total war and you would get it. In connection with any development there must be sufficient machinery1 to do the work. One cannot overload a machine, or load it to capacity until it is incapable of taking care of the tremendous load placed upon it. My hon. friend can rest assured that selective service will use common sense and good judgment in the moving of men and women from one industry to another.
I know the difficulties confronted by hon. members, and I am sure they appreciate mine, particularly when we have to uproot people and put them into a basic industry, where they are absolutely necessary. May I repeat that coal mining-and I speak for myself- is infinitely more important in this country at the present time than shipbuilding. Perhaps the hon. member is more familiar than I am with the coal mining industry. He knows the climate of this country as well as I do, and will realize that it is far better to take these precautions now than to wait until next fall, and then be faced with the kind of emergency with which I was faced in the western provinces at a time when the temperature was down to forty-two degrees below zero, and the people did not have enough coal for the following day.
Passports

I repeat that I think it is the duty of all of us, when dealing with these 'basic industries, to lend every possible support to the government and to face up to our difficulties.
In further answer to the question may I say this will be undertaken by selective service. I am contemplating setting up a special organization to deal with the problem, headed by a man who understands industry to direct affairs. As the hon. member is no doubt aware, in Pictou and various other towns and cities in his province we have selective service machinery which, in my opinion, is quite capable of undertaking this work.



PASSPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yesterday the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) raised a question about the distribution of passport application forms, and said at the time that he did not attach much importance to the waste of paper that was involved.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Not in view of the way it is circulated around this House of Commons; divorce bills and the like.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Department of External Affairs is trying to set an example to the other branches of the government.
In reply to the hon. member I would say it has been found that the old practice _ of sending bulk supplies of blank application forms to post offices, railway ticket offices, banks, law firms and travel agencies across the country for the use of potential applicants resulted in the waste of hundreds of thousands of application forms which were never used. Such a practice, while a convenience for the public and justifiable under the easy conditions of peace, would, it is felt, be unnecessary as well as wasteful under conditions of war, when the demand for passports is greatly reduced. It seems doubtful also whether it *is a sound practice for transportation companies and other interested parties to fill out application forms for passport applicants. For the information of hon. members I may say that the government of the United States requires applicants to apply on their own behalf for application forms and charges a fee of $1 for each blank application form.

Under the new arrangement application forms are kept in stock at the passport office, Ottawa, and will be available on the personal application or written request of the person desiring to apply for a passport or a renewal. An exception is made, however, in the case of companies who desire to send any considerable number of employees to the United States, provided they indicate the actual number of employees they are sending for whom passports are required. There should not be any real trouble or delay in having applicants write in for an application or a renewal form. For short trips to the United. States passports are no longer required. Longer trips under war conditions require extensive preparations and consequently there is ample time for applicants to secure an application form and a passport. If stocks of passport application and renewal forms are made available at some points, as the hon. member suggests, in fairness they woidd have to be made available right across the country. The result would be a return to the old system which, as I have said, was found to be somewhat wasteful.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I suggested yesterday that the post office might be the medium through which this could be done. I do not see why that would not be possible, because every postmaster is a civil servant in the employ of the government of Canada. Emergencies do arise when people require passports, and it takes time to write to Ottawa and get the necessary form. It seems to me the post office should be a satisfactory medium through which to issue these forms.



SEED POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, or to whatever minister is representing him in the house at the present time. Has the attention of the Minister of Agriculture been directed to the fact that the price being charged for seed potatoes to-day by retail stores in certain parts of Canada is most unusually high; and considering this fact, does not the minister fear there is grave danger of such curtailment of potato seeding in Canada as may Result in a serious potato shortage next fall and winter? Will the minister tell the house what precautions are now contemplated by his department to guard against such a serious potato shortage?

War Appropriation-Army


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I am not familiar with the question raised by the hon. member, but I shall endeavour to have an answer to-morrow.


John Horne Blackmore: I gave notice of the question.



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two
Mountains) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I
should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), or in his absence, to the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Jean), his parliamentary assistant. Has Mr. Camillien Houd'e, former mayor of Montreal and member for Ste. Marie in the provincial legislature, applied for release from internment camp to the advisory board which hears petitions concerning liberations of this kind?
In the affirmative, has a decision been reached or judgment rendered1, and what are the findings?
Mr. JOSEPH JEAN (Parliamentary Assistant) :: Mr. Speaker, I have not the information requested by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains. I will endeavour to get it for him.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 25, 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.

[Stage Direction]
Pay and allowances, $539,730,211.
Mr. LACOMBE:: Mr. Chairman, the
government is again asking the house to vote an enormous sum of money, almost four billions of dollars, for the prosecution of the war. Before Canada's participation in the war her unemployed population lived on direct relief, or public charity. There was no money available for construction projects, but there is plenty available now to kill and destroy. It is a frightful race toward the abyss. Some might say the country had never known such prosperity, and that never before have so many people worked in factories. This is true. But what wastage of materials, money and working hours do we not see!
Go into war factories and see for yourselves the output of those industries. One would be stunned by what he would see. Workers who are only too willing to work for their salaries are condemned to idleness, because of the lack of material and poor administration of the factories. Scandals unearthed in war factories, where pay lists were tampered with and swollen, as was the case recently in Montreal, constitute a condemnation of the war policy of the government.
Some company presidents had their salaries increased from $10,000 to $30,000. These shameful war profiteers completed their treason by entering fictitious names on their workers' lists. The government discovered these shameful abuses only after two years of speculation and robbery. Has not the administration any competent accountants and auditors who could supervise the operations of these factories? Why has fraud, wastage and robbery prevailed in those factories for many months, and even years? While the first necessities of life are being rationed to the defenders of the country and to the civilian population, why were soldiers' food and woollen blankets stolen from' certain camps? Will the government ever take steps, once and for all, to stop this deplorable state of affairs? When will it appoint experienced cooks to prepare all the food in training camps? Who can estimate the enormous quantities of meat, eggs, vegetables and bread which are wasted in the camps because of the ignorance and incompetence of the cooks? We are receiving complaints of . this type every day. These are not isolated cases. This seems to be general everywhere. The government are asking the farmer to provide the utmost production, and yet they deprive him of his best help. Requests have been made from time to time that the department concerned should send back to the farms the experienced farmers who have been called to the colours and are still in the armed forces. But nothing has beeD done. There is nothing extraordinary in this attitude; the administration seems to persist in continuing its stupid inconsistencies. On the one hand it advocates increased agricultural production, yet on the other hand it pays the prairie farmer to reduce his production. Such methods call for restrictions of all kinds. We have them.
Are our leaders satisfied with this work? The disastrous policy of the government is responsible for the rationing we now have in Canada. This is the main reason for the increase in the cost of living. Why must this untruthful propaganda which we hear every day over the radio be continued? Who will believe that in the last three months the price of meat, food and clothing has gone up only 1-8 per cent?
War Appropriation-Army

I have here a release by the wartime prices and trade board which was published in the Montreal La Presse on April 30, 1943. A translation reads:
The Price of Beef is Increased
The wartime prices and trade board to-day announces its official chart of maximum prices -a prelude to the coming rationing of meat.
In order to prepare for the rationing of meat and to protect consumers, the foods division of the wartime prices and trade board has just prepared a chart of the different cuts of beef authorized for sale and a list of the maximum prices for the districts of Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa and Hull. These prices are to be effective to-day.
The Montreal district includes a zone which covers a radius of twenty-five miles from the city hall. In all butchers' stores or wherever beef is sold to consumers, this list must be posted in a place where the public can easily read it or refer to it when the need arises.
Consumers will be protecting themselves and acting in their own interests by revealing to the board the names and addresses of butchers who do not comply with these regulations. Householders are advised to refer to this list before ordering any cut of beef.
Then follow the prices of some of the most popular cuts in the three first qualities, special, commercial and ordinary.


Mr. SOPER:: The hon. member should not be permitted to read his story-book.


James Layton Ralston: I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend is nowhere near the item which is before this committee. The item which we are discussing is pay and allowances for the armed forces. It has nothing to do with rationing or with the subject with which my hon. friend is dealing.


Liguori Lacombe: The question which I am discussing now is closely connected with the war effort. We are discussing item No. 3.


James Layton Ralston: No. 2.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, with your permission-


James Layton Ralston: I object.


The CHAIRMAN:: A point of order has been raised by the minister. I know the committee will realize that it is difficult for a member to confine his remarks to an item of this nature, but I believe I voice the opinion of the committee when I say that while up to the moment we have given considerable latitude in discussion, it is felt that the discussion should now be kept within the limits of the item as much as possible. Otherwise it will be absolutely impossible to make any headway. I think it is the sentiment of the committee that we should get on with the important measure now before the committee.


Liguori Lacombe: I do not believe the debate is closed on the point of order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I did not say that the debate was closed. I repeat that some latitude must be given, but I believe also that it is the sentiment of every hon. member of the committee that we should get down to earth, if I may use that term, and keep within the limits of the item before the committee.


Liguori Lacombe: With your permission I will give the prices.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Perhaps the hon. member was not in the committee previously when we had a general discussion, and it may be the wish of the committee that he be allowed to carry on.


Liguori Lacombe: I have the prices of some of the most popular cuts in the three first qualities.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think my hon. friend should be allowed latitude which is denied to the rest of the hon. members. The hon. member knows that his remarks are not relevant to the item before the committee.


Liguori Lacombe: I submit respectfully that this is a general discussion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Liguori Lacombe: It is possible to deceive the population for a while, but you cannot do it all the time. The hour is close when the population of this country will exercise its prerogatives against those who have brought these things about. If I am to be prevented from speaking this afternoon, there will be another occasion.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: 
Liguori Lacombe: I abide by your decision, Mr. Chairman. At present, we are discussing a resolution calling for the sum of $3,890,000,000 to help the war effort. All [DOT]the clauses of this resolution are interdependent and I do not see why I am not allowed1 to speak just now, since we are to discuss this resolution one clause at a time, as any contract should be examined, because each has some connection with the rest. Has the hon. Minister of National Defence, who is so eager to interrupt me this afternoon, anything to conceal? Referring to the victory of the united nations in Tunisia, he could not spare a word of praise for the brave French soldiers who so gallantly supported the allied advance.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order!


Liguori Lacombe: I am speaking on the resolution, Mr. Chairman, and I defy anyone to prove the contrary.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order!


Liguori Lacombe: Is there a point of order raised at the moment? By whom, I wonder?
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): By the Chairman.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains is experienced in parliamentary custom, and I would ask him to abide by the procedure I have outlined as Chairman of the committee. We are all in favour of free speech, but I would ask the hon. member to confine himself to the section which is being discussed at present. Otherwise, I shall have to declare the hon. member out of order.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, the resolution under discussion just now reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, inter alia,
1.	That sums not exceeding $2,593,333,333.34 (being two-thirds of $3,890,000,000) be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under authority of the governor in council during the year ending March 31, 1944, for-
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
(b)	the .conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;
(c)	promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever; and
(d)	the carrying out of any measures deemed neeessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the existence of a state of war.
2.	That the governor in council be empowered to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in
the whole the sum of $2,593,333,333.34 (being two-thirds of $3,890,000,000) as may be required for the purpose of defraying such expenses or making such advances or loans, the principal and interest of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable . out of the consolidated revenue fund.
3.	That the governor in council be empowered to reexpend, advance or loan moneys that may be received by way of refund or repayment of advances, loans or expenditure under the War Appropriation Acts of 1939 (second session), 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943.
In accordance with this resolution, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that I have the right to discuss the general aspect of the war policy of the government. At present, we are studying this resolution, irrespective of any particular item. If I have not the right to discuss it, it should be dropped from the order of the day. Why is this resolution on the order of the day if not for discussion?
I was speaking of the omission made by the Minister of National Defence. Was there any reason for it? The most elementary sense of fairness should have impelled the minister to devote to the French heroes a page or at least a few lines of the speech he delivered when narrating the victorious advance of the allies. The victory of the united nations would have been considered just as splendid, and the account of those great military exploits would have been more complete and more authentic. Let us stop distorting facts well-known to all. Let us be honest with ourselves and loyal towards others.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask for silence in the house. Much greater eagerness is shown in having the rules of the house enforced than in keeping order, and I know several hon. members who carry on private conversations at their desks far more often than they speak in the house, not even showing consideration for their colleagues who address them. I will deal with this matter again in the near future.
Let us therefore be honest with ourselves and loyal towards others.
Since it is claimed that the conflict now being waged is a just war whose object is an equitable peace, there should be no injustice toward those who, at the most difficult period of their lives, are nevertheless shedding their blood for the ultimate triumph of the allies and the liberation of their downtrodden country. The omission of the Minister of National Defence is unwarrantable. Can it possibly be a conspiracy of silence about which complaints could rightly be voiced, in the first place, by the French heroes who were its first victims? Three million and a half French-speaking Canadian citizens condemn the minister's omission. No one is more loyally doing his duty in this
War Appropriation-Army

war than the French Canadians. In return, they demand their share of justice or at least of equity. Does anyone 'believe that the government is concerned with that? Not in the least. On the contrary, they tolerate the blackest acts of injustice against citizens of French extraction in Canada. I can give one example out of a great many. Here is what Le Canada, a Montreal newspaper, says in to-day's issue:
Protests against the use of the French language.
Mr. Chairman, you are aware of such a situation, since you are one of the representatives of the minority in Ontario.
In a meeting held in connection with their 67th annual congress, the chapter members of the Western Ontario Royal Black Knights of Ireland have passed a resolution protesting against the use made of the French language in the dominion government offices in Ontario. They have decided to send a copy of that resolution to the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King.
They also protest against the use of French on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation programmes and in the Ontario schools.
This is the kind of treatment we, the pioneers in this country, are receiving. Is there no one in the government to bring to reason these slanderers of three and a half million French Canadians? What is the reaction to these encroachments to national unity, a cause which is so dear to the Prime Minister and the government? The administration does nothing. It persists in following the same policy of non-interference, in spite of the Canada defence regulations and the War Measures Act, which are applied in certain individual cases and to our citizens who are left to languish in internment camps. These regulations are not applied against the supporters of the government. This comedy has lasted long enough. We shall not put up with the gratuitous abuse from these agitators who seem to enjoy the government's protection and we demand justice and reparation. The province of Quebec has been among the first to exceed its objective in the victory loan campaign, but still, the government allows these agitators to abuse its citizens. We protest, and because, this afternoon, I have endeavoured to show to the house that the hon. Minister of National Defence has ignored the heroism of the French element in Tunisia, an effort is made to silence me. Mr. Chairman, I shall not be prevented from expressing my views within the bounds allowed by the rules of the house and I shall stand my ground on this question of paramount importance. I thank you for your forbearance.


Mr. GREEN:: This item has to do with pay and allowances for the men in the army. During the discussion yesterday quite a few different points were raised which dealt with the welfare of the men in the forces and their dependents. If the minister will remember, when speaking last week I tried to point out to him and to the committee that thfe national defence department had a responsibility to see to the welfare of the men in the forces, the soldiers and the sailors and the airmen; and I suggested at that time that there were certain grievances which should be righted and certain remedies put into effect: for example, the practice of discharging unfit men too quickly, the question of the changes required in the pension act, the necessity of giving some help to the families of our fighting men in finding homes, the "jokers" in the increase in pay, and questions having to do with dependents' allowance and the protection of the insurance policies which men had taken out before enlistment.
Some of these questions have been dealt with by the minister; most of them have not; and I suggest that the House of Commons should give very careful consideration to the welfare of the men in the forces. They should be helped in cases where their ability to perform a contract has been materially affected by their service. It may be summed up in this way, that these men of ours should be free to devote their entire mental and physical energies to their military tasks. Therefore I suggest that it would be in the best interests of the nation, as well as the just due of these men because of the sacrifice they are making, that they be given legal protection against the economic consequences of their service. This means that where the ability of men in military service and their dependents to meet financial obligations has been materially reduced by service, something should be done by the dominion government.
The government should give them reasonable legal protection against such troubles as evictions, foreclosures, seizures for arrears of taxes, forfeitures of instalment contracts, cancellations of life insurance policies-say, up to a maximum of S10,000-and against judgments or other legal proceedings for debts incurred before they entered military service, and against other embarrassing financial obligations. Such help should, of course, be subject to the express condition that those men who are able to pay shall not evade their obligations because of the help given them, and

War Appropriation-Army
that just protection to creditors should be assured, under the simple and effective procedure which could be furnished by our courts.
It is true that some such protection is given by certain of the provinces.


James Layton Ralston: By all, is it not?


Howard Charles Green: There may be some protection given by all; I am not sure of that.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Not all.


Howard Charles Green: But the protection is only partial; it is not uniform, and in my opinion the dominion should step into the field and give all soldiers, sailors and airmen at least standard protection.


Mr. CHURCH:: It can be done under the War Measures Act.


Howard Charles Green: Yes. Taking such steps
would certainly be a war measure. The United States has already done that. They have in that country what is known as the Sparkman act, and what I am really advocating to-day is that Canada adopt a Sparkman act suited to our own conditions. This United States act is known officially as the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, and it was amended in 1942. The preamble reads as follows:
An Act-
To promote and strengthen the national defence by suspending enforcement of certain civil liabilities of certain persons serving in the military and naval establishments, including the coast guard
I propose to read the first section of the act to hon. members because it gives an idea of the measure I suggest that Canada should have.


Thomas Langton Church: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Howard Charles Green: Certainly.


Thomas Langton Church: The Sparkman act was before our law clerk and he decided that this parliament had no jurisdiction to pass a similar act.


Howard Charles Green: Well, my suggestion is that such an act can be passed under the War Measures Act. This section reads as follows:
In order to provide for, strengthen and expedite the national defence under the emergent conditions which are threatening the peace and security of the United States-
Mark you, this act was passed in 1940, the year before the United States went to war.
-and to enable the United States the more successfully to fulfil the requirements of the national defence, provision is hereby made to suspend enforcement of civil liabilities, in certain eases, of persons in the military service of
the United States in order to enable such persons to devote their entire energy to the defence needs of the nation, and to this end the following provisions are made for the temporary suspension of legal proceedings and transactions which may prejudice the civil rights of persons in such service during the period herein specified over which this act remains in force.
I do not intend to go over the various provisions, but I should like to point out certain features. One is that the act applies to all of the states, and to proceedings commenced in any court in the United States of America. Another is that Americans serving in the Canadian forces are entitled to the protection of this United States act. Hon. members will find, if they care to look up this act in the library, a lucid explanation of its provisions. In the pamphlet of the United States war department from which I am quoting the purpose of the act is set out.
I quote:
The Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act of 1940 became a part of the laws of the land on October 17, 1940, and will remain in effect until May 15, 1945, or, if the United States is then engaged in war, until such war is terminated by a treaty of peace proclaimed by the President and for six months thereafter. . . . The purpose of the act is to free persons in the military service from harassment and injury to their civil rights during their term of military service and to enable them to devote their entire energy to the war needs of the nation. Generally, the method of the act is to provide for adequate representation of the soldier during his absence, or to authorize the postponement of certain proceedings and transactions until his return from military service.
There is nothing in the act which relieves the soldier from the actual payment of debts or other obligations which he may have incurred before entering the military service. It is only when the soldier's ability to meet his obligations has been impaired, because of military service, that relief is afforded, and this relief is principally against f}ie penalties that would be imposed for non-payment of such obligations. In the traditional American way, questions of the extent to which relief is afforded generally are left to the discretion of our courts of justice.
Our way of looking at things is much the same as the American way and we could very well adopt a measure of this sort. The pamphlet deals with various details of the act. For example, there is a provision that if a soldier makes an agreement after he has enlisted he does not get the protection of the act. There is another which provides that if he is made a defendant in a court action and is unable to appear in court, the court shall appoint an attorney to represent him and protect his interests. Another provision authorizes the court to postpone court proceedings if the soldier who is a party thereto is unable to participate by reason of being in military

War Appropriation-Army

service. For instance, if an American soldier were on service in North Africa I presume he would get the benefit of that provision.


Mr. SLAGHT:: What is the position in
Britain? Have they an equivalent?


Howard Charles Green: I cannot give the hon. member that information; I do not know. Another provision authorizes the court to postpone or vacate execution of any judgment, attachment or garnishee. Another authorizes the court to postpone proceedings for the period of military service, or three months thereafter, or any part thereof. Another excludes the period of military service from computing time under existing or future statutes of limitation, and another provides that interest on the obligations of persons in the military service shall not exceed six per cent per annum, unless the court determines that ability to pay greater interest is not affected by military service. There is a further provision, that a person during his period of military service, or six months thereafter, may apply to a court for relief with respect to his obligations incurred prior to military service, or any tax or assessment whether falling due prior to or during the period of military service. The court may, on certain conditions, stay the enforcement of such obligations.
There are various other provisions, some of which have been made in part by our legislatures. There is provision for stay of eviction where the rental paid for a dwelling is $80 per month or less. The tenant cannot be evicted except by leave of the court which can stay such eviction for three months. There is a provision that contracts for the1 purchase of real and personal property, which originated prior to the period of military service, may not be rescinded, terminated or foreclosed, or the property repossessed, unless by order of the court. Another provision with reference to the soldier or his dependents is that he may terminate a lease by giving a certain length of notice; the idea is to allow the soldier to escape from the onerous terms of a long lease.
There is also a provision with regard1 to insurance, which I think is of great importance and is badly heeded in Canada. It provides for a guarantee by the United States of premium payments on policies up to $10,000, other than United States government life insurance and National Service life insurance, during the period of military service of the insured and two years thereafter. The United States government underwrites the premium. The premiums would be charged against the policy if the policy became pay-

able and what money the government had paid would be deducted. In any event, they would stand as a lien against the policy. The point is, it prevents cancellation of insurance. There are many cases in- Canada, particularly with the older or married men, where they have enlisted and thereby incurred such a reduction in income that they are unable to keep up their insurance policy.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend said it
prevents cancellation. He means it prevents cancellation by reason of failure to pay the premium.


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: In many policies there is a difficulty with regard to the policy lapsing owing to war hazard, with the requirement of extra premiums.


Howard Charles Green: As I understand it, this
United States provision would not apply where the policy can be cancelled if a man enlists. I think that is the provision.


James Layton Ralston: Cancellation for want of
premium. Where the payment of premium can save the policy the government guarantees.


Howard Charles Green: Yes. I do not intend to
go into this question at further length. I am merely calling it to the attention of the minister and I suggest -that the taking of such a step now is an essential part of an all-out war effort. The only way our fighting men can get standard protection across Canada is by the dominion government stepping into the field. It can do -that, because it has the power under the provisions of the War Measures Act, and I hope that the government will see fit to bring in some measure like the Sparkman act, without further delay.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Has the act been in force
in the United States long enough, in a given accounting period, to furnish any relative figures as to what the expense of administration- and the extra benefits would represent?


Howard Charles Green: It is not a matter of expense, because the act simply protects the men in the forces. There is not very much government expense involved. It is a matter of the federal government stepping in to protect the rights of its fighting men and to give them a certain backing. The main principle is that where a man's ability to meet his obligations has been impaired by reason of his enlisting in the forces, the government will step in and help him to carry on until after the war. That is the essence of the law. That is the main purpose of it. The same conditions exist in Canada and I think

War Appropriation-Army
we might very well adopt a similar type of legislation here. As I say, it is not a matter of cost because there would not be much cost involved. I imagine a stronger objection would be that it would be interfering with the provinces. The trouble is that the provinces all have different ideas as to the protection they should give the fighting men. Some do not give them very much protection and others quite a bit; further the question has recently become of great importance in the prairie provinces by reason of the disallowance of the Debt Adjustment Act of Alberta; protection for the soldier is contained in these debt adjustments acts in those provinces- at least some protection. It is a question whether or not that has all gone by the boaid. But I do suggest that this is a national question. These troops are the care of the dominion government, not of the provincial governments, and the dominion government should step in and help them.


Thomas Langton Church: I hope this matter will be attended to without further delay. I believe the Minister of National Defence has been particularly interested in this question, along with the Minister of Pensions and National Health, and I hope -something may come out of the work of this subcommittee of which they are members. I know in some of the poorer districts of my constituency some of the dependents of the soldiers cannot pay their taxes and the bailiffs have been called in, though the city has been very generous in regard to taxes. The bonus that has been given helps only a small number of people, and is looked upon as charity more than anything else. I believe this parliament could not better occupy itself this session than in considering a national system of insurance, at the same time taking up the other matters mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver South.


John Horne Blackmore: ' I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), who I believe has made a definite contribution to the debate this afternoon. I agree entirely that we are not discharging our responsibilities to our soldiers when we leave their property open to the attacks of local tax collectors should arrears develop. In my opinion the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has performed a real service in bringing this matter to our attention. I should like to ask whether the act he has in mind would merely constitute a stay of proceedings until after the war, or whether it would contain any provision for the central government taking over the responsibility and enabling the soldier to discharge it. During the last war I understand that a good many provinces, or at least some provinces, prevented foreclosures or seizures or sales for taxes, but when the soldier was discharged he had the full responsibility of meeting those accumulated debts, which in many cases constituted an almost intolerable hardship. Does this act provide any safeguard against that sort of thing?


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister can answer that question better than I can, but as I understand it, the Sparkman act does not provide for payment of the indebtedness. It merely provides that a man shall not lose his property, and it also provides that he may not be charged more than six per cent interest during the time he is in the army. For example, if his mortgage calls for interest at the rate of seven per cent he may be charged only six per cent during the time

he is on service. The basic idea is to prevent his losing his property by reason of his service. The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is the basis of the act.


John Horne Blackmore: I still believe even a provision such as that is altogether inadequate. Our soldiers are not able to accumulate very much money; land when a war stretches out as this one is doing, they become less and less able to draw revenue from any sort of business they might have carried on before going into the army. The men were so poor generally when they went into the army, as a result of the long depression through which we passed, that I think the situation is particularly bad and should be taken care of at once.
I am not entirely in accord with the idea that the dominion should invade the jurisdiction of the provinces in this respect; I think the dominion has exercised discretion in this regard. I believe, however, that an enabling act might be passed under which the dominion would cooperate with the provinces. I doubt very much if there is a provincial government in Canada at the present time that would not readily cooperate with the dominion government in any reasonable, feasible scheme for the protection of the soldiers.


Mr. PICARD:: May I add only a word to what has been said by other hon. members. I think everyone in the house is in favour of the protection of the property of the men in the armed forces. But, as some other hon. members have said, it is a question of civil rights, and civil rights are within the control of the provinces. I believe therefore that our best plan would be that of applying our energy toward influencing the governments in the different provinces, rather than discussing the question here, when we have no power in the matter.
I note that only yesterday the government of Quebec brought down a similar measure. I do not have the details of it, but I understand the measure provides that no mortgage can be foreclosed against a farm belonging to a man in the armed forces, including all the services. In respect of a lawsuit involving property, permission to sue must be obtained from the superior court before action can be started. That is a step in the right direction.


James Layton Ralston: That is in respect of a mortgage, or a charge against land; or does it apply to a simple contract?

War Appropriation-Army


Louis-Philippe Picard: I have not the bill before me, but I believe it applies to any lawsuit involving property. Concerning mortgages on property, that is definitely so.


James Layton Ralston: There is the same provision in Ontario, I think.


Louis-Philippe Picard: Then, with respect to other lawsuits, permission has to be obtained) from a judge before a lawsuit involving property belonging to a man in the armed forces can be initiated. So that I think we are all in _ agreement, on whatever side of the house we may be, that it is a question of who has power to do it. In the federal parliament I do not believe we are empowered to invade provincial rights in respect of questions of this kind.


Howard Charles Green: Does the hon. member not think that the dominion would have power to pass under the War Measures Act a law such as I have suggested? The United States federal government had much the same difficulty to overcome. Three years ago, however, they passed the Sparkman act, and their situation has greatly improved.


Louis-Philippe Picard: I am sure that under the War Measures Act the government has power over the life and death of everyone in the country. But I do think it should use such power sparingly. When it comes to the consideration of a question so serious as that of property and civil rights of citizens, we would gain much by obtaining the good-will of all the provinces. Suggestions could be sent and meetings held among the governments, to arrive at an understanding, rather than force it through under the War Measures Act.


Clarence Gillis: In 1940 most of the veterans' organizations in Canada were sending resolutions to the provincial governments and to members of parliament-I know I received many of them-asking that a moratorium be granted in respect to members of the services who had purchased homes and obligated themselves to make certain monthly payments which were not possible under army pay. The matter was referred to Ottawa and I took it up with the Department of Finance. The minister advised me it was a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The matter has dragged along, and evidently nothing has been done about it. I do not know anything about the Sparkman act in the United States, but I do know that the government of New Zealand has provided a supplementary grant up to $15 a week to all members of the forces, which is available to take care of cases of this kind. Could some such machinery not be provided by the federal government in Canada?
I have in mind a case I took up with the Department of National Defence about two months ago. A man overseas was notified that his property was in jeopardy because of outstanding taxes. Through the representations I made a supplementary grant was allowed and the soldier's property protected.
I was so advised by the department. Of course the grant was limited.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: Was that by this government?


Clarence Gillis: Yes. May I support what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). This is a matter of deep concern to the members of the forces, and one which has caused considerable agitation in veterans' organizations. If a little country like New Zealand can pass legislation granting that amount of money to take care of contingencies of this kind, I cannot see why the Canadian government could not take similar action. My experience leads me to believe that there may be some provision which can be reached in a roundabout way, but it is hard to get it. The process is slow. Any man who is overseas, prepared to lay down his life for freedom and democracy, should not be placed in the position of learning that the home he has left behind him has been threatened because of unpaid taxes.
Provincial governments are not going to do anything about it. Anyone who offers that argument is merely passing the buck. It is not a matter to-day of recognizing the rights of provinces respecting private property. What we are arguing for is the protection of the property of the man who has gone overseas to fight for the institutions of our country. There is no valid argument for the provinces stepping into the picture, because the national government has invaded practically every field of revenue the provinces had. I believe we should make some definite arrangement with respect to protecting the property of men who have gone overseas.


Gordon Graydon: In my submission the argument adduced by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) is scarcely in line with the conditions which the government and the country face. As was so well said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), this government has invaded the fields of greatest consequence, and perhaps in the remaining provincial fields there is not the same opportunity of taking action in respect to the matter raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I am not at all impressed by the suggestion that we should stand on technicalities when we are dealing with matters affecting the men and women who are fighting for us. It seems to me that
IFar Appropriation-Army

to raise the question of property and civil rights and jurisdiction given under the British North America Act to the various governments in Canada is straining the point much too far.
* Perhaps the best argument against leaving this matter to the provinces is the fact that in several of the provinces they are only now initiating legislation. What is going to happen to the man overseas who loses his home prior to the time of the legislation becoming effective? It is all very well to say that the legislation could be made retroactive. But even with a retroactive provision, it is very difficult to return matters to their original condition. For that reason I say the government must accept a considerable share of responsibility for, first of all, not having exercised its power and jurisdiction under the War Measures Act to do what has been suggested. I think no one would quarrel with the government's power, and this action should have been taken at the beginning of the war. That was the time to do it, because it was tied up with our whole war plan. It is a case of too little and too late. It seems to me at this particular time the government must assess to themselves very broad responsibilities with respect to this particular matter.
I agree with what one of the previous speakers said, that the provinces may legislate; but have we any guarantee that there will be any uniformity in the provincial legislation? Have we any guarantee as to the extent or degree of enthusiasm which will be put into the enforcement of the act by the different provinces?


James Layton Ralston: There is no enforcement?


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the minister does not understand my point but I shall come to it in a moment. These men are from Canada, not simply from one of the provinces. Keeping that squarely in mind, is there any reason why a man who has volunteered his services and finds some court order against him when in England should suffer by virtue of the fact that he comes from one province rather than from another? It seems to me that the thread of the assumption of responsibility runs through the whole matter. I do not think the dominion government can toss this aside on the basis of its being a matter of property and civil rights which come under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Whoever it was in the cabinet who suggested that this was a provincial matter, I do not know, but this responsibility ought to be brought out in the open. Had this same point been raised in connection with many matters relating to our war effort we would have had a much poorer effort by virtue of it.

This is a national issue, therefore two things should be done or should have been done long before this. Either there should be uniformity of legislation by the provinces across Canada, or there should be legislation enacted, or at least orders in council issued under the provisions of the War Measures Act. Someone has said that we might be touching property, but where the question of property and the question of human values come into conflict, surely we have gone sufficiently far along the road, particularly in this war-time emergency, to place some measure of emphasis upon human values rather than upon property values. It seems to me that that is the root of the proposal which has been advanced so well by the hon. member for Vancouver South.
It is our duty to see that our soldiers are well protected in the way of reinforcements and the necessary equipment and the best generalship we can provide, but at the same time we should give the necessary protection so far as their home affairs are concerned. In most cases these men are civilian soldiers. When the war is over they expect to come back to take their places in civilian life. Not only is protection comparable to that afforded by the Sparkman act necessary; we should be prepared not only to preserve the property of the soldier but also to see that his morale is kept up. The minister should give careful consideration to doing what must be done to provide protection comparable to or even greater than that given by other nations. This is not only the responsibility of the government; it is their duty, and I ask them to accept it.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: I concur in what has been said already on the subject now under discussion, and particularly with what the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) has said to the effect that it is not sufficient just to stay proceedings against a soldier while he is overseas. A fact that we should keep in mind is that many of these men undertook commitments before enlisting which they were justified in undertaking, commitments which they were able to meet out of their civilian earnings but which they cannot meet out of their soldiers' pay. It behooves us as a government to adopt some measures to safeguard these men against losses which they may incur because of these commitments.
Reference has been made to New Zealand. My information is that in that country the commitments which a soldier undertook before enlisting and which he can show he was able to take care of at that time are assumed by his government while he is in the army. I

War Appropriation-Army
understand that recent provisions have been made in Great Britain for something much along the same line. Surely, as some hon. members have suggested this afternoon, we are not going to let the provisions of the British North America Act, in so far as they concern property, interfere with our duty and moral Obligation to the men who are protecting this very property and but for whose services this property would be worth little today, to the province, to the individual or to anyone else.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I desire to associate myself with the recommendations made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), and particularly those made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). The hon. member for Cape Breton South suggested to the minister that he should endeavour to embody in legislation or in an order in council under federal jurisdiction the type of relief we have been discussing. I believe in peace time we should be zealous about not encroaching upon the purely provincial jurisdiction which is granted by the British North America Act, but if I may be bold enough to offer a suggestion to the minister and to the Minister of Justice, and to the advisers whom they may consult, the question of jurisdiction might be covered in this way. If there be conflict under the British North America Act between a particular measure introduced by us and one introduced by a province, we have been told more than once by the privy council that the very pith and substance and the real purpose of the legislation must first be looked to, and then if there be conflict in the carrying out of the real purpose and the federal act or order in council should appear incidentally to infringe upon subjects purely provincial, the larger federal jurisdiction must prevail. If I am right in that view of the law, then applying that test to this legislation it is primarily, it is essentially so far as its purpose is concerned, purely a war measure. If there were no war there would be no army tc protect, there would be no need for the legislation at all. But it is beyond question a war measure. I deplore the tendency-the minister is in no way responsible for it-to tell us, as we have been told once or twice in this house, that we must not do this or that 'because it is a provincial matter. I have in mind particularly the effort that was made by some members of this house to persuade the administration to raise the old age pension from twenty to thirty dollars a month and to lower the age limit. This is not the time to discuss that problem; I refer to it merely incidentally, although I propose to see that
the problem is further discussed in this house. But I am bitterly opposed to being told that it is purely a provincial matter, and therefore, as a member said, we pass the buck and refuse to carry out our responsibilities in that regard.
I do not think there will be any constitutional difficulty. It is particularly a war measure for this further reason. We are inviting the young men, the married1 men, the ablebodied men of this country to join up voluntarily in order that our reinforcements may be provided beyond peradventure, and when we invite them so to do will anyone suggest that we are not able to assure them that if they are in financial difficulties the money lenders and the usurers shall not take advantage of them when they are away on the country's business?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or the tax collector.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Or the tax collector, or any of those who want to enforce obligations regardless of whether or why the man is unable to pay. Therefore, again, it is esentially a war measure in that respect, and I want to support such proper relief as the minister with his advisers can devise in order to carry out in spirit the proposals put forward by the member for Vancouver South.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Chairman, I feel like complimenting the member for Vancouver South upon introducing this subject, and I hope some good will result from it. Had it not been f(jr the government's decision at the beginning of the session not to permit the debating of private members' resolutions, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) would have had this matter discussed earlier in the session. During the great war he was known throughout Canada as the soldier's friend, a title he richly deserved, one that he won for himself by his great efforts on behalf of the soldiers. In his resolution he calls for all that has been urged this afternoon-insurance for the soldiers, protection from foreclosure, more adequate and improved housing for the soldiers and their families. During his administration as mayor of Toronto he carried through city council a measure granting to the family of each soldier killed overseas one thousand dollars, and I remember what a benefit that insurance of one thousand dollars was, particularly in the riding which I represent, from which so many soldiers went overseas, many of whom were killed, and the benefit it was to soldiers' families throughout the city generally. The hon. member for Broadview, had he been given the privilege of debating his resolution, would have strongly
War Appropriation-Army

argued, as he did to-day, and as did the hon. member for Vancouver South and other members, that soldiers should be insured and that their families and dependents should be adequately provided for and protected from eviction and have more adequate and improved housing, and that his proposals should prevail not only during the war but for six months thereafter. I rise to associate myself with those who have preceded me in supporting the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver South that the government should bring in a sytem of insurance for the soldiers.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: May I say
just a word in support of the arguments which have been placed before the minister with reference to giving protection and assistance to men in the armed services who may own a home or a farm. It seems to me that there are two questions involved.
First is the question of protection. That is a very important matter to the men who have joined the armed services from the prairies. Many of these young men were just starting up on a farm. They might have been buying the farm. They might have been buying machinery on time. There might be a mortgage on the farm. They might have borrowed money to build a house. Now the farm is rented out or being run by relatives. In some cases the soldier just walked off and left the farm, to join up. The very least they have a right to expect is that they will enjoy all the possible protection which this parliament can give them while they are rendering the best possible service that any man can give to his day and generation.
It seems to me that the constitutional objection is not a serious one. We used to believe that under the section of the British North America Act dealing with property and civil rights the entire matter of protection of these rights rested with the provincial legislatures, but we have found within the last year that that was not a sound contention, because the debt adjustment legislation of Alberta, and incidentally of Saskatchewan and Alberta, was found to be ultra vires, and in the interim while other legislation was being prepared the Minister of Justice himself had an order in council passed temporarily granting a stay of proceedings in order to keep the farmers on the farm as efficient producers. So that increasingly a large part of the responsibility for giving protection to people on their farms and in their homes has already been assumed by the federal government. Now, if the federal government can take steps, as it has already done, to give protection to a farmer to keep

him on the land as an efficient producer, certainly it can use the same power to give protection to the soldier overseas and see to it that when he comes back his home or his farm will still belong to him and will not have been taken by a creditor, a mortgagee or tax collector.
There is a second aspect of this question which ought not to be lost sight of, it was mentioned by the member for Cape Breton South. This parliament has the responsibility to do more than merely give the soldier protection. It ought to do something to help reduce the soldier's obligations, particularly accumulated-taxes that may have piled up on his property. That has been done in New Zealand, which pays up to a maximum of $15 a week to help meet the commitments accruing from time to time on the property of soldiers overseas. It will be difficult enough for a man coming back from overseas to become reestablished in civilian life, without being faced with an accumulation of debt which has piled up against his home or his property. It will be well if the ministers will make some investigation into the provisions of the measure passed by the government of New Zealand by which they undertake some responsibility for reducing this burden of debt against soldiers' property, in order that when the men come back they can once more take up their role in civilian life without a burden of debt.


Louis-Philippe Picard: We have been talking about protection and assistance for men in the armed forces, and there seems to be a tendency to try to make people believe that it is only on one side of the house that this feeling is held. We should make it very plain that we all are in favour of a measure of this land being passed to protect the men in the armed forces; it is just a question of procedure, as to how it should be done.
I was surprised to hear the leader of the opposition treat the British North America Act in such a light fashion. He and his predecessors have often rested their arguments on the sanctity of the British North America Act and many of its clauses. The leader says that somebody in the cabinet should be responsible, but I do not think any member of the cabinet is old enough to be responsible for what is in the British North America Act. They cannot but follow the constitution; otherwise we would have one constitution for a time of peace and one for a time of war-which is already in the process of erection.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Louis-Philippe Picard: Yes.

War Appropriation-Army


Gordon Graydon: Is he arguing now against the constitutionality of the War Measures Act?


Louis-Philippe Picard: Not at all. But I say this
should be applied sparingly, when strictly needed; and when it comes to a matter of property rights we could arrive at exactly the same thing in another way. I favour the suggestions for protection and assistance which have been made this afternoon. Up to now five provinces have passed such legislation. I believe that, of those five measures, three at any rate have been made retroactive, so that only four of the provinces have to be approached in order that the question may be dealt with through the proper procedure according to the British North America Act.


John Horne Blackmore: Will my hon. friend
permit a question? Would he deem it to be contrary to the British North America Act if the dominion government made a grant to the provinces with which they would be able to advance $15 a week to the soldiers who enlisted within their boundaries, as New Zealand has done?


Louis-Philippe Picard: That would be along the
same line as the Old Age Pension Act. There is nothing to prevent us from passing such an act, but we cannot force the provinces to apply it or to enact similar legislation. We had unfortunately in Quebec this situation, that although it was entitled to the benefits of the Old Age Pension Act, the then supposedly Liberal premier of the government obstinately refused to apply it. As to our right to pass such a measure, as suggested by the leader of the Social Credit party, there is no doubt in my mind that we have the right to pass it.


John Horne Blackmore: May I ask one more
question? Does the hon. member believe there is any province in Canada which would not accept $15 a week for each of the soldiers enlisted from its territory, and agree to give it to him on condition that he needed it to discharge his obligations?


Louis-Philippe Picard: I am not in a position to
say what is in the minds of all the provinces. I suppose that in all the provinces people would be satisfied to give that $15 to soldiers, just as everybody would have liked to get that $25 bonus which was promised in a certain province but which nobody ever got. So that the same thing might happen with regard to a $15 bonus.
But to revert to the question with which I am dealing, somebody has stated that there is a duty and a moral obligation towards the soldiers, and I think it is so. But the duty and the moral obligation do not warrant a government setting aside the constitution when
other remedies can be found and can be easily applied. The provincial governments have only to be approached, probably, to pass such measures and enact them immediately, thus obtaining the same result as we would obtain by invading their property rights under the War Measures Act, which I think would be an unfortunate thing. We should arrive at the aim which we all-not only those on one side of the house-desire to reach, namely to protect and assist the soldiers. We all share the same views. It is entirely a question of procedure, of how to do the thing properly.


Mr. ISNOR:: I should like to associate myself with those who are placing these representations before the government with regard to greater protection for our soldiers serving overseas. I think it is a national, not a provincial responsibility. It is true that so far as the British North America act is concerned it might be treated as a provincial responsibility. I am not greatly concerned about that,	nor would I	dare to approach itfrom the	legal	point	of view.	But asapparently	it has	been	recognized	in fiveof the provinces that there is a responsibility on	either	the	provincial	or the
federal authority to take care of and give proper protection to our soldiers, that having been settled, the dominion government could very well find a way, as they did in 1919 in dealing with old age pensions, to assume a responsibility which I feel is theirs. It is unfair to place the responsibility on the provinces, taking into consideration the enlistments of the various provinces and their ability to meet the financial obligations entailed. I have in mind my own province, that of Nova Scotia, where there were enlistments of something like 44.5 per cent, compared with some other provinces which had a very much smaller percentage of enlistments. It would be unfair to Nova Scotia to require them to assume a responsibility which, as I said before, appears to me to be a national responsibility.
I compliment the hon. member for Vancouver South for bringing this matter before the committee. It is a constructive thought and one which I think the Minister of National Defence and the cabinet as a whole should go into very carefully, with a view to bringing, if at all possible, about the results desired. I am not an authority on either the British North America Act or the War Measures Act, but I sincerely hope the minister will give the matter careful consideration with a view to providing the protection to which, I think, the soldiers serving overseas are entitled.
War Appropriation-Army


Thomas Langton Church: It is well that the government should have the views of various sections of the house regarding fair and just treatment of our soldiers in this war. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Beilechasse has said, in dealing with soldiers' problems, necessity should know no law in giving them fair play. I have here a copy of the opinion of our legal department as to the powers and functions of this parliament to pass such a measure as the so-called Sparkman act, which was referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver South. Last fall I sent the joint law clerks of the House of Commons a copy of this United States act, and on January 13, 1943, they wrote me the following letter:
We have given consideration to your letter of the 11th instant, in regard to the introduction of legislation in parliament similar to the U.S. Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940. Whether such legislation is within the jurisdiction of parliament is not competent for us to decide and our opinion would carry no weight. If we were asked for an unofficial opinion, we would be inclined to say that such legislation is within the competence of parliament. The government under the authority of the War Measures Act has legislated by order in council in respect to the control of rents along similar lines to that contained in the U.S. act.
The United States act covers a very wide field indeed, and similar legislation, if passed by parliament, would no doubt encroach upon and to a great extent wipe out the peace-time jurisdiction and jurisprudence of the provinces.
We doubt that the government would consider such a revolutionary step without first consulting with the provinces. We would not undertake the responsibility of drafting a bill of this kind without first consulting the provincial governments as to its effect upon the many persons and interests and municipalities involved. Its effect upon the rules, practice and procedure in the courts would also be a serious matter. We, of course, are not in a position to take up these matters with the provincial governments.
We return herewith your copy of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940.
I believe the people will support the government if they pass a national statute to cover this matter, as they did for a national system of unemployment insurance. I am sure they would get the support of the provinces, so that long deferred justice would be given the soldiers and their dependents.


Mr. BENCE:: This matter should be
approached from the national rather than the provincial point of view, because we have to establish a set of uniform rules if we are to put into effect the suggestions made by the various speakers in favour of this particular type of legislation. At the present time, as indicated by one speaker, there are certain acts which were passed by a number of the

provinces-I believe, by four provinces-but these acts are not uniform, and, in some instances they do not give that protection to the soldier which I think they should.
There is this point that seems to be of the utmost importance. If we have a soldier coming from one part of the country who enjoys one form of protection and another soldier from another part of the country receiving a different form of protection we are bound to have discontent should that state of affairs continue. I understand that in British Columbia there is an act that protects the soldiers with respect to real property, whereas in another province they have an act that protects the soldier not only with respect to real property but with respect to chattels, there being conditional sale agreements, lien agreements and so on. They prevent the seizure of chattels for arrears of rent.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: It is taxes and mortgages in British Columbia.


Alfred Henry Bence: In British Columbia they do not grant any remission of taxes, whereas in Saskatchewan it is provided that there shall be remission of taxes up to $125 a year. A soldier coming from British Columbia and discussing the matter with a friend from Saskatchewan will be quite discontented and will feel that he has been rather badly dealt with, because in his case all they do is to forestall the day for the collection of taxes, whereas in the other province they write them off to a certain extent. There are two very important reasons why this matter should be passed by this parliament now. The protection is required now, not later, and if we wait until we get agreement on the part of the various provinces it will take a considerable time. They will have to get together to discuss the matter and draft legislation, and if the past can be taken as a precedent it will require many months to reach agreement. The legislatures will not be meeting again until next January or February, and the matter will be delayed for that length of time. I suggest that for these reasons it is of the utmost importance that we do something about approaching this matter from the national point of view.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: The only reason why I rise on this occasion is the fact that there have been three cases in my riding where two farms and one home were to be taken over but for the intervention of certain friends of the soldiers. In one instance the soldier before going overseas had almost

War Appropriation-Army
paid for his home, but owing to sickness in the family it was necessary to put on an extra mortgage, and when he went overseas he had also to give up his insurance policy to help to pay his debts. Here was a hard-working man who, on account of sickness and hard luck in the family, was unable to get ahead) and pay his debts. Fortunately friends came to the rescue and took this mortgage, and they have it at the present time and are keeping it without charging the soldier's wife any interest. The agreement is that they will hold it until the war is over and the soldier is able to pay. On two farms about which I know quite a bit practically the same thing happened. These were good farmers. They had put on mortgages, however, owing to the fact that there was sickness and debt in the family. In one case it was a veteran who had to mortgage his place and friends came across. They are holding these two farms at the present time for these soldiers. These men are all overseas and had been extremely worried about conditions at home, so much so that their wives felt that they could not really do a good job. These soldiers were worried about their families, and wrote not only to myself but to many people in our district asking what could be done. You cannot have satisfied soldiers overseas if they are worrying about conditions at home, and that is one reason why I support the hon. member for Vancouver South.
In connection with the income tax I referred to the question of insurance policies, and I mentioned one man who had a $7,000 policy. He now gets $1.30 a day. He was unable to carry that policy because, although he left a job paying $4,000 a year, he now gets SI.30 or $1.40 a day. I wish to support the hon. member in what he has put forward. In my opinion the matter is a federal one, because these men and women in the armed forces- and the women should be included'-are paid by the federal government and not by the provinces. They are employees of this government and we should look after them.


Mr. KNOWLES:: In view of the representations made in this matter, I hope that the minister will indicate his attitude toward the suggestions that have been brought forward. There is one particular kind of life insurance to which I would refer, on account of cases which have been brought to my attention. I put certain questions on the order paper in this regard, but the return has not yet been brought down, although the Secretary of State informs me that it is being proceeded with. I refer to group insurance policies of the kind
that are held jointly by employees who work for a company. I am told that in a case of this kind when a man takes leave of absence and enlists, his policy is discontinued. My information is that it is discontinued whether or not he is able financially to carry his portion of the insurance. There must be a good deal of this sort of insurance, and I hope that such insurance will be included in any investigation the government may make in an effort to carry out the representations that have been submitted to them. There are one or two other matters relating to dependents' allowances on which I wish to say a word or two, but perhaps it is just as well not to interrupt this discussion now.
Mr. RALSTON1: First, I wish to say that the matter has been very much to the fore for a good while, particularly in connection with the administration of the three service departments. I have had conferences with the other ministers of the service departments and also with.the Minister of Finance, and on January 15 I think I addressed all attorneys-general or provincial premiers with regard to existing or prospective legislation the enactment of which they might be considering.


Gordon Graydon: Was that January 15 last?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. The situation is not that the dominion government or the dominion parliament has not jurisdiction, or that there is anyone in the cabinet who would1 suggest that federal action may not be taken. What we are doing is entering a field which is distinctly provincial under the British North America Act, and it would seem that the least we could do would be to consult the provinces and find out what action they have in mind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The government did not do that in connection with the wartime prices and trade board order concerning rents.


James Layton Ralston: Creditors are distinctly within the sphere of provincial legislation. Simply to step in and say that all creditors' claims shall be barred, particularly when some provinces have had moratorium legislation on their statute books since 1939, would seem to be undesirable. Therefore we endeavoured to ascertain what degree of uniformity could be attained by the provinces, in order that the dominion might better decide what action we ourselves could or should take.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Did the order in council passed by the Minister of Justice not do just that, stop creditors from collecting debts from farmers in the western provinces?
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: That is correct, but I am saying that in this case we had provincial legislation of this very kind in this very field, and it did seem desirable to ascertain how far the provinces were prepared to go with respect to creditors in each province, before we finally decided what the dominion could do. I do not think there can be any criticism of that policy. It has not delayed anything, but it does seem to me the proper way to proceed, particularly where legislation already exists in some provinces. I think I am in a position to say that to-day every province has moratorium legislation which is available to service men.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has New Brunswick?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. I think the bill in Quebec has just passed the legislative assembly and is now before the legislative council.


Howard Charles Green: Do any of these provincial acts go as far-as the Sparkman act?


James Layton Ralston: No. There are some special features in the Sparkman act, particularly that to which my hon. friend referred, the matter of keeping insurance alive, which are not in any of the provincial acts. I think none of the acts go farther than to enact moratorium legislation. The features of difference are generally how the moratorium is effected'; that is to say, whether a man is prevented from bringing action at all or whether there shall be a stay of proceedings after the action is commenced, and the other feature in which there is difference is the sort of debts to which the moratorium applies. Some apply only to real property; I think one applies only to home property. Many apply to taxes. Some apply to simple contract debts, and some do not.


Gordon Graydon: Did I understand the minister to say that the first time the dominion government had conferred with the provinces in an official way in connection with this matter was on January 15 of this year?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot say what the dominion government did before; I am telling the committee that I took this personal action on January 15, after the matter had been discussed by the government in the light of the fact that legislation had been passed in some of the provinces and that other provinces were considering such legislation. I addressed those letters on January 15. I am not going to say that was the first time it was considered, by any means.


Gordon Graydon: Does the minister know of any previous conferences that were held?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot recall any now. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance had been dealing with the matter up to that time; after all, it was a matter of finance and affecting credit.
Just for the record, so that hon. members may realize what these differences are, I should like to place them on Hansard. With regard to method, the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and British Columbia prohibit the taking of action without permission. In Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia the action is allowed to proceed, but the 'judge is given jurisdiction to order a stay of proceedings. With regard to scope, all the provinces give protection in actions or proceedings relating to mortgages and agreements of sale. Some provinces, like Ontario, deal only with such actions. Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Alberta include all actions and proceedings with respect to any debt or obligation. This is a feature in which I am sure the committee is very much interested, whether or not any moratorium legislation shall apply simply to home property, to real property and leases, or to all debts and obligations. In some provinces no protection is given against obligations incurred after enlistment. As I caught it from my hon. friend, I do not think the Sparkman act applies to obligations incurred after enlistment.


Howard Charles Green: I think that is right.


James Layton Ralston: Ontario gives no protection in the case of mortgages entered into after March 10, 1943, which I think is the date the legislation was passed; and a stay can be granted only if default is attributable to the fact that an applicant is a member of the forces. That is so under the Sparkman act also, if I remember it correctly. The ground of relief is that the embarrassment has been due to war circumstances or conditions. By the way, that is the situation in the United Kingdom, to which reference was made by one hon. member during the course of the debate. The United Kingdom act does not apply only to members of the forces, though they come within the general class. "Any person who is in serious financial difficulties owing to war circumstances"; that is the general formula for relief. That is the Liabilities Wartime Adjustment Act, 1941, chapter 24 of the statutes of the United Kingdom.


Howard Charles Green: I suppose that would cover people who were bombed out.


James Layton Ralston: I suppose it would; of course they had the war risk insurance in addition to that. In Saskatchewan it seems

War' Appropriation-Army
to be immaterial when the obligation was incurred. Some of the statutes extend protection to dependents and personal representatives, while others do not. With one exception the provinces extend protection to members of the forces of his majesty's allies, but no province gives protection to other than a member of the forces, his estate or his dependents.
All these statutes have been the subject of examination by a -responsible committee which is headed by the deputy minister of justice and on which are representatives of the armed services, the Department of Pensions and National- Health, the Department of Finance and the superintendent of insurance. That committee has now reported. The report has not as yet been considered by the government, but it will be considered very shortly. I can assure the committee that all the matters which have been referred to this afternoon will be given active study in -connection with the report of the committee. I anticipate that action will be taken along lines which I feel ought to meet the situation.
Just in closing I wish to say that members of the committee will realize that in connection with legislation of this kind we are calling u-pon the creditor to do a good deal. It is the creditors, not the public generally, who are being asked to make the sacrifice or the adjustment; it is the individual creditor. In other words, he may be regarded as in bad luck because he happened to be the creditor of a man who afterward- became a -member of the forces, and upon whose obligations a legal bar is placed. I mention this because it seems to me that is the feature which-and I speak personally-does make it desirable that the federal authorities take some responsibility in the matter. It ought not simply to be regarded as a contribution by creditors, and nothing else. In that connection responsibility would be asserted by endeavouring to make whatever relief there is uniform across the country, and not have it dependent solely upon the judgment-if I may put it in that way-or the views of the various provincial legislatures. There may be different situations in different provinces which, while requiring a proper consideration from a provincial point of view, would not have quite the same significance when one considers the problem in the light of its relationship to those who, for the time being, are directly responsible to the federal government. I can only assure the committee that every study will be made of the matter, and active consideration will be given to it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: May I be permitted to answer an interruption of the hon. member for Wey-burn, when he suggested that the Minister of Justice had- recommended an order in council empowering the -courts in the three western provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, to stay proceedings for the foreclosure of mortgages against farms, or the cancellation of agreements for the sale of farm properties. I hope the hon. member did not wish to imply that there was any inconsistency between that course -and the course being discussed by the Minister of National Defence, in saying that the provinces were being consulted. I am sure the hon. member well knows that that order in council was recommended at the express request of the governments of the three provinces concerned.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: I was not suggesting that there was any inconsistency. I was pointing out that since the Minister of Justice had power to recommend that order in council, he certainly had power to recommend a similar order in council covering the men in the armed services.
The Minister of National Defence referred to the provincial acts. I am wondering if any steps have been taken to ascertain their validity. If I remember correctly, in the decisions handed down with respect to the debt adjustment legislation of Alberta one of the reasons given for declaring that legislation ultra vires was that it denied to creditors access to the courts, where they might secure redress. I do not think anyone has taken this legislation to the courts. But if that were done, the same ground might be used to declare this legislation ultra vires, and these men would not have the protection mentioned by the minister.


James Layton Ralston: One or two of the acts have existed for some time. Apparently there has been no attack, or at least if there has been it has been unsuccessful. The British Columbia act was passed in 1934, and the Alberta act in 1940. So far as I know, no attack has been made upon them. The Manitoba act is chapter 11 of their statutes for 1940. The Saskatchewan act is found at chapter 73 of their 1942 statutes, and the remaining acts are in the current year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The debt
adjustment acts were older than that, and still they were declared ultra vires.


James Layton Ralston: I can only say I know of no attack having been made upon these acts.
War Appropriation-Army


Howard Charles Green: The minister said nothing about the protection of insurance policies.


James Layton Ralston: The committee's report is *being considered in the light of all that has been said. There will be a study of the Sparkman act, a study of the United Kingdom act and of the New Zealand act. Recommendations are now being considered.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have had from the minister an interesting statement of the action which he instituted on January 15. Did that action arise out of anything within the department, or did it arise from the fact that on December 15 this party declared for this very kind of action. It is just another case of the government's stepping in when prompted by political opponents to bring in a great reform.
The question of jurisdiction has not bothered hon. members opposite, notwithstanding the plea of the hon. member for Bellechasse. I am surprised that the minister has gone to such pains in consulting the provinces. I recall that for the relief of civilians in the matter of rents this government, under the authority of the War Measures Act, stepped into the provincial arena, and invaded the rights of creditors, without consulting the provinces. So that I am just wondering if it is on account of the fear of invasion of the principle of autonomy, so loudly claimed by one or two of the provinces, that the minister has had these consultations.
As a matter of fact, I have yet to learn that any of the provincial legislation-at least I believe this to be so in respect of the maritime provinces-has been effective. Certainly I do not think it covers the field. The minister himself has indicated that there is grave doubt in the minds of most members of the government as to whether the field is covered, because the whole thing has been referred for study to the departmental committee headed by the deputy minister of justice, and it is quite apparent there is no uniformity. Furthermore, as the minister has said, not one of the provinces is assuming any financial responsibility for the benefit of these returned men. On the theory that there is a financial responsibility, and this being, in the wmrds of the hon. member for Parry Sound, a war measure and for war relief, I say this ought to be done by the dominion, irrespective of the provinces. Let us have uniformity of legislation.
The party to which I belong declared long ago for a comprehensive piece of legislation which would cover returned men, on the theory that the returned man is making a

great sacrifice, and that the dominion government, which has invaded every field of provincial jurisdiction, should assume responsibility, irrespective of the rights of the provinces. We beg the minister to bring down at the earliest possible date a comprehensive scheme which will not only cover the rights in respect of property, which is only one of the factors, but protect the soldier with respect to all other obligations. When I refer to property I mean real property. Such provision should protect the soldier with regard to all other obligations he may have, w.ith the assurance that when he does come back he will not have this huge load of debt about which the hon. member for Lethbridge spoke this afternoon.
The people of Canada will stand behind parliament in bringing down a measure of alleviation for those of our soldiers who find themselves in difficult positions. But I do not wish anyone to have the idea that this sort of thing ought to be automatic. There ought to be cause shown in each case, as is done under the Sparkman act. That measure is not automatic. It operates on cause shown, and if it is demonstrated that a man's position will be jeopardized, in such an event the aid provided is given.
The nation will be behind the government which tackles this matter man-fashion. The nation will be behind the minister-although I think it is now rather late-if he does something about it. I cannot imagine anything *which could be more discouraging to the soldier overseas than to receive some day a letter from his wife stating that the bailiff had called, or that the municipal tax collector was threatening to sell his property. Nothing could be more distressing, with the exception of the news that some other man had run away with his wife. That of course, would be worse-and it has happened.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Depending
upon the wife.
Mr. HANSON ' (York-Sunbury): Yes, depending upon the wife. But it would be disheartening to the soldier to learn that his wife had been unfaithful while he was overseas. I have had some very heart-x-ending cases brought to my attention, but that is by the way. I am not qualified to speak for everybody, but from the expressions of opinion we have heard this afternoon I think I can say that hon. members on all sides of the house will be behind the administration if they seize this opportunity to fulfil a national responsibility. That is what it is. Having heard his resume of what the provinces have

War Appropriation-Army
done, I say to the minister candidly that it falls far short of what is necessary. We shall have to do something better if we want to look these men in the face when they come back.


James Layton Ralston: I do not want to rob my hon. friend or the party with which he is connected of any credit which he feels should come to them, but I did not .think that this matter was being discussed in a party spirit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was in our platform.


James Layton Ralston: I assure my hon. friend that I missed it. I was looking back through the correspondence, and just on this file I found some memoranda as early as September, long before the Winnipeg convention was held. At that time the deputy minister of justice had prepared a memorandum at the request of the Minister of Finance with regard to moratorium legislation. Even though it may rob my hon. friend's party of some glory for having initiated this idea, I must say to him that the action taken was not due to the Winnipeg convention.
This matter has received the careful, thorough and, if I may so so, intelligent consideration by the committee which its importance demanded. We realized the degree of federal responsibility in connection with it; we realized the situation which had to be met. I may remind the committee that measures for assistance of members of the forces in financial difficulties and their dependents came earlier than January of this year. The dependents' board of trustees was set up nearly a year and a half ago. That board has taken care of many types of cases which are not taken care of by the legislation of any other country. In 'cases of hardship they make special grants, just as my hon. friend suggests should be done. When a case is proved, it is attended to promptly. I want the committee to realize that this special form of relief which has proved most effective does not exist in other countries.
In many cases the dependents' board of trustees may be able to deal with the situation, but that does not mean that we do not propose to have a uniform system whereby relief and remedy may be provided for those cases which have been the subject of this debate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will it be by legislation or by order in council?


James Layton Ralston: I do not know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think it ought to be by legislation.


James Layton Ralston: It will depend upon how we get along. I have heard everyone talking about the War Measures Act, and I have been rather intrigued by what has been said. Generally the War Measures Act is anathema to everyone and we are not supposed to use it, but now everybody is suggesting that we make use of it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a
question of jurisdiction.


James Layton Ralston: The jurisdiction would be under the peace, order and good government provisions of the British North America Act. The War Measures Act gives the government authority to legislate in war time. Which method will be adopted will be considered and announced as soon as possible.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: As other speakers have pointed out, I feel that this should be considered a national obligation. I think the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence) covered it very well when he gave the 'details of the legislation that exists in the different provinces. He said that in Saskatchewan provision is made for certain tax deductions. More than that, there is general protection for the soldier for two years after the end of the war or for two years after his discharge. I know something of the dissatisfaction which exists among members of the forces overseas. A chap may come home and hear that one of his pals has received certain protection. He does not know whether he received it under a provincial or a dominion statute. He goes to his municipal officers and asks for similar protection, for the cancellation of taxes in some cases, but it cannot be given.
While we feel sure that the provincial legislatures would be willing to cooperate in doing something to protect these people, the fact is that it is distinctly a national matter. The minister and the government should act to provide legislation to protect these people. There is a great deal in what the hon. member for Lethbridge said. When war was declared many of those who joined the services had just gone through a long period of depression. When they enlisted many of them were carrying liabilities of considerable magnitude. If the interest on these liabilities is to pile up, these men will find on their discharge that they are in a hopeless position. I trust the federal government will take th^ proper means to protect these people and give them the same opportunity after discharge as has been available to those' who continued in civilian life and have had opportunities to pay off their liabilities.
War Appropriation-Army

Last night when we were discussing the Dieppe raid the minister said that he would give me the number of nazi prisoners who had been taken.


James Layton Ralston: I have not that information yet.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Since this subject has now been concluded, there are some questions I should like to ask the minister with a view to ascertaining our man-power situation in so far as the army is concerned. Last evening, as reported at page 3031 of Hansard, the minister set forth the number of "R" recruits accepted and the number of volunteers enlisted in the several military districts. Those facts by themselves do not tell the story complete in detail that the house and the country wish to know.
In the January and February, 1943, issues of "Canada at War" there was a full record of the intake in the armed forces. Early in March I raised a question with regard to this information and analysed it at some length. It may be just a coincidence, but the subsequent issues did not carry any of this information. Therefore it becomes necessary to ask certain questions of the minister in order to bring the record up to date. The first is this: How many men have enlisted in the' army up to the latest available date, which I would take to be April 30?


James Layton Ralston: From the beginning of the war?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. According to the February issue the number up to the end of December was 433,876. Then I should like the numbers of those who have been discharged. We have no information on that beyond the 15th day of February. Next I should like the record showing the enlistments month by month from the 1st of January of this year down to date.
I should also like some information in regard to the operation of the call-up. Page 23 of "Canada at War" indicates that the army asks the department, Labour, I suppose it is to-day, to call up a certain number of men. The army sets 'out its requirements of man-power for the current month. We find that as of December last only 55 [DOT] 7 per cent of those called up from May 15 to December 26 actually found their way into the army.


James Layton Ralston: Are the numbers given there?


John George Diefenbaker: The numbers requisitioned, during that period, it states, were

94,000 men, and the number accepted for training was only 52,478. In other words, we were getting a little over fifty per cent of the number of men requisitioned. I should like the minister to explain, in view of the fact that we were getting only about fifty-five per cent of the number of men requisitioned, how it can be said that we were getting the necessary man-power as required. I would point out that in the period from May 20, 1941, to April 9, 1942, -we were getting that manpower as requisitioned for, because the numbers requisitioned under the National Resources Mobilization Act were 56,390 ; 97'9 per cent of the men called up were secured. The figures indicate that the men were not now being secured according to the needs of the military authorities during the period from May 15 to December, 1942, because only 55-7 per cent of those requisitioned were being secured. Why is it that there is no approach at equality of call-up of man-power under the National Resources Mobilization Act? That is a question I have asked on several occasions, but I have not as yet received information thereon.


James Layton Ralston: What does my hon. friend
mean?


John George Diefenbaker: I point out this, that according to the figures shown at page 22 of "Canada at War", in the February issue, 1943, there is a complete inequality in the calling up of man-power as between the different military districts. Taking the military districts, when one deducts the numbers who have enlisted from the numbers of the male population aged from nineteen to forty-five years of age who were available at the beginning 'of the war, it will be seen that in military district No. 1, London, up to December 31, 1942, although it had a fine record and a very large percentage of voluntary enlistments, namely 32-3 per cent, 8-52 per cent of the still available man-ipower left over was called up.
Halifax, military district No. 6, had a remarkable record of voluntary enlistments, 39-8 per cent, and yet 10-54 per cent of the still available -man-power was called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act.
Take military district No. 7, Saint John. It had a fine record of voluntary enlistments of 37-2 per cent, and yet we find that 9-89 per cent of the still available man-power was called up under the act.
Take the other districts. Military district No. 4, Montreal, had a record of voluntary enlistments of 16-8 per cent, but only 6-71 per cent were called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act.

War Appropriation-Army
Military district No. 5, Quebec, had an enlistment record of 9-9 per cent, and only 4-59 per cent were called up.
In military district No. 2, Toronto, the callup under N.R.M.A. was 5-82 per cent of the man-power between nineteen and forty-five after deduction of voluntary enlistments; in military district No. 10, Winnipeg, the call-up under N.R.M.A. was 7-22 per cent; in military district' No. 11, Victoria, the call-up was 6-98 per cent; in military district No. 12, Regina, the call-up was 7-69 per cent. I point this out in reference to Saskatchewan, that our record of voluntary enlistments from that province is better than the statistics show, namely 28-6 per cent, for the percentage of enlistments is based on the 1940 population, since when, according to the recent census, about one-fifth of our population has left the province.
I want the minister to explain to the committee and the country why it is there is such an inequality in the percentage of call-ups under the National Resources Mobilization Act.


James Layton Ralston: I wonder if my hon. friend and I are thinking of the same thing. I do not call up; the call is not made by me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You make the requisition.


James Layton Ralston: I do not requisition from particular districts. I ask for so many men to report at different depots. They can come from British Columbia, Halifax, anywhere at all; I do not designate the district from which they shall come.


John George Diefenbaker: Every one of the
ministers says that some other minister is responsible.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think I am one who attempts to shelve responsibility.


John George Diefenbaker: No; the minister
does not.


James Layton Ralston: I am asking if my hon. friend suggests that I dictate where the men shall come from?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not care who is dictating. I want an explanation from the responsible minister why this condition prevails.


James Layton Ralston: I am only saying my hon. friend cannot get it from me.


John George Diefenbaker: All right.


James Layton Ralston: What we do is to make
a requisition or statement showing that we want so many men at such and such a depot.
The men may come to these depots from any place in the dominion. National War Services, and more lately the Department of Labour, through its registrars and boards, decide what men shall be requisitioned.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister requisitions the men. The responsibility for the failure to apply equality of call must then rest upon the Minister of National War Services.


James Layton Ralston: Wait till you find whether there is a failure or not. All I say is that the decision as to where the men are to come from does not come from national defence.


John George Diefenbaker: I am taking the
record as it appears. I do not know whether it comes under the jurisdiction of the minister, but I should like to know the number of defaulters who have failed to answer the call under N.R.M.A. I think we should have the record of them up to date.


James Layton Ralston: I cannot give my hon. friend that.


John George Diefenbaker: Of the three divisions in Canada, would the minister be able to say whether they are up to strength; how many are volunteers available for service anywhere, and how many of them are men called1 up under the National Resources Mobilization Act?	.


James Layton Ralston: I cannot give my hon. friend the strengths of the different divisions. The hon. member for York-Sunbury asked me last nigjjt the number of home defence men, which I intend to give. I can state that, but I am not in a position to give the number in each unit or each formation.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister give the number of volunteers for service anywhere and those subject only to service in Canada composing the three divisions?


James Layton Ralston: I will put this number on the record now. The hon. member for York-Sunbury asked last night:
How many home defence men are there serving in the Canadian army; that is, men who are not available for service anywhere outside Canada?
As at May 15, 1943, the number of members (H.D.) and "R" recruits serving in the Canadian army was reported at 68,228. These men are of course available for service outside Canada if required under order in council from time to time; and of the number stated, some are actually serving outside Canada, namely, in Newfoundland and on other out* posts and islands.
War Appropriation-Army


Mr. DIEFENBA  K ER@: I ask these questions at one time so that I shall not be rising too often. What has been the cost of recruiting for the army during the past year? I think that is a figure we should have.
Finally, I should like to make a suggestion with regard to man-power, and to ascertain the attitude of the minister with regard thereto. At the end of January, 1943, there were in the United States 91,800 Canadians, males between eighteen and thirty-eight years of age who are not United States citizens and had not given any indication that they would apply for United States citizenship. There are some five thousand Canadian males serving in the American forces. Under the present arrangements, as I understand' them, between the governments, when a Canadian is called for compulsory service in the United States, an opportunity is given to him to decide whether he will serve in the United States army or in the Canadian army. Having regard to the fact that there are almost one hundred thousand Canadians over there, in the said age limits, and that the total number -who have joined the Canadian army up to the middle of January last was only 801, my question is this, what is being done to secure the availability for service in the Canadian army of those Canadians in the United States who are subject to the National Resources Mobilization Act?


James Layton Ralston: The 90.000 odd whom my hon. friend has mentioned are of all ages, I suppose?


John George Diefenbaker: They are males from eighteen to thirty-eight. What has been done to secure these men for the Canadian army? The records I have are that all the enlistments of Canadians in the United States for the Canadian army up to the end of January numbered only 801. Canada established a number of recruiting agencies in the United States and sent Canadian army officers and non-commissioned officers to undertake recruiting, and in the period from the entry of the United States into the war, secured only so few men in that country. I suggest there is a potentially productive field for enlistment there; there must be a large number of men available. I wish to know what is being done to assure their availability, and also what has been and is being done to secure the transfer of Canadians serving in the United States army into the Canadian army for active service.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On this question of the quotas, I quite understand

the procedure. The minister requisitions to the appropriate department-up to a certain period of time the national war service department, now the Department of Labour-for a given number of men. The allotment of these men is the task of, in the first place, the national war service department, and now the labour department.


James Layton Ralston: I do not wish to mislead my hon. friend. I requisitioned for so many men to report at different depots. I do not care where they are drawn from.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know; the minister assumes no responsibility for that, and I am not finding any fault with that. I am trying to state what I understand the modus operandi to be. That requisition went to the national war service department in the first instance and for a good many months after the National Resources Mobilization Act was in effect. I made inquiry here as to the basis of the allocation of the quotas from each military district, and to my surprise I found that the allocation was based, not at all on the available man-power, but on the record of voluntary enlistments in those districts. That is to say, if New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had a record of thirty-five and thirty-seven per cent, and an adjoining district had a record of ten or thirteen per cent, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick was called upon to contribute two and a half times as many men under the call than the district alongside, whose voluntary enlistments were considerably less.


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


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not wrong. I was shocked to find that such was the situation. It is not fair. I think I can turn up the report of the discussion in this house. It was not fair then; it is not fair to-day, and there is no equality of sacrifice or service under the method adopted for the man-power policy of this country in respect of the armed forces.


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend wall find, if he looks at the record of the enrolments-and that is what we call them, instead of "enlistments"-that there is no such discrepancy as he has suggested.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think there is.

Criminal Code-Betting


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, this is the major item in connection with the entire army appropriation. I am quite sure there is still some important discussion with respect to army matters under this item, and I will ask the Chairman to call it six o'clock.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock-the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 27, 1943