[Stage Direction]
Second report of special committee on reconstruction and reestablishment.-Mr. T urgeon.

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

Mr. DORION:: 1.	Have the paper mills at Riverbend, Jonquiere, and Kenogami, been shut down?
2.	If so, (a) by whose orders; (b) on what date; (c) for what reasons; (d) for how long?
3.	To whom do these mills belong?
4.	By whom have they been operated?
5.	By whom is the electric power furnished for each of these mills?
6.	Do these mills receive any compensation while shut down? If so, how much, from whom, and for what reason?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	The three mills have been partially shut down on a number of occasions since September 1, 1942, and completely shut down on one occasion.
2.	The partial shut downs were caused by curtailment of power, repairs and holidays.
The Riverbend mill was also shut down at various intervals during the month of January, 1943, and up to February 3, owing to the storm conditions causing car shortages in that area.
On April 7, 1943, the newsprint administrator was notified by Price Brothers & Co. Ltd., that the Riverbend mill had gone out of operation at 10 p.m. on April 6, 1943, and the Kenogami mill at 8 a.m. April 7, 1943, due to a walk-out on the part of the workmen. The Jonquiere mill was similarly shut down. These shut downs lasted until April 26, 1943.
3.	The Riverbend, Jonquiere and Kenogami mills belong to the shareholders of Price Brothers & Co. Ltd.
4.	The Riverbend and Kenogami mills have-been registered with the newsprint administrator as being operated by Price Brothers & Co. Ltd. The Jonquiere mill is operated by the same company.
5.	According to information received from Price Brothers the electric power for these mills is supplied by the Saguenay Power Company and from plants owned by Price Brothers & Co. Ltd.
6.	No decision has yet been reached as to whether the Kenogami and Riverbend mills will be entitled to receive any compensation while shut down and no definite settlement has yet been made with the mills in connection therewith. The Jonquiere mill does not receive any compensation while shut down.


*BRITISH COLUMBIA CANNED SALMON
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Will British Columbia canned salmon be released to the trade this year for home consumption ?
2.	If so, how many cases will be released?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: There will be
200,000	cases of salmon of 48 pounds each released for domestic consumption this year.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-HALIFAX RENTAL ADMINISTRATION
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Is Mr. Joseph F. McManus, Halifax, Nova Scotia, employed by the wartime prices and trade board as rental administrator?
2.	If so, what is he paid for, (a) salary; (b) expenses?
3.	What offices does he occupy, what is paid for rental, and to whom is such rental payable?
4.	Are any ex-service men employed at this work at Halifax? If so, what are their names?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	No. Mr. Joseph F. McManus, who is the chief assessor for the city of Halifax, has been loaned to the rentals administration by the municipal council for part time to act as a rentals committee of one man for the city and district of Halifax. The functions and responsibilities of this committee are to fix, under the authority of the rentals administration, the rates charged to occupants of boarding houses and rooming houses in that city.
2.	(a) Mr. McManus has received an allowance of $100 a month up to May 31, which has been reduced to $50 a month because the bulk of the work has been completed.
(b)	None.
3.	He uses part of the regional office of the wartime prices and trade board and no additional rental is involved.
4.	See answer to question 1.


CANADIAN ARMY-OVERSEAS REINFORCEMENTS
Mr. ROY:: Considering that the references mentioned by the government, on June 7, in answer to questions regarding the number of divisions available as reinforcements overseas, do not disclose the facts sought in the said question, why is not this information given to the house?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: In answer to this question, I would say that it is considered that the information sought was fully covered in the references listed in the answer tabled.


OIL DEVELOPMENT IN FORT NORMAN AREA
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Is there any portion of country in Canada's Northwest which is under the control of the United States army, and if so, what portion of territory, and what are the boundaries?
2.	Is there any war-time oil development taking place in the Fort Norman area, and if

Questions as Orders jor Returns
so, how many oil wells are being drilled, and is such development being done under Canadian or American military authorities?
3.	Is a pipeline being constructed in any part of this territory, and if so, is this being done under control of Canadian or American military officials?
4.	If a pipeline is being built, what is the extent of this pipeline?
5.	If war-time oil development is taking place in this territory, is equipment and men being supplied by Canadian or American authorities?
6.	Have oil rights been sold or leased in this [DOT] territory; if so, to whom?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	There is no portion of Canadian territory under control of the United States army.
2.	The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative, but it is not in the public interest that the number of wells should be disclosed. The project is being carried out by the United States army with Canadian approval and cooperation.
3.	The construction of a pipeline is part of the project mentioned in the answer to No. 2.
4.	It would not be in the public interest to answer this question.
5.	Both.
6.	For many years the Northwest Company, a subsidiary of Imperial Oil Limited, held five leases and one permit obtained under departmental regulations authorized from time to time by order in council. The wells on these have been producing oil supplies for use in the Northwest Territories. These leases and permit now stand in the name of Imperial Oil Limited and that company has obtained thirty-six permits under regulations authorized by order in council P.C. 742, dated January 28, 1943.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	When was the coal mining industry advisory committee to national selective service formed?
2.	Who comprised said committee, and what interests in the industry did .each member represent ?
3.	Upon what dates did said committee meet with the minister or deputy minister of labour, or officials of national selective service?
4.	Was a draft of order in council P.C. 4092 submitted to said advisory committee before it was approved by council?
5.	If so, was said draft unanimously approved by said advisory committee?
6.	Subsequent to date of said order in council, did any member or members of said advisory committee tender their resignation from said committee?
72537-249J
7.	If so, who so resigned, and what were the reasons given for such action?


Mr. MARTIN:: Return tabled.


COAL PRODUCTION, EXPORTS AND SUBVENTIONS
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What is the total tonnage of coal produced by each province in Canada for each of the years 1939 to 1943?
2.	What is the total tonnage of coal exported, and to what countries, for each of the years 1939 to 1943?
3.	What are the total amounts paid to each of the provinces by way of subventions for the movement of coal for the years 1939 to 1943?
4.	What amounts, and to whom or what firms, were paid by way of subventions for movement of coal for the year 1942?
MOBILIZATION ACT-"r" RECRUITS


Mr. GREEN:: 1.	Of the number of "R" recruits shown at page 3089 of unrevised Hansard for the present session as having been accepted in the various military districts, how many, by districts, were subsequently discharged or released from service?
2.	What were the various grounds upon which they were discharged or released, and the numbers upon each ground, by military districts?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: For a copy of all agreements between the government of Canada and each of the following companies:	MacDonald's Aircraft Company,
Midwest Aircraft Company, and Standard Machine Works, each being located in the province of Manitoba.



WAR PLANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I
wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) or, in his absence, to his parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier). Has the minister heard that, in the parish of St. Louis de Terrebonne, the ceiling of a church has been demolished by explosions in a, war plant of the district and that damages have also occurred in the parish of St. Francois de Sales? What does the government intend to do to avoid such damages in the future?


Mr. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Munitions and Supply) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not notified me of his intention to ask this question. However, I may say to him...
War Appropriation-Labour


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member will explain whether this is a question that should be asked on the orders of the day or whether it should be placed- on the order paper.


Lionel Chevrier: I think there is no doubt that it should not be asked on the orders of the day. It is a question which concerns damage alleged to have been done in the . parish of Terrebonne in connection with tests being made by the inspection board of the United Kingdom and Canada.



PRESS REPORT AS TO STATEMENT OF FORMER MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Since no one else has seen fit to do so I should like to direct a question to the attorney general relating to a dispatch appearing on page 4 of the Toronto Globe and Mail of this morning. A former member of this house, an old parliamentarian and a lady with a keen sense of humour, is alleged to have stated in Kenora last night that "she had never met a progressive judge" and that "judges are all political heelers or they would not be judges." I am aware of the parliamentary rules, but I want to say that many of these overworked judges have lost their sons in this war, and I think some statement ought to be made in this connection by the Minister of Justice.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): My attention was directed to this short dispatch just a few moments ago. Certainly it is regrettable that declarations of this kind should be made by or attributed to persons so well known as Miss Macphail, who for a number of years was a member of this house. The statement is as unfortunate as it is unfounded. Declarations of this kind can have no other effect than to diminish the respect of the people for the administration of justice in this country, and as such they are most deplorable. I shall direct the attention of the censors to this dispatch, and see if arrangements cannot be made that publicity will not in future be available for matters of this kind.


Thomas Langton Church: The censors should have stopped it.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. McCANN (Renfrew South):: I
understand that some months ago a commitfMr. Chevrier.]
tee was set up to inquire into medical services in Canada, and more particularly medical services in the armed forces. Has the report of that committee been received and, if it has been received, will it be tabled?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: I do not think it has been received yet; it has not been brought to my attention.
I understood that it was in course of preparation and may be expected very shortly.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 22, 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. Usley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Chairman, the man-power situation in Canada has been much in the public mind in recent months and has been the subject of considerable debate in this chamber. It has been charged from across the floor that there is a man-power "muddle" in Canada, yet one hears few constructive suggestions which would help the government to improve matters. In my opinion, and I believe the opinion of a great majority of this house, we have the best possible manpower policy that can be devised. I say that having in mind all we are doing to help win this war, our limited population, the vast territory over which this population is spread, there will be widespread agreement with this statement. .


Mr. GRAYDON:: Not very widespread.


Humphrey Mitchell: Not as far as my hon. friend is concerned, of course. No apology need be made for the selective service programme of Canada. There are and will continue to be labour shortages, emergency conditions will arise which will necessitate emergency measures, but we are engaged in a total war and things cannot be as normal as ' in peace time. In fact if we did not have labour shortages we could not claim to be waging total war. Of course we have a manpower problem in Canada. We will have it for the duration of the war. As our main concern is the provision of adequate fighting forces there must of necessity be improvisation and adjustment of the available forces for work on the home front. Hundreds of thousands of our finest men have joined the

War Appropriation-Labour
navy, army and air force. Thousands of women also are in uniform. We have the greatest combined fighting forces we have ever had in our history.
The strength of our armed forces alone is enough to create a man-power problem on the home front. But in addition we have a huge number of men and women working in our war plants. This naturally has led to shortages in agriculture, mining, fishing and timber operations and in other industries closely associated with our war effort. You cannot take five from ten and still have ten. That is elementary.
Hon. members should keep uppermost in mind the magnitude of our navy, army and air force and the fact that our industrial output and food production is now the greatest in our history. It must be admitted that this is a wonderful achievement by the Canadian people.	.
The leader of the opposition has stated that-and I quote-"the problem of manpower in Canada is the major issue facing the Canadian people." All warring countries have man-power problems and we in Canada are striving to meet our problem in the most effective way.
In a progress report on man-power issued by the office of war information of the United States, No. 1844, there are several paragraphs of interest to us in discussing our situation.
I quote:
Evidence that shortages have been met so far lies in the fact that production has been maintained and increased.
And further:
Mere statement of the main phases of manpower prove it is a national problem of the utmost importance. More advanced over-all programming might have headed off many of the dislocations and difficulties that harass us now-but the solution of man-power problems, it must be emphasized, is almost entirely local, in the hands of every citizen, every community.
I would like the house to note this official view in Washington:
National Service Act or not, man-power problems will be with us throughout the war and after. We will meet them, as we have met those so far, community by community, plant by plant, through better use of workers, training the untrained, by eliminating the causes of wasteful turnover and absenteeism and by working harder for longer hours, up to the maximum of efficient production. Our needs for munitions, essential civilian goods and food will be met, because they must be met, but only by hard and unremitting work.
That is the end of the quotation, Mr. Chairman. I submit in all sincerity that we have been striving since early in the war to grapple with our problems in much the same way as our good friends to the south of us. .
To-day in Canada 5,100,000 men and women out of a total population of 8,720,000 aged 14 and over are in the armed services or at work. That is almost 60 per cent of those aged 14 or over. It is a good record. It is something to be proud of.
I shall lay on the table and request permission to publish in Hansard various statistical tables. One of the most important of them breaks down Canada's total population aged 14 and over. This table shows the distribution of that population by sex, according to those in the armed forces, those at work and those not at work. It gives comparative figures for August, 1939, June, 1941, and January, 1943, the distribution for the last two dates being shown as between civilian employment and war employment. This table will show the house that since the start of the war there has been an increase of about 1,000,000 in the number of persons in our forces and at work; that we have to-day a total of 1,700,000 in the armed services and our war plants and associated industries; that in addition we have
2,100.000	persons in agriculture and essential civilian employment. These groups include 70 per cent of all males in Canada 14 years and over.


John George Diefenbaker: Are those figures the result of a survey?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend may ask questions when I am through. I shall be quite prepared to answer.
The table further indicates that during the year and a half ended January 30, 1943, there was an increase of 915.000 in the number of persons in the armed forces or war industry. Meanwhile there was a decline of 92,000 in the number of those engaged in civilian employment which largely represents a drain of manpower from work unnecessary in wartime.
Our man-power policy is quite clear. It is to provide the greatest possible number for our armed forces, while at the same time supplying the necessary men and women for our war industries, farms, base metal mines, lumber camps, railways-inland and sea-going shipping.
To meet this problem we have diverted men and women from low to high priority industries, according to their skills and physical strength, without depriving any young men or women in this country from the privilege and honour of serving "voluntarily" in the armed forces of this nation, with the single exception of coal mining.
Because of the great increase in our army of workers we must maintain more of certain civilian services than would otherwise be
War Appropriation-Labour

needed, such as manufacturing, trade, distribution, transportation, communications and construction of homes. But through controls administered by the wartime industries control board, wartime prices and trade board and selective service there has been a sharp drop in the employment of persons engaged in the production and sale of things we can do without until the war is over.
The commendable desire of our young men and women to volunteer for service in the navy, army and air force naturally led to shortages of labour for the jobs at home. These shortages have been added to by the thousands of men called up for service in Canada under the National Resources Mobilization Act. In addition to the drain of man-power into the armed services, the movement of men and women into war plants creates difficult problems with which we are dealing every day.
A year ago-in March, 1942-we placed restrictions on the exodus of man-power from the farms, we also restricted employment of able-bodied men and women in certain occupations by requiring government permits. These controls were tightened in June, 1942, when order in council P.C. 5038 was passed by which among other things and subject to certain conditions, no employer can take any person into employment without notifying a local national selective service office. And in August, 1942, to establish more extensive controls over employment than those in force at the time, the national selective service regulations were enacted by order in council P.C. 7595.
We rapidly expanded our employment office organizations, because that is the very basis of our policy. It consists now of 216 offices and a staff of 4,400 against 75 offices and a staff of 425 in 1940. This will give hon. members some indication of the expansion of the placement machinery under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour. On February 1, 1943, in order to amend and consolidate the various orders and regulations affecting manpower we adopted the national selective service civilian regulations as covered by P.C. 246.
On April 2, 1943, we secured authority by order in council 2665 for the compulsory transfer of persons to more essential jobs. The order covers single men 19 to 40 years of age and married men 19 to 25 years of age, the classes designated under the call-up regulations.
Under the authority given to the minister two orders have been made covering transfers from specified industries and occupations. The purpose is to assure that men found not
[Mr. Mitchell.1
fit for military service should do important work at home, not be left in non-essential occupations. These orders are the logical sequence to the system of call-ups for army service in Canada. Men now are to be called for vital civilian jobs to fill in the gaps in our production programme.
As the Prime Minister told the house on May 17, the production of coal officially has been declared a national emergency. A shortage of labour in coal mining has been accentuated by the greatly increased demand for coal in war industries. Last October we arranged to have coal miners receive special consideration for postponement of military service and instructed national selective service officers not to issue any permits for coal miners to seek any other employment. Then we arranged to have coal miners granted leave from the armed services in Canada if they were willing to return to the mines. Subsequently we established the emergency coal production board after full consulation with the national selective service advisory board and the man-power advisory committee of the coal industry. ^
We have issued an order requiring all excoal miners to return to coal mining regardless of their present occupations and are guaranteeing them full employment. We have also, in this same connection, authorized the employment of women in surface operations at the mines.
While ah means of locating ex-coal miners are being used, we should not overlook how much the country owes to the men who have been mining our coal. By their exertions they have done their best not only to maintain coal production of the individual, but to increase it with marked success. In continuing at their hazardous occupation these men are making their greatest contribution to victory. Most assuredly they deserve the nation's thanks. I would like here to appeal to union officers in the coal mining industry to give the government and the people of Canada full support in this grave emergency. We invite cooperation and we need it.
Within the past week, some further measures have been taken for the direction of manpower to essential employment, in the light of present conditions. These are:
Increased control has been taken over the employment of youth .16, 17 and 18 years of age, by making persons of these ages subject to compulsory transfer orders in the same manner as men in the age groups liable for military service.
To provide man-power for fuelwood-cutting operations in view of the threatened fuel-

War Appropriation-Labour
wood shortage for the coming winter, selective service officers have been authorized to give compulsory direction for the employment of men between the ages of 16 and 65 in this work. A similar provision has been made for direction to employment in fishing and fishprocessing, in order to meet the pressing needs of the fishing industry of the maritime provinces and to bolster production of this necessary food.
Following upon representations from the provincial departments of education, provision has been made by amendment to selective service (civilian) regulations to retain in the teaching profession the services of teachers presently employed in schools, colleges, and universities which are not operated for gain. The new regulation forbids the employment of a bona fide teacher in any other occupation without the issuance of a special permit from a selective service officer, which permit will be issued only in accordance with conditions and directions approved by the Minister of Labour.
We have a priority plan for certain munitions industries-assuring that military callups would not adversely affect vital production. Care has been taken to see that then has not been abuse of this arrangement. Ii will be appreciated by the house that the contribution being made to the war effort of Canada by our munitions plants is of a character that will stand tremendously to the credit of our country years after the war is over. We had to keep this in mind while at the same time giving prime consideration to seeing that men were made available for the armed forces. That was our first task and I think it is the demand which was made in this house of members of the official opposition. It is axiomatic, however, that without the necessary munitions of war it would not help to have a large force of fighting men-unless we were to depend on others to supply them with equipment.
We also established a priority list which gave preference to labour needs in base metals and other very essential occupations. The priority arrangement has been the heart of our selective service system.
The question of farm labour has already been discussed in this house. Much ground was covered on June 3 when the house adjourned the regular order of business to deal with the problem. At the time I expressed disappointment that this phase of the man-power problem should be picked out for separate discussion from all others. If we are to use our man-power resources with the
greatest possible efficiency we must look at the problem as a whole and not by individual industries or occupations.
We do not need to be ashamed, Mr. Chairman, of the way we have handled the agricultural phase of our man-power problem. Rather can we feel satisfied with what has been done. Many of the criticisms which have been made during discussions of farm labour have been based on what some hon. member has heard, or on some letter which he has received, or on individual circumstances which have come to his attention.
We must view the agricultural labour problem as a national one, and as part of the total war effort of this country. Also we must appreciate that we can point to a record of achievement all over Canada in farm production which has even exceeded the fondest hopes of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture.
Some hon. members criticize the government because men and women have been allowed to leave the farms for service in the armed forces or to work in war industry. If we had not permitted this exodus from agriculture, the man-power resources of this nation would not have been used anywhere nearly as effectively as they have been used.
Coincident with the drain of man-power from agriculture during each year of the war, production on our farms has continued and is still continuing to soar. This actually represents a great increase in the efficient use of our man-power, when we find fewer people doing more work.
It is true, Mr. Chairman, that older people on the farms have been working harder than ever before. It is true that some farmers have been labouring under the additional difficulty of being unable to secure what new mechanical equipment they may need. It is also a fact that their task has been made harder by many war-time restrictions which they find irksome and annoying. But Mr. Chairman, is not this'evidence of our waging total war? Can any of us escape this, should we want to, if we mean what we say when we ask for an all-out effort? Let us be frank and honest about this question. We should be working harder, we should be tired, we should be working under added difficulties if we truly are engaging in total war. Farmers knowing this have attained a very high standard, one at which we might all well aim.
While my colleague the Minister of Agriculture is more familiar with the detail than I, we find that in this fourth year of war, more dairy products are being raised than
War Appropriation-Labour

ever before, larger numbers of live stock are on farms than ever before, greater flocks of poultry are being kept than ever before.
According to the bureau of statistics "Intentions to Plant Survey", farmers planned this spring to sow more acres to field crops than ever before. It is true that in many areas farmers' plans have been seriously disrupted by the weather, and, regrettable as it is, hon. members cannot hold me responsible for much of the land being under water for the whole month of May.


Gordon Graydon: We will let you off on that.


Humphrey Mitchell: Thank you, but that is about the only thing you will let me off on.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: You always take the credit when there is a good crop.


Humphrey Mitchell: What our farmers have done is to produce more and more with fewer people. This record of achievement by our farmers, their wives, their children, and their hired men and women will be read some day as one of the glorious chapters in our history. I should like as Minister of Labour to pay special tribute to the hired men and women on the farms. They are too often forgotten in plans for social betterment. Their lot is not an easy one or an exciting one. They are doing a grand war job to-day for this nation.
May I say this to my hon. friends, that when Mr. Churchill gave his rallying call to the British people when they had almost nothing left to fight with but their bare fists, he did not set up a wailing wall but gave them leadership.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is what we have never had here.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh yes, and I think it is proven conclusively by the figures I have given on the farm situation. You cannot expect our farmers, if they are approached in a negative way, to rise to the occasion when a special effort is required, any more than you can expect it of people engaged in any other industry.
Men and women have left the farms by the hundreds of thousands for the armed services and war industries. Those left at home have done and are doing a bigger job than ever.
I have not said these things, Mr. Chairman, to suggest that all is well and that there is no problem on the farm labour front. We know that this problem is great and full of difficulty. But I do implore members of this house to examine and discuss this problem from a
[Mr. Mitchell.!
national viewpoint, and to consider it as part and parcel of the total war effort of this nation.
Neither would I wish it to be inferred from what I have said that we could go on for ever taking more people out of agriculture and still go on producing more and more. We obviously could not. It is more than a year ago since the government took steps to protect the agricultural labour supply by placing restrictions in the way of men and women leaving agriculture for other civilian employment. It was evident at that time that. such restrictions were necessary if our war effort was to be kept in proper balance. The reasons were made abundantly clear by the Prime Minister in his address to this house in March, 1942, on national selective service policy. As we have progressed and have gained experience, amendments have been made to the original order, so that the effectiveness of the agricultural freezing regulations would be increased.
If any hon. member who is a farmer is sceptical about our meaning business in the administration of this feature of our regulations, he might go into an employment office and try to get a permit to leave agriculture. That is the best test, I think, of the effectiveness of the policy. Undoubtedly there has been some evasion of this regulation. Even to-day there will be individual cases of men getting away from the farms when they should have been refused permits. But in the main, this policy has proven effective. It is safe to say that there are thousands of men and women now in agriculture who would not be there now had this regulation not been administered in a resolute way.
In stabilizing labour in agriculture the government had to face the fact that during some periods of the year farm man-power can be more productively employed elsewhere. Our civilian man-power regulations enable a person, under certain conditions, to accept employment in another essential industry when he can be spared from agriculture.
But selective service went further than merely enabling such persons to take other work. It undertook an intensive appeal last fall to all farm workers not needed in agriculture during the winter months to work in other essential industries. In particular they were urged to go to logging, saw mills, coal mines, and base metal mines, where men were urgently needed.

War Appropriation-Labour
This appeal was the first large scale attempt by national selective service to direct manpower from one industry to another. Its success was due, to a large extent, to the excellent cooperation we received from the interested provincial government departments. As a result of it, farm man-power which might otherwise have been relatively idle helped to meet the growing shortage of labour in these other strategic wartime activities.
The following table shows the distribution of temporary permits issued to farmers by regions, as at May 27, 1943, and the number of permits which were actually cancelled in order to ensure return to agriculture:
Province	Male	Female	Total	Permits cancelledMaritimes.. .	16,379	368	16,747	2.805Quebec	
Ontario	, 38.428	1,149	39,577	1,394. 27.187	1,907	29,094	8,397Prairies	. 15,043	482	15,525	8,822British Columbia.	. 3,782	18	3,800	2,542Total. ...	. 100,819	3,924	104,743	23,960
It will be seen that the number of permits cancelled falls far short of those issued. The great majority of these did not require specific cancellation because the farmers returned to agriculture on their own account before or at the time when the permits expired.
The main reason for this as given by our offices was lateness of the season in many areas when return of men to the farms at the expiry date of the permits would have resulted in wasted time. There were a few permits not cancelled for reasons of health, on compassionate grounds, or because of the extreme importance of the work being done at the time of the expiry date.
Altogether it has been estimated that 175,000 from farms worked in other industries during last winter. The table shows that only 104.819 temporary permits were issued. The difference is explained by the fact that many working in other industries outside of urban centres were employed for less than sixty days. Under these circumstances permits are not required under our civilian regulations. I am sure hon. members will agree that this seasonal movement of man-power between industries is sound, and in keeping with climatic and economic conditions in this country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It always has been.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes; I have just said so. But it has to be given direction. My hon. friend will agree with me in that. There has admittedly been some loss of workers but in so large a movement as this, there are
bound to be some errors of judgment. In the main the policy has worked well and is now being closely integrated into our whole labour programme. This I submit is making selective service work.
I would like now to refer for a few minutes to the selective service mobilization regulations affecting agriculture. In March, 1942, these regulations were amended to strengthen the policy of stabilizing employment in agriculture. This amendment incorporated a provision for the postponement of farm workers distinct from the method to be used in granting postponements to all other workers, no matter how high the priority of their work might be.
The new regulations provide that on receipt of an application from a farm worker, the mobilization board was required to grant postponement, "until further notice" unless the board was satisfied that the worker was not essential to agriculture. In other words, the boards must prove that farm workers are not essential whereas in the case of all other workers they themselves have to prove to the boards that they are essential. Essential farm workers get postponement "until further notice", while postponements for all other workers at present are for not longer than twelve months for the first call, and for not longer than six months for subsequent calls.
We freely admit that there have been individual cases decided in such a way as to merit criticism. More might have been done to make clearer to the farmers themselves the significance of the special provisions in the regulations which affected them.


An hon. MEMBER:: Agreed.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am glad someone agrees with something I have said. It should be said, however, that in connection with our appeal made last fall to farmers to work in other industries during the winter months, if they could be spared from agriculture we distributed very widely a copy of a little pamphlet called, "A Message to Farmers." This book explained the farmers' position in respect to military postponement and that their status would not be affected if they engaged in essential work away from agriculture during the seasons of the year when they could be spared.
But again, Mr. Chairman, we must not base a final conclusion, as to the efficiency with which these regulations have been administered, on individual cases without at the same time examining the over-all result. Before May, 1942, 23-4 per cent of the applications for postponement for farm workers were refused. Out of 20,8S7 applications only 15,996
War Appropriation-Labour

were granted. Since May 1942. only 9-9 per cent of the farmers' applications for postponement were refused. There were 93,900 applications up to April 16, 1943 and Si,595 were granted.
It must be remembered that the basis for granting or refusing postponement for agricultural workers making application is essentiality to agriculture. There is no blanket postponement for farm workers. Since the interpretative letter was sent out on February 1, 1943, a decided improvement has resulted. As evidence of that improvement, I wish to quote a few excerpts from communications which I have received recently from provincial ministers of agriculture. Hon. members apposite from Saskatchewan have perhaps been most vocal in their criticism of this particular question; and I am not quarreling with that.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have reason to be.


Humphrey Mitchell: I said I am not quarrelling with that.


Gordon Graydon: That makes it unanimous.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is making it unanimous?


Gordon Graydon: I said you two had made it unanimous.


Humphrey Mitchell: I say, as evidence of the improvement I wish to quote a few excerpts. Perhaps hon. members will listen carefully as I quote an excerpt from a telegram dated May 19, which I received from the Hon. J. G. Taggart, Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan.


Gordon Graydon: We can take that as read.


Humphrey Mitchell: I quote.
Clarification of mobilization regulations has greatly assisted agriculture-
My hon. friend says we can take that as read. I think the vindication of this telegram is in the fact that the whole of the wheat crop in Saskatchewan is under the ground, and that, in addition, they took off three million acres left over from last year. There is the vindication.


An hon. MEMBER:: They don't like to hear the truth.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have just told them the truth. I was in close touch with the situation last fall and it gave me a great deal of worry, but unfortunately I could not control the weather.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is too bad; you control everything else.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I read the telegram:
Clarification of mobilization regulations has greatly assisted agriculture. Postponements granted since February 1st major factor in seeding crops on farm affected. I believe present policy will result in labour being generally available for year 'round work but severe shortage at harvest time possible.
Several hon. members from Alberta have complained about the performance of the board in that provfhce. Yet, since March last year, 96-3 per cent of applications from Alberta farmers for postponements were granted. This figure speaks for itself.
The Minister of Agriculture for Ontario, Hon. P. M. Dewan, wrote to me on May 22. The following is quoted from his letter:
Clarification of the mobilization regulations has assisted very materially and latterly it seems to me the boards have done a very excellent job with reference to applications for deferment for farm boys.
The premier of Quebec, the Hon. Adelard Godbout, stated in his telegram, dated May 21:
. . . Expect great help will derive from clarification of mobilization regulations.


An hon. MEMBER:: These are all from Liberals.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Were these telegrams solicited or were they voluntary? It all depends.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will let my hon. friend answer that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I assume they were all solicited and all from political friends just to help the minister out. You know how the game is played.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend should know how the game is played.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, you bet I do. I am not denying it, and you should not either.


Humphrey Mitchell: The premier of Prince Edward Island, the Hon. Walter P. Jones, states in his telegram:
. . . clarification of mobilization regulations assisting agriculture.
We have in the past checked and will continue to check individual complaints, but I believe I have submitted evidence to prove that these regulations are being administered in a manner which should result in general satisfaction so far as agriculture is concerned.
I announced our farm labour policy in the house on February 26. One of the main features of that policy was to extend the basis of cooperation with the provinces, with farm

War Appropriation-Labour
organizations, and with local agricultural committees. Three weeks after that policy was announced, every. province had been visited by officials of the Department of Labour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the minister left the telegrams? Has he read all the telegrams he intends to read from ministers? I ask because I want to request the production of telegrams from ministers to the provincial authorities, to which these are answers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, we are entitled to have the whole correspondence.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is a grown-up man like myself, a member of the House of Commons, and he knows that all he has to do is to ask for that and he will get it under the rules of the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am asking for it now so that it will be available for this debate.


Humphrey Mitchell: Discussions were held with provincial agricultural authorities as to the best plan for united action. Farm labour agreements between the dominion and each province have now been negotiated and completed. Local, county, parish, township or municipal committees are now set up all over the country. Active farm labour programmes are under way. No province is excepted.
On June 3 I reviewed the substance of telegrams and letters received from the provincial ministers of agriculture. This can be found on page 3321 of Hansard, and I will not take time to review these again, only to say that, without exception, the provincial agricultural ministers reported progress and expressed appreciation for the action taken by and the cooperation received from the Department of Labour.
Our farm labour policy provides for the payment of transportation of workers recruited for farm work so that they can be readily moved to where they are needed. This feature is written into all of the agreements. The policy also makes provision for the use of all miscellaneous sources of farm labour, such as conscientious objectors, prisoners of war, treaty Indians, high school and university students and women.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not Douk-hobors?


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, we will come to
that, too. Of course I shall hear from my hon. friend about Doukhobors.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister will hear from my hon. friend to my left.


Humphrey Mitchell: Over three hundred
treaty Indians were recruited this spring to finish the threshing in Alberta. Word has just come to us from Manitoba that about one thousand will be working on farms in that province during the summer and harvest time. Recruiting of women and student help is active in practically all provinces. Our universities deserve the nation's thanks for the way they have cooperated with your government.
One of the main objects of our compulsory employment transfer orders is to supply experienced help to farmers. Instructions have been sent to employment offices that single men, in the industries affected, who have had experience in farm work and who are physically fit, are to be directed to farms.
We know that the farm labour problem will never be completely solved so long as this war continues. If it were solved to the satisfaction of everybody, we could probably be properly accused of not using our man-power with the maximum degree of efficiency in an all-out war effort. Everything that we can conceivably do, and wisely do, will be done to assist farmers in securing help. Our efforts will not be relaxed.
As of May 25 last mobilization boards had postponed 4,747 men as Mennonites. Doukhobors or conscientious objectors. On May 1 the employment of men thus postponed was placed under the direction of alternative service officers attached to the employment offices of national selective service. The mobilization boards no longer direct the placement of the mem they postpone as conscientious objectors. As of May 1 ,1,270 men were located in camps. Some 500 of these are under contract with the British Columbia government and are- engaged in essential work on Vancouver island and the mainland. The remainder, approximately 770, were located at various points from Ontario west. Some think that these men should be placed elsewhere, especially in agriculture. They have been engaged in the production of wood, lumber and pit props for coal mines, and, quite aside from their essential forest fire protection activities on the Pacific coast, they have produced much needed lumber and fuel, both of which items have the highest priority. In any case, it is essential to maintain camp organizations for those who are either unwilling or not well trained to undertake useful work on farms or in industry.
War Appropriation-Labour

Prior to May 1 mobilization boards had returned some 1,200 men from camps almost entirely to agriculture, and since May 1, approximately 260 men have been returned from camps, other than those on the Pacific coast, to agricultural employment, and an additional 50 men still in camps have started the production of pit props for coal mines in Alberta and British Columbia under our coal expansion programme. The number of men at camps has been reduced to a minimum, and, while individual cases may be dealt with, it will be necessary in future to place as many men in camps as are removed. An approximate summary of the position at the moment is that some 900 conscientious objectors are in camps with 500 of these especially engaged in Pacific coastal protection work under contract arrangements, leaving about 400 men located at seven interior camps from British Columbia to Ontario, making the average per camp about 60.
Considering the general distribution of conscientious objectors, approximately 3,807 are engaged in essential work-almost entirely agriculture-under the direction of alternative service officers, in addition to the 900 employed in essential work in camps. The idea that a large supply of labour for agriculture exists in the camps must be discounted, and I would like to point out that many more requests for the employment of conscientious objectors in agriculture and in industry have been received than can possibly be filled.	[DOT]
With regard to the distribution of conscientious objectors, mobilization divisions "A", London, and "J", Winnipeg, contain the largest number, and it is fair to say that they originate on farms where intensive agriculture is the rule. The number of conscientious objectors postponed in Quebec and the maritime provinces is small, and I believe not more that 50. During May one quite large camp in Ontario was closed, and 174 men were transferred to employment on farms and to the sugar beet area surrounding Chatham. In Manitoba also an effort is being made to organize the employment of conscientious objectors in such a way that the seasonal requirements of sugar beet production can be met.
It has been suggested that conscientious objectors be used in various industries where labour in scarce or in hospitals where it has been most difficult to maintain a supply of orderlies and other help or that there are a number of conscientious objectors who possess professional training or educational qualifications that are being wasted. A detailed examination does not support many of the

suggestions made, and it is either not practical or in the national interest to meet some of the proposals put forward.
Among the whole group there are a few university graduates-


Mr. NICHOLSON:: How many?


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute-as far as I am aware not more than ten, and efforts are being, and will be, made to place such men to advantage. However, even here there are difficulties since these men are not always prepared to undertake war work, and it is increasingly difficult to avoid doing so under the present conditions.
It should be remembered that the great majority are best fitted to undertake farm or camp work. A few hundred are not especially equipped, physically, mentally or by experience, to undertake hard work of any kind.
Where it is possible to place an individual to special advantage, whether it be in a hospital or in an industry, an attempt will be made to do so, I am sure, by alternative service officers, but sweeping generalities that do not take into account the numbers of men involved or the actual individual problems that must be met are not especially helpful to those charged with this responsibility.
To sum up, I am satisfied that agriculture is receiving distinct benefits from the utilization of the labour of conscientious objectors, and that the work being done in camps is valuable as measured in various ways including the amount of lumber, pit props and wood produced.
By closer direction and more detailed planning it may be possible further to increase the value of the work done at some camps or transfer a few more men from camps to seasonal work in agriculture, but on the whole the position with respect to this matter is good and is well organized.
I would like to say that, however much anyone may differ with the point of view or the religious beliefs of conscientious objectors, it would be difficult to complain of the amount of work these men are prepared to do or the enthusiasm with which they undertake it, especially when you consider that while engaged in camps they receive $15.00 per month plus board and lodging and while working outside of camps they receive $25.00 per month plus board and lodging. The balance of their earnings goes to the Canadian Red Cross Society as stipulated in order in council P.C. 2821, and since their employers must pay going wages although the men do not receive the benefit, their financial contribution to this good cause is considerable.

War Appropriation-Labour
By order in council 2326 of May 10, 1943, we have decided to make use of the services of prisoners of war. We hope to employ many of them in selected types of agricultural work, in wood-cutting and mining. Hon. members will understand that use of these prisoners involves measures for public security and discipline of the prisoners. But the number we are able to use will be that much help in easing our problem.


Mr. GREEN:: Would they be Germans or Italians, or both?


Humphrey Mitchell: All nationalities. Already we have some Germans working in the beet fields of Alberta. The employable men and women among the 21,000 Japanese evacuated from the protected area of the Pacific coast are being gradually placed in employment wherever they will be of most use in the war effort.
The production of foodstuffs has absorbed many thousands of these people, and will absorb many more this season. In every province from British Columbia to Quebec farmers are applying for Japanese labour, especially in regions where they proved themselves in this work last year. Our present sugar ration is partly dependent on the labour of 4,000 Japanese in 1942 and again in 1943 in the sugar beet areas of Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario.
The fruit growers of British Columbia and Ontario are using several hundred Japanese, and want many more this season. Over a thousand Japanese were employed last year in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario in raising cannery crops-tomatoes, corn, beans, peas, etc.-and in the actual canning operations. Market gardeners, especially in southern Ontario, have found them very efficient labour. Dairy, poultry, tobacco, and grain farmers are applying for Japanese farm hands, and are finding them industrious labourers. In all, between 5,000 and 6,000 Japanese men, women and children are now working on Canadian farms.
In lumbering and fuel-cutting the Japanese are also filling an urgent need for labour. During the last winter, almost one thousand Japanese men were employed in logging camps and sawmills from the interior of British Columbia to northern Ontario.
A plan is now being developed between the Departments of Labour and of Munitions and Supply to use most of the remaining employable men in the Japanese housing centres of British Columbia in cutting fuel wood for the British Columbia market. Both lumbering and fuel-cutting operations using Japanese labour will be expanded during 1943.
Some 800 or 900 Japanese men are being used to build British Columbia highways of strategic and national importance.
In a wide variety of less important occupations, Japanese are proving themselves useful -as domestics, cooks, gardeners, restaurant workers, tanners, dry cleaners, truck drivers, construction workers, etc.-and, are satisfying the public requirements for such services, in various parts of Canada.
I have mentioned our system of priorities for labour. Classification, I think everyone will agree, is absolutely essential for the allocation of man-power to its most effective uses in the war effort. The minister's authority to classify industries, etc., is exercised by the labour priorities division in the labour supply branch of the Department of Labour. Consultation with the Department of Munitions and Supply and wartime prices and trade board is provided by regular meetings of an informal committee on labour priorities. A carefully worked out analysis of Canadian industries has been prepared as an industrial classification manual by the statistics branch of the Department of Labour. This manual serves as the basis on which industries are selected for designation with respect to essentiality. All industries are given one of four labour priority ratings, "A" meaning very high; "B" meaning high; "C" meaning low; and "D" meaning no labour priority. Occasionally the priority rating of an industry for men is different than for women.
On application to the priorities division and on recommendation of various associations and governmental departments, individual firms are considered by the priorities committee for special ratings. Members of the committee investigate the authenticity of claims and, where justified, the firms are specially named with a rating other than that of their ordinary industrial classification, depending on the proportion of essential production carried on by the firm.
Each local employment and selective service office is provided with, (a), an industrial card index which consists of a card for each industrial classification, showing the labour priority rating for the industry., and in some instances key occupations in the industry; (b) a list of named firms, which includes those establishments and construction projects which are considered individually by the priority committee and are assigned special ratings other than those of the industries under which the firms are classified.
Local offices are advised at once of priority revisions by the labour priorities division, after consultation with interested departments. On receiving an order for labour, local office officials decide the applicant's
War Appropriation-Labour

priority rating by reference to this industrial card index or list of named firms. Available labour is referred to the highest priority vacancy for which it is suitable- or qualified.
The movement of man-power between and within priority groups can be and is being checked by the quarterly employment' survey report. The industrial classification manual is used as the basis for these reports.
There are of course frequent changes in our war production programme, and because of this our priority schedule is subject to revision from time to time. But generally speaking we have a good priority picture for our available labour.
Not long ago a report of our employment service division on unfilled job vacancies and rnplaced applicants led to some criticism that we were not meeting the demands of vital operations. The report was based on information which is kept in our employment offices. The likelihood is that few of those listed as unplaced had been idle for long and that they would be referred to jobs within a matter of days from issuance of the report. There always are some not qualified to fill vacant positions or who are remote from suitable vacancies. It takes a little time to fit them into the most suitable places.
The figures of available jobs also need explaining. Employers are asked to estimate their requirements for a reasonable period ahead. Some are very generous in such estimates, not wishing to be short when the time of need is reached. These "deferred vacancies" inflate the figures and suggest an immediate shortage which does not always exist.
I would like the house to remember that the labour department is handling a placement undertaking in which we have had only about two and one half years' experience. Britain benefits by having placement machinery of thirty years' testing-the United States ten years.
The entire system of employment and placement has been revolutionized. The absolute freedom to seek employment and employees has been changed to a system of controlled placement through government agencies. It is to the credit of our working people and the employers that this necessary imposition of control has been accepted willingly and has met with full cooperation. The work of selection and placement may not be perfect but, as I have said, Canada was comparatively inexperienced in an undertaking of such magnitude.
The work of our employment and selective service offices steadily has improved and labour given increasingly effective direction to the most essential jobs. The volume of

business of our employment service has increased 500 per cent within a year. The average weekly number of vacancies reported is
50,000	and slightly more than 50.000 applicants are registered and slightly less than that number referred to the vacancies.
When military men in the committee are told of the magnitude of the placement machinery to take care of 50,000 people, they will understand the problem confronting us, and more particularly that which has confronted us in the last six months.
Shortage of men in the base metal mines has been met by the transfer of gold miners. Employees of paper plants where operations were curtailed were also diverted to base metal mines. Halifax freight handlers were used in slack periods in fish processing plants. In British Columbia we dovetailed vegetable and fruit canning with fish canning.
Selective service has given special attention to the supply of men for lake navigation- realizing its importance in our war-time transportation.
We have done everything possible to see that more women were employed in war industries, and recently we undertook through our employment office to point out to women and girls the attractions and value of service with the armed forces. Between February 22 and April 29 our staff interviewed 12,815 women and 1,420 were referred to the armed forces. There were 10,917 who were not interested in this branch of the war effort. The number of women referred to vacancies other than the armed services-in the same period-was 87,825.
For the mother who must go out to work, the care of her children is a vital and often distressing problem. Her peace of mind requires assurance that the smallest children are in safe hands throughout the day and that the older ones have supervision after school hours. Only then can she give her mind fully to the job in hand. Some mothers have relatives or friends who can take care of their children during their absence but with the rise in the employment of women, this type of care often fails and time is lost while the mothers make other arrangements.
With these facts in mind the agreement on the day care of children was drawn up and is now in force in the two most industrialized provinces, Ontario and Quebec, and in both, provincial advisory committees have been set up. Committees, both provincial and local, are established on the same basis and include representatives of family and child welfare, labour, health and edrfk ional organizations

War Appropriation-Labour
or authorities. Operation of the plan is under provincial direction, subject to the approval of the dominion government.
We now have fourteen nurseries, six in Toronto, four in Montreal and one each in Brantford, Oshawa, St. Catharines and Galt. There also are five after-school supervision projects in Toronto and one in Hamilton. The programme will be developed as the needs grow. Plans for nine after-school supervision projects have been approved. Plans for eighteen additional nurseries have been developed.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How many children are being cared for?


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall answer the hon. member when we reach the discussion stage. If I gave all the figures I have in my mind I would be here until Christmas. But I shall be glad to try to get the specific information my hon. friend wants.
Attendance must be maintained at a monthly average of not less than twenty per day, but it is unlikely that the numbers will fall below this level. Where fewer than twenty are to be cared for, arrangements may be made with local child caring organizations on a unit cost per day per child basis. Children may be admitted to any project whose mothers are working in non-war industries, provided that the total of such admissions does not exceed at any time twenty-five per cent of the approved maximum capacity of the unit and provided also that there are no unfilled applications in the hands of the committee for children of mothers working in war industries. This term "war industry" has been given a wide interpretation under the agreement and provides for many categories of workers.
The standards set up for war-time day nurseries were given very careful consideration by a committee representative of health, chjld welfare and education.
The dominion-provincial agreement in addition to day nursery care, provides for the sharing of the cost incurred in providing for the care of the school child. Care would include the provision of a hot dinner at noon with milk and biscuits before and after school and supervised play or handicrafts in the hours before and after the regular school day.
Last September we held a special registration of women, ages 20 to 24, and more than
258,000	registered. Of that number 58,000 were willing to take full time jobs and 23,000 part time work.
In the past twelve months about 426,152 women were placed in jobs by our employment
offices. The number engaged in war work increased from 95,000 in February, 1942, to
248.000	at the present time. There are localities where the number of women prepared to work is greater than the demand. Through the diversion of men to more essential work this idle surplus will be reduced.
If I had unlimited time I would amaze this house by reciting the occupations in which women are now employed. I will simply mention that they are now employed in saw-mill operations, in the delivery of ice, in surface operations at the International Nickel Company's mines, and we are to use them at surface work in our coal mines.
As the war progresses there are changes in production requirements, greater emphasis being placed on the importance of a particular type of output by the war plants.
When selective service began just over a year ago the estimated man-power requirements for the ensuing twelve months were
100.000	for industry and 193,000 for the armed forces, a total of 293,000. In the twelve months, March 1, 1942, to March 1, 1943, the strength of the armed forces increased by more than
220.000	and the number of persons in war plant production and associated industries rose by 320,000. Hon. members will appreciate the problem created by this shift of so many from civilian jobs to the armed forces. I suggest that in some small measure this is an indication of the willingness of the people of Canada to lend their aid in these difficult times for the advancement of the war effort, in the broadest possible sense. It is to some extent a refutation of the criticism that has been made that we have a man-power muddle in this country. When you move 320.000 men and women, with all the detail that involves, into industry in a country the size of Canada, I think it must be agreed that in its very essence that is a gigantic undertaking.
During the twelve months following April 1, 1943, it is expected there will be a net increase of 127,000 men and 24,000 women in our armed forces, a total of 151,000.
Due to the successful conclusion of the Tunisian campaign and the consequent readjustment in our production programme of which the Minister of Munitions and Supply recently spoke in this house, it is not possible to give you a precise estimate of the manpower requirements of our war industries for this fiscal year. As of last February, however, the programme called for an increase of something like 20.000 men and 60,000 women in war plant production and associated industries.
War Appropriation-Labour
.COMMONS
The number engaged in agriculture will be maintained at a better level than heretofore through the exercise of our permit control system.
To meet the male man-power requirements, some will be obtained by a reduction in the number of those temporarily unemployed and of students. The natural increase in the adult population will provide about 55,000. The balance will be met by a curtailment of employment in the less essential industries and services.
Of the women needed for the armed forces and for essential industry, the large part will be obtained from the natural increase in population of about 60,000. We cannot expect to get a great many from less essential industries and services because preferably we shall take men from these fields. Therefore we must look to housewives and others not now working in urban areas to fill the gap.
I would like to emphasize to the committee that the figures I have given are net. Because of discharges and casualties the armed services will require a higher gross total of men and women.
Industry also, because of labour turnover and transfers from war production to the armed forces, from civilian to war production, will need a higher gross total.	Selective
service is confident of meeting these needs if the present trend of replacing men by women and girls in civilian employment continues and there is the necessary reduction in the less essential industrial and business operations.
As I have indicated, the more serious labour shortages are in mining, agriculture, logging and other primary industries. The jobs largely demand able-bodied men. The work is heavy. We are doing our best to solve the problem.
With the cooperation of the armed forces and industry and through our plan of compulsory transfer of men, the situation, I am sure, will be eased.
National selective service-mobilization regulations provide:
that any employer may submit, at any time, for consideration by a mobilization board, a plan for the postponement of the military training of any group of its employees and a mobilization board may instruct any employer to submit such a plan if in its opinion such action is advisable.
Out of this provision we have developed not too recently an industrial mobilization survey plan. Basically the plan is to facilitate the orderly withdrawal of replaceable workers from essential industries into the armed services and to provide for their

replacement with the least possible disturbance to production. The survey requires the employer to report all employees, of military age, along with a description of the work they are doing and the length of time required to train replacements, particularly stressing the use of women.
The mobilization survey plan is reviewed by a local committee, located at each of the mobilization board centres. This committee is composed of a technically qualified chairman, familiar with modern production methods and a knowledge of the various skills and trades. Other members are, namely, a representative of the employment service, mobilization board, and the particular department of government involved. A plan, after passing through the committee is submitted to the mobilization board for approval; if approved it becomes an official schedule by means of which the employer is advised of the order in which his employees will be called.
Without going into details, I think the members will readily appreciate that any survey of this sort is also of utmost value to the employment service; first, to acquaint them of the employers' need for replacement; second, to inform them of any surplus labour.
It will be readily seen that the plan coordinates in a functional manner those agencies or departments of government most vitally concerned in a concerted effort.
The industrial mobilization survey has progressed to the point where we have a factual picture of fifty-eight companies, engaged in war production, employing a total of 81,070 people-of which 55,083 are men and 25,987 are women. Of the total number of men employed it was found 13,689, or 24-8 per cent were within the designated age classes, subject to military training. It should be borne in mind that a considerable percentage of those subject to call are medically unfit. For the fifty-eight companies referred to these surveys show 1,464 men in the designated age classes can be replaced by women. They also indicate a total of approximately 6,913 men have enlisted in the armed services.
Some of the plants show a high percentage of women employed. One in Toronto, the General Engineering company, had 2,848 women out of a total of 4,382, and only 114 of the men were subject to military call-up. This will give hon. members some idea of the manner in which we are combing out industry for men for the armed forces and for transfer to more essential or other industries.
The John Inglis Company at Toronto, with 16,491 employees, had 7,493 women and 8,998

War Appropriation-Labour
men, with 2,080 of the men subject to military service. The survey to date appears to represent a fairly good cross-section of the industrial set-up.
Man-power of course is not indicated entirely by the number of men employed. The continuity of work and the production per man day are important aspects.
I am glad to tell the committee that labour turnover has shown a great improvement. In shell filling operations based on total payroll, the percentage was 9-2 in July, 1942, and 5-7 in February. 1943
Other changes in the same period were:
Aircraft-6-6 to 4'3.
Steel and base metals-6-3 to 5'0.
Automotive-7-5 to 4-7.
Tanks-3-6 to 2-3.
Small arms-7-0 to 5-3.
Explosives and chemicals-8-4 to 4-9.
Small arms ammunition-5-2 to 3-3.
From August, 1942, to February of this year the general change for all reporting firms was 8-3 to 4-8, or close to 50 per cent betterment. I think this has been largely the result of the mechanics of selective service and, of course, the permit system which goes along with it.
There has been some instability in the general labour situation, but as I have said before it is a natural condition in war time and under the high pressure of war-time industrial operations. There are different situations arising requiring different conciliation approaches, and I am not one of those who feels that by a simple statement of labour policy the millennium will be reached. They have the Wagner act in the United States, a national labour relations board, a national war labour board, and still there are industrial disturbances in the country of our good friends to the south of us. There must foe more give and take on the part of employers and labour, a greater appreciation of the fairness of arbitration, and acceptance of the results of arbitration.
Recognition of the rights of labour to organize for collective negotiation of agreements is fundamental in a democracy such as ours. But we need more recognition of the responsibility which rests on both partners in industry.
It has been suggested in various quarters that the government has not made use of the experience and counsel of representatives of organized workers in matters touching Canada's war effort, particularly where the welfare of the workers is involved. I wish to refute this charge. I shall show that it has no foundation whatsoever in point of fact.
Connected with the Department of Labour, national selective service, the unemployment insurance commission and the national war labour board, are eight national councils, committees or boards, on all of which organized labour is represented. I might add that in and about the Department of Labour we have no boards or committees-except those which by their nature are restricted to our own officials-without labour representation.
I sometimes think, Mr. Chairman, particularly as regards national selective service on the employment side and on the conciliation side, that we have possibly taken too many men with stability and leadership out of the labour movement. I sometimes wonder whether it would not have been better to leave them where they were so that they could give the necessary leadership and stability that is required in an expanding industrial labour organization.


Gordon Graydon: Does that apply from the minister down?


Humphrey Mitchell: That may be true too, but I have always had a reputation for stability in my own community anyway, although I will say this to my hon. friend; it is not going to be said about me when this war is over that I sold the Canadian people down the river.
The eight national organizations to which I referred are: National Selective Service Advisory Board; Consultative Committees of the Ministry of Labour; National War Labour Board Committee; Advisory Council to Inter-departmental Committee on Labour-Management Production Committees; Vocational Training Advisory Committee; Unemployment Insurance Commission; Unemployment Insurance Advisory Committee; Unemployment Insurance National Employment Committee.
In addition to the national bodies which have labour representation, there are the nine regional war labour boards, the western labour board, and five regional employment advisory committees, on all of which labour is represented. Further there are some forty local employment advisory committees, all of them with labour representation, to advise in regard to employment matters; and there are thirty courts of referees under the Unemployment Insurance Act, to pass upon insurance claims which are questioned, and also to perform the important function of passing upon appeals taken under national selective service civilian regulations.
War Appropriation-Labour

In all, therefore, speaking for the Department of Labour and the administrative units for which I, as Minister of Labour, am respon-. sible to parliament, labour is represented1 on eight national bodies, fifteen regional bodies and seventy local or district committees.
The contribution made by labour's representatives to the work of these various groups is quite invaluable. In all cases the labour representatives take their duties with due seriousness, so that the public interest benefits materially through their work.
To charge that labour is not given proper representation is to ignore the efforts-given voluntarily and without recompense in most cases-of about 300 leading members of the labour movement. I do suggest that for anyone to claim that labour has not proper representation is to do a great deal less than justice to these many conscientious labour people, who are so generously assisting in administration at this time.
Of course there are two great partners in industry, employers and employees, and in every case labour and employer representation on our boards and committees parallel one another. I should add this, that the contribution made by the employers has been of equal importance to the contributions made by the representatives of the employees of whom I have just spoken. We have found that sitting around a common table, confronted with problems of deep import at the present time, these partners in industry do not look so bad after all to each other when they get down to talking together and examining the many problems that confront the ministry of labour to-day. I only hope that when I am finished with my stewardship in this department one contribution I shall have made to the industrial life of this country will have been to bring about cooperation between the representatives of the employers and of the employees in this country in attempting to solve the problems that confront industry at large.
As far as the Department of Labour is concerned, and as far as the government is concerned, we are fully aware of the need of labour representation on various bodies, and I take this opportunity to record our appreciation of the unstinted help we receive from the workers' representatives. In dealing with this matter of labour representation I am referring only to the agencies of government for which I have some degree of responsibility. Labour has representation on a variety of other government bodies, but the summary which I have given does not relate to the situation in general.
I Mr. Mitchell.]
Most valuable assistance has been rendered by the national selective service advisory board. The board was established by order in council P.C. 2254 of March 21, 1942. It then consisted of the members of the interdepartmental committee on labour coordination and the members of the national war labour board.
The board was reconstituted by order in council P.C. 1788 of March 5, 1943, and now consists of five representatives nominated by organized labour, five representatives nominated by organized employers, one representative nominated by organized farmers, one representative of organized veterans, and a number of senior civil servants representing the departments which are most directly interested in problems of man-power, namely, Labour, Munitions and Supply, Agriculture, National Defence, Finance, and the Wartime Prices and Trade Board.
The board meets regularly on the second and fourth Wednesdays of every month and otherwise on special call.
The duties of the board are twofold: First, to bring to bear on all questions of man-power policy and on all major questions of manpower administration the points of view and advice of the interests or departments represented. Since its establishment, no significant regulation about man-power has been issued without prior discussion with, and approval by, the national selective service advisory board. Second, when its recommendations have been approved by the man-power committee of the cabinet and the governor general in council, to interpret and explain the policy thus approved to the interests or departments represented.
In other words, the national selective service advisory board is the major instrument for consultation and collaboration between government, organized employers, organized farmers and organized workers. I have been asked to explain how quotas are set for the call-up by military districts. The question itself is somewhat misleading since we are no longer operating on a district quota basis. The system is as follows: After the cabinet has authorized a given establishment the army requisitions the number of men required by military districts in accordance with the available facilities in its training centres. Those requisitions are transferred to the divisional registrars but are not regarded as quotas since their instructions are to call from within the designated age classes as many men as the machinery will permit.
Originally, since the army quotas were generally based on the population in the military

War Appropriation-Labour
age groups ini each district, the divisional registrars were given quotas based on population. Our present system, however, is to provide that all divisional registrars are calling at any given time from the same age classes. If, for example, the married men aged 19 to 25 are exhausted in one division sooner than in others, that division will not begin calling older married men until the other division has exhausted the younger age class.
On May 26 the hon. member for Lake Centre referred to what he considered an inequality in the percentage of the call-up for men for military service as between the different military districts. The fact that the percentage of enlistments and call-ups are both low in the same district or division would indicate that in such districts there is a higher percentage of men unfit for military service or that more men are required for farming and essential industry, or perhaps both. If the percentages of fit and unfit men were the same and the demands of farming and industry equal in each district or division, the district or division having a high percentage of volunteers would have a smaller percentage liable to the regulations and, consequently, a smaller percentage of men called up. The instructions to all mobilization divisions are to bring the men in the designated classes under the regulations as quickly as possible and to deal with them as rapidly as the machinery available permits. The districts vary in size. Some have greater difficulty in getting accommodation and staff. Therefore, the speed of selection varies, but, in the end, the result sought for is obtained- that is, all men fit for service, in the designated class, who are not given postponement and have not volunteered for service in the armed forces, are selected.
The hon. member for Lake Centre stated that there were some 91,800 Canadians, males, between the ages of 18-38 at present residing in the United States who have not given any indication that they will apply for United States citizenship and asked what was being done to secure the availability for service in the Canadian army of such men.
Canadians residing in the United States are subject to American mobilization regulations. They have the option of electing to serve in the Canadian forces. When a mobilization board has knowledge that a Canadian is residing in the United States the board does not proceed under the mobilization regulations. They are left for disposal by the American mobilization section.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury on the same day said that he had made inquiry as to
the basis of allocation of the quota for each military district and to his surprise had found that it was not on the available man-power but on the record of the voluntary enlistments in the district. That is not the case in so far as mobilization is concerned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was the case as stated by the Minister of National Defence for Air based on the theory of the number of non-permanent active militia units in the different military districts. That is where they got their volunteers and therefore it was on the basis of the volunteers that the call-up was made. I shall argue that question later.


Humphrey Mitchell: In districts where there has been high voluntary enlistment the national defence training facilities would be taxed and the tendency might be to lower the allotment from such a district. That adds up to what my hon. friend has just said.
On the other hand it might happen that a district which supplied a very high number of volunteers in the past might have cleared its training centres and at present have more training facilities available, but these matters would not affect the number selected under mobilization. If there were not training facilities for men selected in their own districts they would be moved to a training centre where there was room.
The committee will bear in mind that call-up of men for medical examinations and military training and service did not come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour until December 1. The change became effective through P.C. 10924 of which there have been subsequent amendments.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why was the change made?


Humphrey Mitchell: We followed the British precedent, and we followed a precedent which probably our good friends to the south would like to have followed, and that was to have as much as possible of the man-power of the nation under one tent, if I may put it that way.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have an idea it was because the other service failed.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think that is fair. Speaking for myself, I was one who argued that we should do it that way, never thinking that it would land on my doorstep, but it did.	,
The national war services regulations, 1940 (recruits), w'ere then revoked and the order established the present national selective service mobilization regulations.
War Appropriation-Labour

Subject of course to the acceptable medical categories and deferments for essential agricultural and other workers, the military call-up at present applies to the following:
(a)	Every man born in any year from 1917 to 1924 (inclusive) who has reached age 19.
(b)	Every man born from 1902 to 1916 (inclusive) who, at July 15, 1940, was: (i) unmarried; or (ii) divorced or judicially separated; or (iii) a widower without child or children.
(c)	Every man born from 1902 to 1916 (inclusive) who has since July 15, 1940, become a widower without child or children now living.
(d)	Every man born from 1902 to 1916 (inclusive) who, since July 15, 1940, has been divorced or judicially separated.
I shall table a statistical summary covering mobilization activities under the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, for the period March 20, 1941, to April 16, 1943. That is the latest available.
Before the call-up was transferred to the Department of Labour the Minister of National War Services had started an audit of the r.ecords of the divisional registrars. This is being continued.
This past winter we required all single men to report who had failed to receive or acknowledge their notices of medical examination, or to present themselves for medical examination. We announced an amnesty to those who complied as required by March 15. This resulted in 144,973 men re-registering, but a considerable number of these cases were men who did not need to do so. However, it did result in accounting for a large number of men who were in default or had been overlooked and has well justified itself. A break-down of the total by military districts is as follows:
London 	.... A	6,174Toronto 	.... B	24,994Kingston	.... C	4,399Port Arthur 	.... D	4.373Montreal	.... E	23.741Quebec 	.... F	13,507Halifax 	.... G	9,575Saint John 	.... H	1,302Charlottetown 	.... I	593Winnipeg 	.... J	10,181Vancouver 	.... Iv	12,566Regina	24,281Edmonton 	.... N	9,287
144,973
Every designated, man-single, aged 19 to 40 inclusive, and married, aged 19 to 25 inclusive-except those in the armed forces or on postponement, to whom the regulations apply, will have evidence of unfitness. Through 
employers and otherwise, we shall therefore, be able effectively to enforce the regulations. Further than that all medical rejections are being reviewed and the majority of men previously certified as unfit for military service are being called for medical reexamination by army medical boards. These reexaminations will be completed in about two months.
Our war emergency training programme, in cooperation with the provinces, has been of substantial assistance in relieving labour shortages, chiefly for semi-skilled jobs and meeting needs of the armed forces. As of March 31 last, nearly 218,248 men and women has been enrolled in the vocational and plant school classes since the beginning of the programme. In quoting that figure, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to hon. members that they look up the same kind of figures for the other united nations and they will find that, in a comparative sense, Canada's contribution redounds greatly to the credit of this country. This training programme has been most valuable to our war effort, and I believe that, as regards the work undertaken in these classes, we as Canadians can almost defy comparison. May I here pay tribute to our industrialists for the part played by them in these training classes which they carried on and which have permitted the erection of the gigantic industrial structure that we have built in the past four years. I would also, of course, express gratitude to the teachers in the schools, to the provincial governments and their officials, and to all those who have spent their time and labour unselfishly in this great cause.
This total included 135,438 trained or training for industry, and 72,810 for the armed forces. There were 30,591 women in the industrial classes.
On May 10 this year an order in council was passed providing for the extension of our war emergency training programme to include the training of secondary school students in farm work with the minimum age of 14 years.
A critical shortage of engineering, scientific and other technical personnel developed because of heavy enlistment in the armed forces. Control of their employment has been exercised through our wartime bureau of technical personnel under the permit system. More than
3,000	technicians were transferred to war jobs in the past year. The bureau was established in February, 1941, and in cooperation with the Engineering Institute of Canada, Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Canadian Institute of Chemistry, set up a registry of all scientific and technical personnel in Canada. I would like to record now my deep appreciation of the valuable help given by the

War Appropriation-Labour
organizations I have mentioned, also that provincial associations of professional engineers and other scientific and technical bodies. They have been most cooperative.
Through government financial aid to deserving students and promotion of summer employment of undergraduates in work which would contribute to their professional advancement we are preparing for future needs of technical personnel.
Our university science students regulations provide that all scientific and technical students must be medically examined and decide if they wish to volunteer for active service in the armed forces as technical officers. If not they must accept such essential employment as the Minister of Labour may require.
As well as endeavouring to keep up a good supply of engineers and other technical men we have also assisted students in medicine and dentistry. All told we have helped 2,022 students; 840 in science and engineering; 439 in training to become teachers; 462 in medicine; 91 in dentistry; and 190 in other faculties.
The government has sponsored short courses at our universities in personnel management. The objective is improved human relations in industry and as a natural sequence, improved production through more efficient use of labour.
As chairman of the industrial disputes inquiry commission when our industrial structure was expanding very rapidly, I personally saw the absolute need of the provision of personnel managers in many of the large industrial companies with which I came into contact. I think it is fair to say, while we have many brilliant engineers, the engineering of men is much more important and, may I say, much more difficult than the engineering of material things. I believe that the courses which have been carried on in our universities in cooperation with labour organizations and employers have been of tremendous assistance in building up this small army of personnel managers which will be of great benefit to our industrial structure not only at the moment but also in the days of peace which we hope are not very far away.
We have conducted job instructors' and job relations' courses and have been ready and willing to adopt any plan which would make our labour more skilled and thus more useful in the war effort.
That is our man-power achievements and programme. Criticize it if you like. But, and I appeal to you in all earnestness, please make your criticisms specific and practical. The problem is a national one, meriting the attention of all serious-minded citizens. Its solution demands the best effort that any of us can devote to it.
I would like to take this opportunity of recording my deep appreciation of the conscientious, efficient work of the staff of the Department of Labour.
With emergency conditions demanding emergency measures, new fegulations constantly being drafted, the staff of selective service and our employment service have had a real job to do. They have, in my opinion, done it well.	*
Too often we heed only the glamorous things; sometimes I envy the ministers of the fighting departments, but we must remember that there can be exceptional devotion to duty in the routine, more or less humdrum tasks of life. So I say thank you to all my staff. I know they will carry on loyally and unselfishly to the war's end.
I also would like to extend my thanks to my colleagues of the government for constant cooperation. The man-power question is one affecting many departments of government. I have been strengthened by the understanding of my colleagues of the task assigned to me.
My colleague, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, in his statement in this house on June 11, set before hon. members the fine record of Canada in the matter of production of implements and munitions of war. Every Canadian will be proud of this record and rightly so. I point out to you that the marvellous achievement was accomplished because of the wholehearted support of the working men and women of Canada in the war effort. It is evidence that the working people have done their full part, which I have stated on numerous occasions in this house and elsewhere would be the case.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to place on the record the text of the statement which was made by the Right Hon. Ernest Bevin, British Minister of Labour and National Service, at a press conference which was arranged when I visited London last autumn. I think it shows the appreciation in Britain of what Canada is contributing to the common war effort. I quote:
I would like to say that the British government are very anxious that the press should do proper justice to Canada for the effort she is making in the war.
She came in on the first day of the war and threw in her all and I can tell you. from the man-power side and from the production side, what is very gratifying is that Canada moves very quickly on the basis of the rationalization of arms production; that is to say, we get a
War Appropriation-Labour

quick and cooperative response whether it is in shipbuilding, aircraft, or anything else, to fit in with the problems we have in this country.
In the discussion that goes on between the Minister of Labour in Canada and myself, and between Captain Oliver Lyttelton and his opposite number, Mr. Howe, in Canada, we are all four of us working very closely together, and now that we are in a tight corner for manpower in England it is a great advantage to us to be able to iriake the necessary adaptations so that Canada in the design of her war output fits in and dovetails in so well with the strategy of the war that we can get a good deal of relief by the use of man-power on the other side.
I do not think there has ever been a case in which the labour force, the productive effort, of two countries has been more complementary and more helpful.
Our relationships are so good; it is not a question of our telling them or they telling us, but immediately we have to make changes and to go in for this type or that type of production we are able to marry the Canadian effort with our own in such a practical way that it is a tremendous help to the total war effort.
It is not only volume, but it is types, and the quick adaptation of types and as the strategy of the war changes and fresh demands are made upon us, the facility with which Canada cooperates with us is a tremendous asset in this war. I do not want it to be measured merely in terms of volume. You may get a lot of things you cannot use. The essential thing in this business is to get the things you can use and use quickly and to supplement and build up the output of your own arsenal at home.
In the contacts we have had with Canadian ministers, through Mr. Vincent Massey, who has been a tower of strength to this country in the war effort, we have met with ready cooperation and I am very anxious that the proper place should be given to Canada and her contribution to this tremendous struggle.
In that critical period when we did not have very many friends, at least active friends, from 1940 onwards, the weight of the Canadian output and their resilience and turnover to production during that period played a very big part in enabling us to equip the middle east army and equip the forces in this country at a speed much, greater than would have been possible if we had not had, not merely the volume, but willing adaptation to the kind of weapons and materials we wanted.	.
Now, with the loss of a great many of our raw- materials, particularly certain types of metals, Canada means salvation to us. The way she has moved her men about in order to increase the output of, say, nickel and raw materials of that character has been a great gain not only to us but to the whole of the united nations and in that spirit I w-ould like Mr. Mitchell to convey to Mr. Mackenzie King and his colleagues what I know is the feeling of everybody not merely in the government but those who have to design and make and deliver the equipment, appreciation of those two factors,

volume, and, what has been so vital, I repeat, adaptability, which has fitted in so well with our wrar strategy.
If you will take that message back I shall be very grateful, a message as coming from all the British people. Thank you very much.
In conclusion, let me emphasize that no matter what any government can do there will be shortages of labour in many essential lines as long as the war lasts. We must be prepared for the need of a greater number of men for our armed forces. This will serve to tighten still more the labour situation at home. It means an increasing responsibility on us remaining at home. Harder work-more and more of our time and energies in a greater share of this fight for freedom.
No matter what is asked of us, it is worth doing and giving. Ours is the easier role. The men who fight and die give the most. So let us all pull together. Have our fighting men proud of the way we backed them up at home.
Now I would like to have the various statistics which I mentioned go on Hansard to complete the record.
Statistics on National Selective Service and Man-power
(a)	Distribution of Canada's human resources, 14 years of age and over-table and explanation.
(b)	National selective service (civilian) operations-separations from employment notified, and permits issued (table).
(c)	Placement operations of employment and selective service offices: Table I-application, vacancies and placements, May 1, 1942, to April 29, 1943; and Table II-vacancies remaining unfilled, by industries, as at April 29, 1943.
(d)	Numbers directed to employment under national selective service and certain other orders.
(e)	Summary of mobilization statistics-tw-o tables and explanations: Table I-Medical examinations. postponements, military training; and Table II-special registrations, prosecutions and investigations.
Items (a), (b), (c) and (d) above are as compiled by Research and Statistics Branch.
Item (e) is as compiled by Mobilization Branch, Department of Labour.
June, 1943.
Distribution of Canada's Human Resources,
14 Years of Age and Over
The table which follows, entitled "Distribution of Canada's Human Resources, 14 years of Age and Over, as at January 30, 1943", undertakes to show a brief classification of the population in the age class mentioned, in relation to occupation.

IFar Appropriation-Labour
Sources: Figures used in the table are derived from several official sources, including a survey of employment as at January 30, 1943, made by the Department of Labour; figures compiled by the Department of Munitions and Supply; and figures gathered by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, through the census and otherwise.
Basis: The following explanations regarding the basis of classification will be helpful in interpreting the table:
1.	In section I "Armed Forces", figures used refer to those in the forces on January 30 last.
2.	In section IIA, "In Industry", figures given under (a), (b), (c) and (d) correspond respectively to classes A, B, C and D in the labour priorities system. B. "In Agriculture", as will be seen, includes only male agricultural workers, including farm operators.
3.	In section III, "Farm Women" are set as a class apart, since much of the work of women on the farm goes beyond ordinary housekeeping duties, especially at busy seasons.
4.	In section IY, all students. 14 or over, even though they work during holiday seasons, or engage at part-time work at other times. "Other women (including non-farm housewives)" wpuld be largely housewives, not gainfully employed. Wives in gainful employment are included in II, "In Industry".
5.	"(e) Employable men temporarily not at work", includes those seasonally unemployed and those in process of changing jobs at January 30.
Priorities: In examining the table, some of the difficulties of attaining precision when applying priority tables to large numbers of workers, might well be borne in mind. The following illustrations will indicate a few of these difficulties:
Manufacture of a given article for the armed forces would carry a high priority-if for civilian consumption, a low priority. Hence, an estimate of those on high priority work and those in low priority work, within the same plant, must be attempted.
Retail stores in general may rate a low labour priority. If, however, labour shortages threatened to interfere seriously with the distribution of important civilian supplies, a temporary rise in the priority would be indicated.
It is not simple to determine, in all cases, what are "essential" civilian services. Of two services, perhaps one may be dispensed with, providing the other remains: both could be spared only with interference with war production.
Other illustrations might be cited, but the foregoing will serve to emphasize the difficulties in assessing the relative worth in relation to the war effort, of particular lines of employment.
Comparisons: The table makes comparisons for August 31, 1939; June 1, 1941; and January 30, 1943.

DISTRIBUTION OF CANADA'S HUMAN RESOURCES, 14 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER (Estimates, given in thousands, are from various official sources)
	August 31,1939			June 1, 1941			January 30, 1943			Percent total
-										to
Males	Females	Total	Males	Females	Total	Males	Females	Total	grand total4,289	4,026	8,315	4,385	4,131	8,516	4,480	4,240	8,720	% 100 010	10	305	1	306	625	20	645	7-43,350 1,900	750	4,100	3,333	845	4,178	3,310	1,152	4,462	51-2750	2,650	1,693	805	2,498	2,290	1,152	3,442	39-5420	40	460	820	216	1,036	11-9683	406	1,089	12-5295	279	574	6-6492	251	743	8-51,450	1,450 925	1,220	1,220	1,020	1,020	11-7925	875	875	830	830	9-5929	2,351	3,280	388	2,110	2,498	301	1,938	2,239	25-7288	302	590	261	309	570	6-5(b) Other women (including non-farm house-	1,808	1,808 100	1,629	1,629	18-7(e) Employable men temporarily not at work V. Unemployable, including persons in retirement and	100	40	40	0-5359	300	659	244	300	544	6-2Summary	10	10	305	1	306	625	20	645	7-43,350	750	4,100	3,333	845	4,178	3,310	1,152	4,462	51-2925	925	875	875	830	830	9-5929	2,351	3,280	388	2,110	2,498	301	1,938	2,239	25-7359	300	659	244	300	544	6-24,289	4,026	8,315	4,385	4,131	8,516	4,480	4,240	8,720	100 0
Personnel in the armed forces shows an increase to 696,000 in May, 1943.
N.B.: Analyses not available for entries left blank.
War Appropriation-Labour

War Appropriation-Labour
National Selective Service (Civilian) Operations
Separations from Employment Notified, and Permits Issued September 1, 1942, to May 27, 1943
(Present permit regulations became effective at September 1, 1942)
Separations	Males	Females	TotalNotified by employer	
393,979	123,138	517,117Notified by employee	
664,757	252,340	917,097Total	
1,058,736	375,478	1,434,214'Permits to leave agriculture and to	accept	other	employment (temporarily)	
100,817	3,824	104,641Permits to seek or enter employment....	
1.552,613	755,582	2,308,195'Virtually all permits were cancelled or expired and holders	returned to agriculture, on	resumption of spring farming operations.	Placement Operations of Employment and Selective Service Offices	Table I	Applications, Vacancies and Placements	May 1, ;	1942, to April 29, 1943	Applications	Vacancies	PlacementsProvince	for employment	notified	effectedPrince Edward Island	M	5.310	2,724	3,108F	2,337	1,077	982T	7,647	3,801	4,090Nova Scotia	M	65.463	75,749	45,462F	27,825	24,724	18,360T	93,288	100,473	63,822New Brunswick	M	46,852	54,893	31,768F	18,160	15,770	11,638T	65,012	70,663	43,406Quebec 	M	451,774	467,135	249,122F	174,735	188,200	105,548T	626,509	655,335	354,670Ontario 	M	512,903	502,853	343,386F	299,952	291,144	198,396T	812,855	793,997	541,782Manitoba	M	82,316	64,810	44,555F	53,700	41,363	32,118T	136,016	106,173	76,673Saskatchewan 	M	46,780	40.505	26,354F	30,645	23,851	18,508T	77,425	64,356	44,862Alberta 	M	81,092	73,631	54,511F	45,073	34,104	26,292T	126,165	107,735	80,803British Columbia	M	175,719	190.826	124,600F	841994	76,783	55,791T	260,713	267,609	180,391Canada	M	1.468,209	1,473,126	922,866F	737,421	697,016	467,633T	2,205,630	2,170,142	1,390,49972537-250	REVISED	EDITION	
War Appropriation-Labour

Placement Operations of	Employment and		Selective Service	Offices	
	Table	II			
Vacancies Remaining Unfilled, by		Industries, at April 29,		1943	
	(All Canada)				
			Number of vacancies unfilled		
Industry	For males For females	TotalAgriculture 	412	4,711Pishing, hunting and trapping	... 74	2	76Forestry and logging	
Mining:	... 22,141	34	22,175Coal	... 2,337	11	2,348Oil, gas wells and quarrying	... 333	8	341Other mining	... 2,601	66	2,667Manufacturing:	Animal foods	.. . 1.470	740	2,210Leather and fur products	. .. 1,216	1,299	2,515Vegetable foods	... 2,628	1,413	4,041Other vegetable products	... 1,296	1,827	3,123Pulp and paper products and printing	... 2,618	1,692	4,310Sawmills 	... 3,116	102	3,218Other wood products	... 2.147	729	2,876Textile products	... 3,901	8,040	11,941Iron and its products	... 23,795	10,924	34,719Non-ferrous metal products	... 3.944	1,598	5,542Non-metallic mineral products....	... [DOT] 1,828	304	2,132Chemical products	... 3,061	643	3,704Miscellaneous products	... 808	921	1,729Electricity, gas and water supply.	... 914	50	964Construction:	Building 	... 15,490	140	15,630Highway 	... 1,754	55	1,809Railway and all other	... 1,590	28	1,618Communication 	... 617	517	1,134Transportation:	Air 	... 1,038	192	1,230Railway (including express)	.. . 4,643	248	4.891Water	... 2,291	70	2,361All other	... 3,786	131	3,917Trade 	... 8,394	4,882	13,276,.. 1,149	674	1,823Services:	Business	.. 576	369	945Hotel and restaurant	... 3,818	7,760	11,578Professional and public	,.. 6,169	4,114	10,283Recreational 	... 808	412	1,220Domestic 	.. 373	4,839	5,212All other	..	,.. 2,741	2,613	5,354139,764	57,859	197,623
Unplaced applicants, April 29, 1943:
Male, 48,543; female, 28,186; total, 76,729. 
72537-250}
REPORT ON NUMBERS OF MEN DEALT WITH UNDER VARIOUS PHASES OF TRANSFERS OF LABOUR (Excluding Placements made in ordinary course, by Employment and Selective Service Offices)
(Figures cover March, 1943, to June 12, 1943, except in cases of compulsory and coal orders, on which see footnote)
-	Total Transfers	1st and 2nd Compulsory Orders	Coal Order	Conscientious Objectors	From Armed Forces	Farm Workers Returned to Agriculture on Cancellation of N.S.S. Permits131,535	18,658	1,916	4,747	6,214	100,000113,672 109,775 1,015	2,397 156	314	4,747	6,214	100,0003,847	5,772	100,000259	314	442	68	68	ISO	180	2,634 12	1,734 12	900*	
5,663 3,647 8,132	5,663 3,647 6,939				
(5) Given permits to return temporarily to previous employment by reason of being returned soldiers, or of having dependents				1,193			
(a) Available for transfer (but given temporary permits at previous	5,476	5,476	(b) A v aiting further particulars from Registrar; appeals pending, etc..	1,463 409	1,463	409	
* 900 conscientious objectors are in work camps.
Note:-1st compulsory employment transfer order was announced on May 5, 2nd on May 15: the 2nd had not closed at June 12, the date of the above compilation. The coal order was announced on May 17,1943.
War Appropriation-Labour

SUMMARY OF MOBILIZATION STATISTICS (March 20, 1941, through April 16, 1943)
Table I shows medical examination, postponements and military training.
The difference of approximately 380,000 between the number of men sent notiees-medical, and the number examined, is accounted for by notices undelivered, men who joined the forces voluntarily either before or on receiving notice-medical, men sent notices to whom the regulations do not apply, and some defaulters. Men registered from January to March 15, 1943, as not receiving notice-medical (see Table II) narrows the difference between notices sent and men examined. But without doubt voluntary enlistments account for a very substantial portion of the total difference.
The reduction of approximately 319,000, in the number called for military training, compared to the number examined, is accounted for by men being medically unfit, men being granted postponements-and
again (but no doubt fewer in number) voluntary enlistments. Defaulters would also add to the difference.
Voluntary enlistments, as well as postponements, account for most of the difference of 129,000 between the numbers called for military training and those reporting. Also, of course, some defaulters enter into this phase of the process, too.
Physical reasons, on further medical examination, are responsible for the reduction in the number accepted for training, compared to the number called.
Table II shows the special registration already referred to, and in addition, prosecutions and investigations.
It has not been possible to have carried through the vast amount of clerical work necessary to secure a statistical reconciliation as between the various related totals.
Table I
Medical Examinations, Postponements, Military Training
Administrative Divisions	Medical Examination	Postponements	Military Training	Number Called	Number Examined	Number Requested	Number Granted	Number* in Effect	Number Called	Number Reported	Number Accepted"A" London	
"B" Toronto	
"C" Kingston	
"D" Port Arthur	
"E" Montreal	
"F" Quebec	
"G" Halifax	
"H" Saint John	
"I" Charlottetown	
"J** Winnipeg	
"K" Vancouver	
"M" Regina	
"N" Edmonton	
Total	74,578 189,205 60,008 12,189 210,245 107,883 43,113 33,303 8,167 67,394 72,147 69,000 41,243	43,479 100,747 38,594 7,479 140,508 63,346 29,172 21,743 5,061 43,754 46,394 38,956 29,409	16,522 40,677 20,735 1,974 47,499 25,248 9,780 5,465 3,107 14,303 20,938 18,126 8,850	16,241 30,616 19,351 1,759 39,178 17,732 7,496 5,173 2,668 11,772 18,408 11,829 8,327	7,303 14,113 14,290 868 15,908 11,855 3,898 4,061 1,794 7,213 8,555 4,615 6,500	18,636 54,460 17,096 4,271 69,450 20,524 14,826 10,666 2,891 15,340 23,741 20,729 16,914	12,466 30,013 7,766 3,159 32,116 13,225 10,830 7,999 1,738 9,904 10,856 11,396 9,194	9,436 22,658 6,238 2,297 25,934 10,846 7,662 5,825 1,255 7,916 9,222 9,975 7,699988,475	608,642	233,224	190,550	100,973	289,544	160,662	126,963
* As of June 1, 1943.

g
g

Co
War Appropriation-Labour

War Appropriation-Labour
Summary of Mobilization Statistics as of June 4, 1943
Table II
Registrations of Men who had not Received Notice-Medical, Prosecutions for Non-Compliance,
Police Investigations
Number of men registered Jan. 1, to March 15, 1943,
Administrative as not having received divisions	Notice-Medical
"A" London	 6,174
"B" Toronto	 24,994
"C" Kingston	 4,399
"D" Port Arthur		4,373
"E" Montreal	 23,741
"F" Quebec	 13,507
"G" Halifax	 9,575
"H" Saint John	 1,302
"I" Charlottetown ....	593
"J" Winnipeg	 10,181
"K" Vancouver	 12,566
"M" Regina	 24,281
"N" Edmonton	 9,287
Total	 144,973
Cases prosecuted for
non-compliance Number of men whose cases are now in hands of
Won	Lost	Total	police for tracing purposes44	5	49	1,20061	3	64	1,21517	0	17	7339	0	9	10570	4	574	2,613219	1	220	5,20015	3	18	48525	1	26	1,1480	0	0	27141	1	142	50467	3	70	6461	0	61	23397	4	101	1,5001,326	25	1,351	14,932


John George Diefenbaker: My first words, Mr. Chairman, must be of congratulation to the minister on the lengthy and complete statement he has made to-day in connection with the man-power situation. With regard to many of the matters of which he has spoken I am in complete agreement with him. In what he hadi to say during his peroration as to production, I know he spoke the views of all Canadians in that we are proud of Canada's record of achievement. However, I cannot agree with him when, in expressing his viewpoint in regard to the man-power situation in Canada, he used words to the effect that we have the best man-power policy that can be devised. In the use of those words, having regard to the conditions which have prevailed during-


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is laughing, himself.


John George Diefenbaker: I have to laugh at that description. In regard to conditions prevailing in industry, shortages of man-power on the farms and the man-power situation in general the minister's opinion seemed to be that the steps taken were the best which could have been taken. That statement is a fine example of extravagance in overstatement. Great things have been done. The mobilization of Canada is something of which we are all proud. That is the attitude I have taken at all times, that when the government or the people of Canada are entitled to commendation, they should receive it.
The minister placed on record the numbers of men who are serving overseas to-day in the
various forces, and the number engaged in industry. To keep the record clear, it would be well to point out that at the time of the last war, with a population some forty-two per cent less than it is to-day, we enlisted 628,462 men for our armed forces, of whom 424,589 went overseas. As I listened to the minister to-day, I felt that in many respects he was apologetic for what he would like to carry into effect, namely, a system of selective service whereby men mobilized in Canada would be available for service at any point in the world. But that is denied to him because he and those associated with him have been shackled by considerations concerning which no further reference need be made.
The minister referred to a matter which I have raised on more than one occasion, namely, the need for equality of call and equality of administration of the National Resources Mobilization Act in every part of Canada. The answer he gave to-day does not meet the situation revealed by the records issued by the government. I am not going into detail in that connection, but I would1 refer the committee to Canada at War, in the February issue of which is set forth in detail the record of call-up in the various parts of Canada. I raised this matter in the house earlier in the session, and then indicated what the percentages were. I showed that under the call-up those provinces which were contributing the largest percentage of volunteers were also contributing the largest percentage of men called up for service in Canada under the measure of conscription in effect. The minister's answer to-day is not a denial of the accuracy of my statement, so far
War Appropriation*-Labour

as the percentages of call-up are concerned. London, Ontario, has a tremendous record for voluntary enlistments, and the call-up was 8-52 per cent of the available man-power; that of Kingston was 6'9 per cent; Halifax, 10-54 per cent, and Saint John, 9-89 per cent. On that earlier occasion I referred in detail to the various military districts, and I showed by figures which have not been contradicted that in other parts of Canada, where voluntary enlistments are a great deal lower than in the districts I have mentioned, the call-up was from forty per cent to fifty per cent less than in those districts in which voluntary enlistments were the most.
The minister says that is being corrected. Well, let us have the details. Interestingly enough, when this matter was discussed in the house, government statistics werfe available to the Canadian people, but since then, such information has been deleted from every issue of Canada at War. I ask again, as I asked the Minister of National Defence: Why was that deleted? I ask the minister in charge of the Department of Labour again to have that information restored in Canada at War in a form in which it will be readily available, so that there may be no misunderstanding as to whether or not the serious situation revealed therein that improper and unfair calls were being made has been terminated. If it has, then I will be the first to commend the government for having done so, just as I condemned the government before for having one system or rate of call in one part of Canada and another system of call in another part.
The minister stated to-day that recently a large number of changes have been made in the matter of compulsorily transferring men for service in various industries. I do not know what the record has been in the last few days, but I do know that up until June 6, 1943, only 9,000 men had been registered under the two orders then in effect. Those orders required that men working in various industries should register. I repeat that only 9,000 had registered, and of those registering, only ten per cent had been transferred. The minister claims that great work has been done by way of compulsorily transferring men to other branches of industry. I repeat that up to June 6 the record showed a total of ten per cent of 9,000.
When I asked the minister a perfectly fair question to-day, as to when the survey was made with respect to man-power, and whether the statements he was making were based upon a recent survey, his answer was that he would not permit any questions at that time. I suggest there is a perfectly good reason why the minister did not want to be asked the

question, because as late as May 4 only a very broad answer could be obtained. Into such an indifferent position had our man-power situation fallen that when the question was asked as to how many men the government expected to get through the registration of men engaged in the industries mentioned in the two orders in council, the reply was, "Unofficial estimates are that the number of men affected are somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000." Had there been any kind of survey up to that time, one would have expected an estimate somewhat close to the facts and the results.
It indicates clearly that up to May 4, 1943, there had been no survey of man-power in Canada. On more than one occasion I, along with other hon. members on this side of the house, have asked the government to let the country know what has been done in connection with the registration of man-power, how many men are available for the armed services, and how many men will be available for industry and agriculture. This is the fourth year of the war, and yet there is no plan today for Canada, in so far as allocation of man-power is concerned.
As a matter of fact if hon. members want to get information in regard to the labour situation, the^ have to go outside the house to get it from officials of the department who make speeches elsewhere than in the House of Commons, and, in the case I have in mind, elsewhere than in Canada. I was in the library yesterday, and I picked up the May, 1943, issue of the proceedings of the academy of political science. A meeting of this organization was held in New York on April 7, 1943, and among those who spoke was the director of national selective service of Canada. Mr. MacNamara dealt with the man-power situation and explained why it was impossible to do many of the things the government would like to do. He set out in detail the policy of the government. My hon. friends on the government side never admit that they have brought in conscription; they do not admit that the present system is a means by which men are forced to volunteer in the armed forces for overseas service, but when the deputy minister of labour was speaking at this meeting he endeavoured to explain to those who were present why it was that Canada did not have selective service by w'hich men would serve all over the world just as they have in the United States. He said:
Canada's armed forces consist primarily of volunteers, but the method of voluntary recruiting is supplemented by conscription for service in Canada.

War Appropriation

Labour
Mark these words:
Since a very large proportion of the draftees enlist for active service anywhere, either before or after their induction into the service, the net effect of our draft is not very different from yours.
At last we have from the mouth of an official of the Department of Labour definite proof of what we have been endeavouring to place before the house on more than one occasion, that Canada has conscription. Apparently he wanted to show that Canada had a plan. He said that from the end of 1940 down into 1941:
Employers often tried to recruit and train young workers, only to find after a few months that they would be called or would volunteer for the armed services. All of us had our sights set too low. Most employers at this stage, for example, refused to believe that they would ever find it necessary to replace men by women. But Canada's war effort continued to expand without any serious dislocation of other activities by the natural and almost automatic turnover of labour in search of better jobs.
The minister, along with his predecessors, took pride in the man-power plan of the government. We heard that pride expressed in 1940; we heard the' same statement made in 1941 and again in 1942. What does this gentleman say? He said:
There was no central authority directing the movement, no master plan, although conscription and training for war industry had begun.
Referring to the fact that man-power had been lost to agriculture and indicating that there was no plan, he said:
The steady drain of agricultural man-power to the forces and the war industries has thus been checked.
And again, farther along in his speech, he said:
Our present plans through March 31 of next year call for a net increase of over 160,000 men for the armed services, agriculture and war production.
Why is it that we could not be told in this house that 160,000 men are to be required next year when the man who administers this department gives to a gathering in the United States information which has been denied to parliament? I pass on to another statement which was made, as follows:
At the other end, in the less essential occupations, not only will men be called for military service in the regular routine, but substantial numbers of those found unfit or who have previously been found unfit will have to be released by their employers and required to take available' essential work. If this proves to be in agriculture, as we expect in many cases, the difficulty arising from the fact that agricultural wages are so much lower than industrial wages will be met by pointing out that each such man will earn at least as much as in the army.
The whole plan regarding man-power which has been denied to parliament is placed before the academy of political science. I would ask the minister to elucidate this next statement which I am going to quote, because parliament has not yet had this information. He said:
I have ignored many of the details of our regulations-the inevitable exceptions, the provision of travelling expenses, separation allowances and other special allowances to encourage workers to accept distant jobs-
Are separation allowances being paid to-day to men transferred from one industry to another? Are separation allowances being paid to their families? I continue:
-the right given to workers who are transferred to more essential jobs to claim reinstatement without loss of seniority in their old jobs when the more essential work is finished.
Have such regulations been brought into effect? They have certainly not yet been brought before parliament.
I must get on with some other matters to which I wish to refer. All of this indicates that in spite of the fact that emergency regulations have been issued by the department from time to time since March, 1942, we are still in the same position we always were in so far as compulsion is concerned, except with respect to the two groups of occupations referred to in the orders in council issued in May last. Fifteen months ago the Prime Minister declared for a policy of the negative compulsion of restriction. Time has shown that the policy that has been carried into effect has been a positive restriction of compulsion except in so far as it is necessary to force men to volunteer for overseas service instead of adopting selective service. Unless a true form of selective service is brought in, neither the minister nor any department of government will have the power or the support of the people of Canada to move men back and forth from one industry to another regardless of their personal wishes.
All of this was predicted last fall by Mr. Elliott Little when he said that there would still be a few months' grace before the situation became unmanageable. That is how it has worked out. To-day we find ourselves in the position where man-power is not available, not through the shortage of man-power-this was made quite clear some months ago by Doctor Couper of the Department of Labour -but because there is a shortage of the right men in the right place at the right time owing to the failure of the government to adopt a practical policy. Mr. Little recommended many things which were ridiculed at the time, of which some have since been adopted. The
War Appropriation-Labour

events that have occurred since he resigned have entirely justified everything he said at the time. In part he said this:
It might be well to point out that the prospects for the winter are for a continuation of the present situation; that is, for a fairly tight general condition, with some particularly acute local and industrial problems, but not reaching an overall shortage of really critical proportions until spring.
In the same memorandum Mr. Little also pointed out:
Some of the special difficulties which already exist, such as the all-around shortage of ablebodied men, qualified for heavy and relatively low-paid work in the base metal and coal mines, smelters, foundries and steel mills, in branches of the lumbering and agricultural industries, will have cumulatively more serious effects on essential production.
What he said then has come true; what he warned of then has culminated in a situation that is now prevalent in all parts of Canada. Our mines are undermanned, it is admitted now; our farms have been depleted of man-power, so that men shall serve for the defence of Canada but not beyond the confines of Canada. The minister claims that the record to date of man-power on the farms has been a creditable one. But the minister could not assert in the agricultural portions of this country that the policy he enunciated to-day has been carried into effect since March, 1942. The promise was made then that essential man-power on the farms would receive postponement unless the boards were able to establish non-essentiality on the part of the farm worker. The regulations were there, but regulations without enforcement are words without works.
Boards were set up. But those boards did not carry out the regulations. The minister to-day endeavours to put the responsibility on the boards. The responsibility rests upon the government for failure to set up machinery to carry into effect the policy enunciated by the government. All over the dominion the situation has been such that in one province there has been strict adherence to the regulations, while in another province there has been a failure to observe the regulations. That is the reason why two years ago I made a suggestion which I thought would be of assistance. It was that there should be a court of appeal, consisting of a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada not to hear every appeal that would come before it in the ordinary way, but to hear only appeals from persons who believed that the interpretation of the regulations with respect to them was not according to the law of the land, and those persons should only then have a right of
appeal after leave had been granted. If that had been done, there would have been equality of call, and certainly equality of administration.
To-day the coal mining industry is depleted of its man-power, all because there has been no selective service. True, this is selective service in name but not in practice. It is not in effect.
The minister says that the people of Canada as a whole are satisfied with the man-power policy of this government. Let me refer him to what has been said on that point by an outstanding Canadian, the president of the Canadian Legion, who, on June 7, speaking in Edmonton, said:
Apart from certain compulsory man-power measures recently introduced on the home front, we seem to be as far away as ever from a realistic policy of total war and I'm afraid that both our government and people are in for a rude awakening when our army casualties start to come in in earnest.
The problem of man-power is a question no country at war can afford to pussyfoot about, and we know that when the great test comes, it is man-power more than anything else that will tip the scales of victory or defeat.
Are we getting that man-power to-day? Brigadier James Mess, deputy adjutant-general and director of army recruiting, speaking in Toronto on June 18, said:
Every man and woman medically fit is needed in the fighting services. It's just as important to get a girl in the services as it is to get a man. Those in industry may disagree hut every girl or man they lose is no tragedy to them-[DOT] it's an inconvenience.
A process has been going on for four years whereby man-power is subject to the attraction of the armed forces, the attraction of industry or the call of agriculture. The result has been that various ministers have been compelled to admit during the course of the man-power debate that the services under their control are short of the necessary manpower, each minister being in the position of a residuary legatee and receiving only what is left over after the conflicting claims of either armed forces or industry or agriculture have been met.
We are not getting the men. Requisitions for men are made by the defence department. The story is told in the latest return that was brought down on June 17, 1943. Requisitions were sent out for 104,684 men for the army between October 31 and June 17; and how many were secured? The number that answered the call was 52,459, or only forty-three per cent of the number required, and they must have been required or the calls would not have been sent out. Deduct from
'Mr. Diefenbaker.]

War Appropriation-Labour
that 52,459, 17,000 who were medically unfit, and only 35,000 men were actually secured for the armed forces. And it is becoming worse as time goes on. A year ago ninety-seven per cent were secured for the armed forces of the numbers called. That was up until March, 1942. Then the figure dwindled until by December, 1942, it was only fifty-five per cent, and now it is down to forty-three per cent.
I realize that the problem of man-power is an intricate and difficult one in Canada as in all parts of the world. The effort to mobilize for total war demands adequate reinforcements for the armed services; adequate production of munitions; adequate production of food. The numbers in the armed forces are not entirely a matter of military determination. This is a problem in part depending on keeping what the minister called a balance between the various claims for the numbers available. A plan must be established that will meet the demands of each and every one of the claimants for man-power at the present.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: May I now summarize to the committee the points of view which I had been making before the recess. We of the opposition demand in the interests of Canadian unity and of an all-out war effort, first, that there be one equality of service everywhere in Canada, and, second, that under the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act there shall be equality in enrolment and in the administration of the act. I am not going into details with regard to the statement I am about to make, but I have spent a considerable amount of time analysing the figures of the call-up in the various provinces, and I say without fear of contradiction that had there been equality of call in every province in Canada, up until December 1, 1942, there would be no shortage of man-power on the farms of western Canada and the province of Ontario, where I know there are shortages now. The minister has stated that from now on there are to be calls made in the country as a whole. Against that I protest, for in doing that all opportunity of securing equality of call will be denied, and there will be no way in which there can be a check-up to ascertain whether or not the law is being equally applied and enforced.
We demand that there shall be equality of enforcement. The minister produced a lot of figures to-day in a statement of the national selective service on man-power, which I believe he said was being placed on Hansard. That statement, even from a casual perusal, is a kind of mathematical sleight-of-hand. The figures that are given do not, I submit, give the picture as it is.
In connection with the enforcement of the law, a return was brought down on January 29, 1943, in regard to the penalties that had been imposed for infractions of the law throughout Canada. Hon. members will notice that in division A there is only one prosecution, and in division B the penalties run generally from three to six months. In division D penalties consist of one fine of $25 and costs, and sentences of six months and two years in penitentiary. In division E, with the exception of one or two gaol sentences, the penalty for failure to report for military training consists of fines of from $1 and costs to $50, $25 and costs, $5 and costs, costs plus $20 and the like, and the same applies to division F. In other districts you will find the penalties imposed for failure to report are generally gaol sentences.
If there is to be any enforcement of the law there must be such enforcement that, when infractions are ascertained and guilt established, the enforcement will not be so small as to result in penalizing the man who carries out the law. Some of the penalties that have been imposed are unfair and unequal, having regard tfo penalties being imposed in other parts of the country. I say that in certain districts the man who is a defaulter and does not answer the call is actually the better for not having done so. He can earn the wages available to him outside the army, realizing that when he is brought before the court the penalty will be so low as not to amount to a detriment. This unequal enforcement of the regulations in respect of call-up has resulted in a total absurdity from the point of view of the administration of justice in Canada.
The figures that were given in February, while Canada was at war, are figures of the department of information. I repeat what I said on a previous occasion, that, having regard to the statistics given therein, there are to-day in Canada, unaccounted for, or there were in February last, 205,776 men. I put the figures on Hansard earlier in the session. Has there been any enforcement since? Yes, there has been enforcement to the extent of a very few prosecutions, the total number being 1,326. There has also been a promise of immunity,

War Appropriation-Labour

whereby in return for reporting there was to be no prosecution, and the total number that answered the call on the strength of immunity is approximately 7,200.
These statistics, which cannot be denied, show that no serious endeavour has been made to enforce the law. Now then, Mr. Chairman, I put this to you. When there is a law on the statute books which takes from a man the liberty he enjoys of going where he pleases and doing what he pleases in general, and places him in the armed service, and that law is not equally enforced, or at any rate not seriously enforced, the whole administration of justice is brought into disrepute.
Why are not the mounted police used in locating defaulters? Recently the government appointed an institution in Toronto, a credit bureau. It went to work on the matter. I had the figures before me a moment ago, but I cannot put my hand on them just now, but they show that there were located in Toronto or the province of Ontario fewer than 300; and none elsewhere.


Humphrey Mitchell: Three hundred and fifty approximately.


John George Diefenbaker: What a record of enforcement, having regard to the number I have given of 205,000! ISTo doubt quite a number have gone into the armed services, but making due allowance for those that did so, there has been no serious endeavour on the part of this government to enforce the law which it placed upon the statute books.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think my hon, friend is serious when he says that.


John George Diefenbaker: I tried to ask some questions of the minister, and he said he did not want to be interrupted. I am serious when I say that there has been no answer from the minister to the statement which I have made on several occasions, that there is not now, nor has there been, any endeavour-


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to say to my hon. friend that there is, and let that stick.


John George Diefenbaker: I say, there has not been, and there is not now any enforcement of the law in the matter of the National Resources Mobilization Act equally throughout the dominion.
I pass now to another subject. The government has admitted that there must be compulsion in the transfer of labour from one industry to another. The minister to-day pointed to what has been done in that direction. While the statistics which will appear on Hansard would indicate that there has been a large placement, the statistics which I have,

based on returns brought before this house, show that, of the million and many more workers in war industry or in other industry in Canada, no more than 900 have been compulsorily transferred from a less important industry to one of greater priority.
In that connection, the minister to-day placed on the record a plan showing the manpower of this dominion employed in industry and agriculture. That is something we have been endeavouring to get for a long period of time. As late as last January-to be exact on January 14, 1943*-the answer which was given, when the question was asked by the hon. member for Rosedale as to the number of persons engaged in manufacturing industries, was that the information was not available, and would not 'be until the tabulation of the April returns of the unemployment insurance commission; and with regard to agriculture, the answer was given that the last figures the government had were of the census of June 1, 1941.
I commend the minister for having utilized the services of the unemployment insurance and other bodies throughout Canada to secure an up-to-the-minute census showing how many men and women are employed in the various industries, for it is only with such a picture that anyone can arrive at a proper conclusion as to whether or not there is a proper allocation and use of man-power which there should be. I may add that even now there is no control of man-power in Canada under selective service to prevent men from moving backwards and forwards within the same industry or even outside the same industry.
On Monday, June 21, the Minister of Munitions and Supply referred to the changing personnel in the shipbuilding industry. I asked him, as reported in Hansard at page 3839:
I want to know if men are still being called up from these specialized jobs-
That is, in connection with shipbuilding.
-and being put in the army in Canada. If so, how many have been called up from shipbuilding since the beginning of this year?
Mr. Howe: I do not know.
Mr. Chairman, if there is cooperation and collaboration between departments would you expect to receive the answer from the Minister of Munitions and Supply, dependent as he is upon man-power, that he does not know the answer to that question*?


Humphrey Mitchell: I might tell my hon. friend that the best answer is this-


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member for Lake Centre has the floor.

War Appropriation-Labour


John George Diefenbaker: May I finish my quotation?


Humphrey Mitchell: I just want to say this: the best answer to my hon. friend's analysis of the' shipyards situation is this, that we are building more ships in the Dominion of Canada than have been built in the history of this country, and more merchant ships than are being built in Great Britain. These are facts which speak for themselves-ships, ships.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not talking about ships.


Humphrey Mitchell: But I am talking about ships.


John George Diefenbaker: They have the manpower to build the ships. But I am talking about the fact that it is not owing to the minister's efforts that the ships are being built.


Humphrey Mitchell: No; it is owing to my hon. friend's efforts!


John George Diefenbaker: I then asked:
What did the minister mean by the statement he made earlier in the discussion that the proportionate rate of change in the personnel of the shipbuilding yards was too great, or words to that effect? Did he mean that it is difficult to hold the necessary trained men in the industry?
Mr. Howe: No. Men drift from yard to yard to some extent. It is a thing we would like to discourage; we would like to keep them where they are.
The use of the word "drift" does not indicate direction of man-pow.er from one industry into the other.
Just one matter more. There are certain other matters I will deal with later on when the opportunity arises.
I think there should be greater use made on the advisory board of representatives of agriculture and of labour. I am not going to read in detail a letter to Mr. MacNamara; but if what is stated in this letter, dated at Calgary on June 4, from the United Mine Workers of America, from J. Stokaluk, vicepresident, is correct, it indicates this, and it supports what one frequently hears from those engaged in agriculture as well, that their representations are not accepted or heeded by the department administered by the Minister of Labour. This is what this man says:
When I was nominated by district 18, United Mine Workers of America, and afterwards was appointed by your department on the coal mining industry advisory committee, I was under the impression that the duty of this committee would be to advise the director of national selective service on man-power in the coal mining industry.
One would expect that, Mr. Chairman, if he was appointed a member of the advisory board. Yet what happened?
At the last meeting, which was held on May 14, the procedure was entirely changed.
That is, in the matter of discussion and recommendation.
When the committee met in Ottawa on the above-mentioned date, a ready-made order in council was read out to us. A discussion took place and the representatives of the miners unanimously opposed some of the provisions contained in that proposed order in council. After the discussion was over, the committee was not asked for any further suggestions or recommendations as to the man-power in the coal mining industry, and the meeting was adjourned.
Then he says this, I am leaving out one paragraph, because it refers to another matter, unless anyone wants me to read it:
I consider that to bring eight of us to Ottawa for the purpose of reading the order in council to us without considering our opinion and advice was just a waste of time and money. I think the same purpose could have been served if this order in council had been sent to us by air mail, which would have been at the cost of some 56 cents instead of the some thousands of dollars spent to bring us to Ottawa.
The way the committee has been functioning since the first meeting, and particularly the procedure that was adopted at the last meeting, has forced me to come to the conclusion that this committee was not appointed for the purpose of consultation or advice, but for the purpose of being used as a rubber stamp for the policies adopted by the national selective service department.
Having given full consideration to the foregoing, I have no alternative other than to submit my resignation as a member of the coal mining industry advisory committee, believing in all sincerity that the method in which the committee has functioned to date has not resulted in its serving any good or useful purpose.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would ask my hon.
friend to read the letter in reply, just to keep the record straight.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not the
letter in reply. I am placing before the committee-


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend's time is up. I try to be fair about these matters, and I do not think that if I were in his place I would read only the one letter. I think, to be fair and to put the record straight before the committee I would have read the letter in reply.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot.


Humphrey Mitchell: I say the hon. member
might read the reply.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not the
letter.
War Appropriation-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course it suits the
hon. member's political purposes just to read the one letter.


John George Diefenbaker: I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying this, that there would not have been the situation in agriculture which we find to-day, if the representations of the agricultural industry had received fair and proper consideration from the department. I shall be only too happy to read the reply to which the minister refers if he will send it to me.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is tabled.


John George Diefenbaker: According to this
representative on the national coal committee, the government brought him here to face a decision already made without consultation.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Chairman, the committee listened attentively to the statement of the minister this afternoon. It was rather long and evidently, if we are to judge by the criticism of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, it was not satisfactory. I think the position this group has taken in regard to labour matters is that we are not concerned so much with the mechanics of organization, but rather with what we consider the wrong attitude adopted by the government in regard to labour's part in our war effort. I wish to be quite fair with the minister, so that I am going to state at once that he has had a very difficult task with which to deal. If there is lack of organization; if there is confusion and misunderstanding in the Department of Labour-and I believe everj'one agrees there is-I think we can absolve the minister of at least some of the blame, though he must assume a certain responsibility and must be prepared to accept or to listen to criticism in connection with that share of it.
Labour-industrial relations as they exist in Canada at the present time roots from the attitude of the government and1 the business men of this country who have had so much to do with the organization of industry since the beginning of the war. That being so, the government as a whole must accept the major responsibility. The attitude of the government was first indicated very early in the war, when it became clear that they did not realize the importance of labour in the war effort . Let me remind hon. members of what happened. When the war broke out, one of the most efficient and most imaginative ministers in the cabinet, the late Hon. Norman Rogers, was transferred from his position as Minister of Labour to the position of Minister of National Defence. I am not finding fault with the government for shifting a capable minister to

what it might consider a more responsible department, but it indicates a failure on the part of the government to understand the importance of labour in the issues that were confronting the country. The change in the Department of Labour might not have resulted in any great difficulty if the government had appointed a minister who had some understanding of labour matters. Instead of appointing such a man, they appointed a wealthy lawyer. I have no objection to lawyers as a class, though I am inclined to believe that in a cooperative society they would not have any place, because where some one would not be seeking to cheat someone else, there would be nothing for them to do. My point, however, is that right at the beginning, when we ought to have made the best possible start, we appointed as head of the labour department a man who knew very little about labour and who had no associations with the organized labour movement.
So that from the very beginning the workers have not been considered as human beings or as members of the community entitled to a voice in determining the conditions under which they would work. Not only have they not been considered entitled to a voice in determining, working conditions; they have not been permitted to have a voice in determining direction of policy. The hon. member for Lake Centre referred to the matter of labour representation on war boards. The Minister of Labour says that labour is represented. I have stated1 previously in this house that to the extent that labour was represented on any board, it was merely a token representation, and it was never intended that labour should be consulted. I think the proof of that statement is to be found in the fact that when the first order in council was passed freezing wages, the national labour council, which was then in existence, was not even consulted, though the order in council materially affected the conditions of labour.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know my hon. friend does not want to convey a wrong impression, but I was secretary of the national labour supply council at that time, and I have a vivid recollection of the consultations that took place with respect to the provisions of the order in council stabilizing wages. I am not suggesting that the opinion was unanimous.


Angus MacInnis: I have placed these facts on record previously. I have not the facts before me at the moment, but it was quite clear that labour was not consulted in that instance. As a matter of fact I do not think labour knew anything about the matter until the Prime Minister made his radio address announcing the policy.

War Appropriation-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member was
talking about the labour supply council, and that is what I am referring to. I do not say a general convention was held. If I remember correctly, there were at that time on the labour supply council Tom Moore, Mr. Mosher, Jack Bruce and, I think, Howard Chase, though I may be mistaken, and they were consulted. I am not going to say that they agreed with the government policy, but they were consulted.


Angus MacInnis: Well, we will not argue the point; I shall bring the evidence here again. I suggest to the minister that he was insistent he should not be interrupted during the course of his speech, so that he might allow me to carry on with what may be distasteful to him, since I allowed him to carry on with what was distasteful to me.


Humphrey Mitchell: Very well; I am sorry.


Angus MacInnis: Of course to anyone who
has had anything to do with the labour movement in this country that attitude is quite understandable. Neither the government nor business in this country has got away from the old-fashioned idea that labour is a commodity, that its price can be regulated by the law of supply and demand. They may think it is unfortunate that the individual, in which labour power or the labour commodity is embodied, has to. go around to deliver it. So far as they are concerned the individual workman is merely the wrapper in which the commodity is contained. Until we get away from that point of view and consider the workers as human beings, as members of the community, as people who are interested in all the affairs of our society and who should be consulted at every turn, conditions will not improve. I say that because to-day workers are the most important people in society.
Instead, then, of appointing a lawyer to the Department of Labour, the government should have endeavoured to get someone as head of that department who would feel about it, and the factors with which he had to deal, in much the same way as the Minister of Finance feels about financial matters, the Minister of Munitions and Supply about the organization of production, or the Minister of National Defence about military affairs. If we had something like that, there would be someone in the department who would stand up for labour, and I am satisfied we would not be in the difficulties we are in to-day.
Instead of that, however, the Department of Labour was a sort of Cinderella among
government departments, and to-day we are paying for that view. The Department of Labour and the minister are paying the price in inefficient organization. The other departments took the cream of the executive staff available before the* needs of the Department of Labour were realized. I am satisfied that in no department of government is it more important to have a specially trained personnel than in the Department of Labour. That department, more than any other, deals with the human factor in the war effort.
This afternoon the minister took up most of his time in dealing with the government's man-power policy. There are two aspects of the problem, namely the policy itself, and the administration of that policy. As I said before, the government as a whole must accept the responsibility for the policy, and at the most the Minister of Labour can be held responsible only for its administration. I consider that from the beginning of the war our labour policies have been wrong on account of our attitude toward labour. They have been wrong in another way. We have never come to a decision as to what portion of the labour force in Canada should go into the armed forces, and what portion should be available for production.
It is true that man-power policy cannot be static. It changes with developments in the military situation. I am convinced that at the present time the emphasis on man-power in Canada should be placed on production, rather than on men for the armed forces. Speaking in the house a week ago, the Minister of Munitions and Supply pointed out that only one-third of Canada's war production is for our own military forces. Consequently two-thirds of our production goes to the other united nations. I believe the Minister of Munitions and Supply put the case for what I am now saying when he spoke last year in one of the debates. I find these words at page 3371 of Hansard of June 16, 1942:
In deciding our man-power policy we must consider whether we can contribute more to victory by continuing to be a principal source of munitions and supplies for the united nations, or whether we can make our greatest contribution by limiting our production in order to send overseas every physically fit man. ... It seems to me that our whole ivar effort is being distorted at the present time by the undue emphasis now being placed on men for the army overseas.
Then he continued:
I base my view's on the fact that the supply of man-power for the armed services and for war production is not unlimited.
Canada is not the only country which finds itself in a position where demands for manpower may have to be met even by shifting
War Appropriation-Labour

men from the armed forces. I hold in my hand the Commercial Intelligence Journal of June 12, 1943, in which is a report on conditions in New Zealand. It is credited to Mr. C. B. Birkett, Canada's acting trade commissioner in that country. He points out that in New Zealand they have come to the conclusion that they have put too many men into the armed forces, and that it may now be necessary to take men from the armed forces into production, if production is to be kept up. After pointing out what' New Zealand has done in connection with supplying men for the armed forces, he says:
While this effort has been a splendid one, the opinion is generally held that New Zealand is over-committed in regard to the supply of men for the forces to the extent of seriously endangering production levels and the maintenance of public utilities. Much hardship has been experienced in the past year from the reduction of office and factory staffs, and of available farm labour. The loss of man-power to the railways, postal services and electric power schemes, despite the employment of women, has been particularly serious. Efforts to remedy the situation without interfering with established programmes, such as a transfer of over 6,000 men from non-essential to essential work and a return of between 8,000 and 10,000 men from the army to work on the farms, have proved inadequate.
I think we may have to change our minds in the matter of man-power in the interest of our war effort. That is, if our armed forces and our production are to be used to the greatest advantage in the global war in which we are engaged. We are all agreed that production in Canada has been large in comparison with the population of the country. We are a considerable distance from the theatres of war, and there are millions of men in the united nations who are ready to fight if they are given the arms, equipment and food necessary to carry on. If Canada can make a better effort by supplying these things, I think it would be the part of wisdom for this government and this parliament to direct our efforts in that direction.
For a few minutes I should like to refer to employer-employee management committees. On April 15 a return was made, I think in response to a motion made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, giving the number of plants in Canada in which there were production committees. The return states that the number of firms having established committees is 851, and the total number of employees of such firms is 486,896. I do not know what means the department had at their disposal to get this information, but after questioning employees of some of the firms whose names appear on this list I am doubtful if there are

management production committees in many of the plants mentioned. I have information from Massey-Harris, Toronto, that there is a production committee in name only. The de Havilland aircraft, Toronto-tentative agreement between company and union to establish committee; still negotiating agreement, but no committee established. Wilson Motor Bodies Limited, Long Branch - discussions taking place, but no committee. Clarke Ruse Aircraft, Nova Scotia-no committee. Chrysler Corporation, Windsor - exploring situation; no committee as yet.
I could give a list of more than a dozen firms, the employees of which gave the same answer-no committee. I am doubtful if there are many real employer-employee committees in Canada. The reason for this is that Canadian employers are opposed to that sort of labour-employer cooperation. There is no doubt that these committees are extremely helpful in improving production. I have in my hand " Labour News from Great Britain," which contains an article by Herbert Tracey of the British trades union congress. He has this to say in reference to employer-employee committees:
As an important aid towards this organization of production, the congress-
That is the British trades union congress.
-welcomed the development of joint workshop and other production committees, and urged that these should be increasingly recognized as an effective means of promoting the maximum output of goods and " services, material and equipment.
At the same time the Scottish congress pointed out that the necessity for maximum effort must not be regarded as applying only to those undertakings directly producing arms and war materials. Industries and services are so interrelated with the war effort that they must all be made to run smoothly if the military and social security of the nation is to be adequately safeguarded.
I note that when Elliott Little became director of national selective service he was anxious that committees of this kind should be established. Probably that is one of the reasons why he could not get along in the Department of Labour. In an address to the Quebec section of the Canadian weekly newspapers' association, held in Toronto on Saturday, May 9, 1942, shortly after he began his work, he had something to say about the opposition of employers to cooperating with labour. He said:
I'll tell you quite frankly that we have been given information about some employers deliberately stimulating the movement of labour to and from their plants with the definite purpose of persuading the government that it was necessary to freeze all labour to present jobs. I have had employers try to sell me on a policy

War Appropriation-Labour
of blanket freezing. In their view, there were advantages-but only until I pointed out that freezing worked two ways: that if you froze labour you not only took the right to quit away from the worker, but the right to fire away from the employer. When they thought about it that way, their enthusiasm for a freezing order disappeared.
I think it was the hon. member for Cape Breton South who mentioned in the house the other evening that in nearly every strike that had taken place in this country since the war began, the workers had not gone deliberately on strike. In nearly every stoppage of work they had been manoeuvred into such action by means of tactics such as were referred to by Mr. Little in that speech. Having referred to the ways and means of organizing production, he said:
Do not mistake what I am talking about. By better employer-employee relations I do not mean a concession to the workers here, a privilege there, such as a cup of tea at four o'clock. Those things have their place. I am talking about the whole broad field of personnel management which boils down to mean the best possible personal relations between management and the employees. The workers I meet and have worked with do not want employers to hold their hand. They simply asked to be treated as you want to be treated-as an adult and a responsible citizen.
That is the very thing the government has been loath to do; it is the very thing that employers have refused to do.
Continuing, Mr. Little said:
Better employer-employee relations can produce more tanks, planes, and guns; they will help sell war savings certificates, they will put over the victory bond drives. Secured now out of this struggle for our lives, it should be obvious to the dullest mind that they can be made the foundation of our industrial and social reconstruction in the post-war period.
The people that Elliott Little had to deal with were not people who could see as far as the post-war period. They could see only as far as the interests of their own immediate industry were concerned, and they were very much afraid that if they had to cooperate with labour during the war, it would mean that they would have to cooperate with labour after the war, and that is the last thing they hope will come out of the war.
The minister quoted from Ernest Bevin this afternoon. May I make a brief quotation from a speech by Ernest Bevin, which can be found on page 127 of the collection of his speeches entitled "The Balance Sheet of the Future"? Mr. Bevin states there:
This task of winning the war means you have to call for the utmost ingenuity you can get from the people, for every ounce of ability they have, for the willingness and courage to take decisions, to make them indifferent to enemy action and carry on. I do not believe you can do that with orders from the top.
Every attempt to get anything out of the workers in Canada since the war began has been made by orders from the top.
The minister this afternoon devoted very little time to the matter of labour organization and the difficulty that labour has to get recognition from employers in industry. The only reference he made to that subject was, I think, that the right of labour to organize is fundamental. If the right of labour to organize is fundamental-


Humphrey Mitchell: I was dealing there with selective service, which is mentioned in the estimates. I thought management and labour could be dealt with in the discussion of my estimates in supply. I just wanted to make that clear.


Angus MacInnis: That is all right. But it is nevertheless an exceedingly important matter. May I ask again, if the right of labour to organize is fundamental, and if that right is recognized by the government as fundamental, what is it that is preventing labour organization? I asked the minister the other day about the lay-off of men at the Rand-Ingersoll company plant at Sherbrooke.' In replying to the question the minister said there was a report that the men had been laid off-note this-on account of trade union activities. These men are engaged in war work. I believe that they are producing engines or the material for engines for our cargo ships or it may be naval vessels. Whatever may have been the reason why these men were laid off, the fact of the matter is that the lay-off did not begin until the men began to organize, and the lay-off took place only in those parts of the plant where the men were organized. Ever since the war began, it has been the same story in almost all of Canada's war industries. In every one of them where to-day there is recognition for labour, that recognition has been attained only after a struggle and often by the threat of a strike. I have before me the submission of the Montreal Aircraft Lodge, 712, of the International Association of Machinists, to the national war labour board inquiry, and I think it would be interesting to read just one short paragraph, which is illustrative. When I read it the committee will have a picture of every submission made by every labour organization which appeared before the national war labour board. This is what it says:
We set about organizing the plant, and then asked the company to negotiate an agreement with our organization, similar to that in force in our other plants. This the company refused to do, and on September 26, 1941, we applied for a hoard of conciliation. At that time, practically 100 per cent of the employees in this plant "were members in good standing of our
War Appropriation-Labour

organization. On one pretext or another, under the guise of attempts by the Department of Labour to "conciliate" the dispute, the board was not established until May, 1942.
Remember, the application for a board was made in September, 1941, and the board was only granted in May, 1942. The submission continues:
In the interval, the company had used every trick, including intimidation, mass lay-offs, and the use of the company-union set-up which existed in the car-building section of the works, to destroy the organization. When we complained recently in a letter to the Prime Minister of the dilatoriness of the department in establishing this board of conciliation, the minister defended himself by stating that our organization had agreed to the delay in that we had concurred with and participated in the conciliation efforts of his department. We can only conclude that the minister took our failure to go on strike illegally during this period as a sign of agreement with the delay, because we used every other form of representation known to us to constantly urge the speedy settlement of this matter, and complained many times of the delay.
Could anything more clearly illustrate that if the right to organize is a fundamental right, the workers in Canada are denied that fundamental right?
Earlier in the session, when I spoke in this house on some other matter, I pointed out that the government took the same attitude in those industries under its own control, and that it was not until December, 1942, more than three years after the war began, that the right of labour to organize was accepted in these crown companies.
I see my time is about up, and I will conclude with this. In the submission made to the war labour board by Mr. A. R. Mosher, president of the Canadian congress of labour, he makes this statement in reference to order in council P.C. 2685, which declared the fundamental right to organize:
It was also ignored by the government itself, as organized employees of crown companies were not permitted to negotiate with the managements or these companies although they were under the direct control of the government. However, after strikes had been threatened in several crown companies, order in council P.C. 10802 was passed in December, 1942, permitting the employees to join unions and permitting the managements to negotiate collective agreements. In spite of the recommendations made by tlie congress to the government the order does not yet apply to the^ Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the National Harbours Board.
_ I would suggest to the minister that if the right to organize is a fundamental right, he as Minister of Labour has the bounden duty to see that labour is protected in the exercising of that fundamental right.


Mr. HANSELL:: I listened with a good deal of interest to the minister's statement this afternoon and in commenting upon it now I have no wish to traverse the universe. I shall direct my attention to one particular subject about which the minister did not say a great deal. I notice, in the little programme that has been given to us in order that we may pursue an orderly discussion, that there are about twenty-two items constituting an expenditure of about 821,500,000. I am quite certain that when we get through with these twenty-two items we shall have pretty well exhausted the administration of the Department of Labour.
The item which I wish to discuss does not seem to appear anywhere on this programme. About a month ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) issued what was known as a statement recognizing that a national emergency existed in connection with the fuel supplies of Canada. About a couple of weeks ago, on the orders of the day, I asked whether the Minister of Labour would care to make a statement informing the country what progress was being made with respect to this national emergency. He rose and made some little statement that did not amount to anything, and I suggested to him. that if he could not make a statement, then it would be all right for him to do so in a few days' time. A couple of weeks have now gone by, and when he made his speech this afternoon he seemed to have forgotten somehow or another that this national emergency existed, because it is the only national emergency we have, or the only one that has been announced apart from the obvious emergency of the war, and yet he made only a passing reference to it.
I shall have something to say with reference to the announcement of that national emergency. If we think deeply enough into this whole matter of the national emergency on account of the fuel, supply we shall recognize, I believe, that the only reason why there is such an emergency in Canada is that the present Liberal administration of Canada were unable to see far enough ahead, or else they closed their eyes to that which was very obvious. In respect of the announcement of a national coal emergency, I think it would have been proper to announce that there was a great Liberal administration emergency. I suggest that judgment should begin at home, where it belongs, and it would have been fitting for the Prime Minister of Canada to announce this and to say: We did not foresee this, or our expert advisers did not tell us this would happen, and now, by reason of

War Appropriation-Labour
our lack of foresight, I have to announce a national emergency on account of the shortage of fuel.
I had something to say about this last night when I asked the Minister of Munitions and Supply a question or two, in reply to which he said that he recognized' the seriousness of the present fuel situation in Canada. I have reason to believe that the situation is serious, and I believe that the people of Canada should be told immediately and should foe given a comprehensive picture to show, exactly how the situation stands to-day.
As I see it, the supply of coal falls very heavily upon, shall I say, three categories. We must supply our armed forces with the fuel, the coal, they need. This includes not only the army camps and so forth, but the fuelling of ships. I think the minister should tell us something about that. He rose a little while ago, interrupting a previous speaker, and asked: Does my hon. friend know that we are building more merchant ships in Canada to-day than ever before, even more than Great Britain? That being the case, might I also add that these merchant ships need coal. Are they going to get it? I wonder what it would mean if this country should suddenly realize that ships cannot sail from our harbours because they have no coal.


Mr. EVANS:: Did the hon. member ever hear of oil burners?


Ernest George Hansell: Who piped up then?


Charles Robert Evans: I asked if you ever heard of oil burners.


Ernest George Hansell: I cannot hear what the hon. member is trying to say. Oh, well, it is all right; I imagine it was not anything very important he asked me anyway.


Charles Robert Evans: You would not be able to
answer it anyway.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was about oil burners.


Ernest George Hansell: I asked the minister about that, and he said that some of the ships were fuelling with oil but that many were fuelling with coal. Perhaps there is an oil emergency too. Does my hon. friend recognize that? Does my hon. friend recognize that Canada has oil, but that it is under the ground and that our administration in years gone by have so lacked foresight that they have not been able to get it out of the ground? Does my hon. friend know that? Not only must coal be supplied to our armed forces, but it must be available to our industries, or the consequences will be serious. The third category is the domestic consumer.
Are the people of Canada to be cold this winter? These are three things the minister should tell Canada: is he going to guarantee that our armed forces, our industrial areas, and our domestic consumers will be supplied?
In respect of man-power in coal mines, I know' of course that the minister appreciates there is difficulty in that regard. But that difficulty would not have arisen if the present administration had taken a long-range view of a proper and adequate national man-power policy. When war broke out, coal miners volunteered for the services. Many of them did so because they could not get full-time employment in the mines; they said, "We will enlist, we can make more money; at least, our families will be cared for. The coal mining industry is too uncertain; it is a hit-or-miss proposition". Accordingly many of our coal miners volunteered. I wonder whether the minister can tell us how many coal miners are in the armed forces, and how many are overseas. I do not believe he can. I challenge him to tell us.


An hon. MEMBER:: Can you?


Ernest George Hansell: No. I am not administering this country.


Humphrey Mitchell: Another straw man.


Ernest George Hansell: We had a national registration some years ago. Men had to report their employment, their trade.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: That was to find out how they would vote.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know whether, when a man joins the army, he states what his civilian occupation is. But if the federal administration is what I think it should be, it should know exactly how many men of the different trades there are in the armed forces, and where they are.
So much for that. Not only did many coal miners volunteer for the armed forces, but many of them went into other kinds of work because they could get more pay there. I know that a great many Crowsnest pass miners moved out to Vancouver or some other coast city and engaged in shipbuilding work. It may have been an admirable thing to do, I do not know; but at the present time we are short of coal miners, and I do not know whether the government intend to urge these coal miners to return to their work. Perhaps they will. What we are now facing is an emergency, and there is compulsion with respect to the moving of men from one industry to another. But if coal miners who left
War Appropriation-Labour

their jobs, sold their homes, pulled up stakes and moved to another part of the country, as I know some of them did, are now to be recalled to go into coal mining, it is only fair that the government should compensate them for loss on the sale of their homes and whatever other expense may have been involved, to the extent of every cent of loss. Another thing the government should do is to assure these miners that when they return they will have proper employment, not only for the duration of the war but after the war. I know that some will say, " How do we know that we shall be able to get markets for our coal after the war?" Well, the greatest market for Canadian coal is right here in Canada, and if this country had a proper national coal policy, every mine in the country could be running at full capacity and employing its full number of miners during peace time.
Another factor which might cause some shortage or accentuate the present national emergency in respect of the production of coal is that much of our coal has been coming from the United States, which is now experiencing serious labour difficulties. What the Americans do is their own business; I shall not say anything about that. But comparatively speaking, Canada has been fortunate in that there has not been more trouble in the coal mining industry of Canada. I am not going to give the Department of Labour or the government any credit for that.


Humphrey Mitchell: We would not expect you to.


Ernest George Hansell: I believe that any credit that is due is coming to our own coal miners. There have been one or two small local upsets, but no general disruption of the industry has occurred, and I believe the coal miners are to be complimented upon the fact.
There is a tremendous man-power problem in respect of this industry, but I am not going to blame the minister for that. It dates from a long way further back than the minister's connection with the Department of Labour. He inherited the situation; it is a baby which was left on his doorstep.


Charles Edward Johnston: And he is not a very good papa.


Ernest George Hansell: He may not be a very good papa. As a matter of fact it was not a very nice baby they left there for him to handle. I am, therefore, not going to blame him so much. It has been said that there has been a sort of bungling man-power policy. I know the minister does not like that term; he has evidenced his dislike of it before. I am not saying that he has bungled; I am saying

it dates a long way back and has its root cause in the fact that the government has been lacking in foresight with respect to the manpower policy of this country ever since the war began.
What was the situation before the war started? The coal mines of this country were operating on part time; men were on relief, and we could not dispose of our coal. Of course we realize that we did not need as much coal then as we need now, but we know also that the United States coal combines held a good share of the Canadian market. Even in those days if there had been a proper national fuel policy, the coal mines of Canada could have been operating at full capacity, and there would have been no need for coal miners to leave their jobs and go into other branches of war industry. But, you see, our governments-not only the Liberal administration of to-day but other administrations in days gone by-seem to have listened to the voice of the big business combines. They have sat at the megaphone and desired to hear their master's voice rather than the voice crying the needs of Canada as a nation.
Since an hon. member across the way interrupted to talk about oil, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the same situation has existed in respect to oil. The other morning we read in the newspaper that a huge oil development was taking place in northwest Canada. That announcement was made by United States army officials. I placed a few questions in that regard on the order paper, as Mr. Speaker likes us to do, and what sort of answers did I get? I asked:
1.	Is there any portion of country in Canada's northwest which is under the control of the United States army, and if so, what portion of territory, and what are the boundaries?
The answer was:
There is no portion of Canadian territory under control of the United States army.
I think there is a technicality here by reason of which the government does not have to answer, yes.
2.	Is there any war-time oil development taking place in the Fort Norman area. . . .
The answer to that part of the second question was in the affirmative; in other words, yes; there is an oil development going on there. Then I went on to ask:
. . . and if so, how many oil wells are being drilled, and is such development being done under Canadian or American military authorities?
The answer was:
It is not in the public interest that the number of wells should be disclosed. The project is being carried out by the United States army with Canadian approval and cooperation.

War Appropriation-Labour
Like other members of the house I become nauseated at times when the government persists in saying that it is not in the public interest to reveal this or that. I see no reason why the Canadian people should not know the extent of the oil development being carried on in the Canadian northwest, but the Prime Minister says it is not in the public interest for them to know. I think it would be a little more to the point if the answer had been:
It is not in the interests of the Liberal party for us to tell the country. Then I asked:
3.	Is a pipeline being constructed in any part of this territory, and if so, is this being done under control of Canadian or American military-officials ?
The answer was:
The construction of a pipeline is part of the project mentioned in the answer to No. 2.
4.	If a pipeline is being built, what is the extent of this pipeline?
The answer was:
It would not be in the public interest to answer this question.
They do not want to tell us if the pipeline is three miles or three thousand miles.
5.	If war-time oil development is taking place in this territory, is equipment and men being supplied by Canadian or American authorities?
The answer was:
Both.
6.	To whom or what firms have the oil rights been sold or leased in this territory?
Well, they open up here just a little. This is the answer:
For many years the Northwest Company, a subsidiary of Imperial Oil Limited, held five leases and one permit obtained under departmental regulations authorized from time to time by order in council. The wells on these have been producing oil supplies for use in the Northwest Territories. These leases and permit now stand in the name of Imperial Oil Limited and that company has obtained thirty-six permits under regulations authorized by order in council P.C. 742, dated January 28, 1943.
To me it seems strange that it should take a Pearl Harbor to bring the United States authorities to explore the wealth of this nation while we could not get any development done in order to supply our own country with oil and gasoline in this emergency. Of course it is no secret; the United States military authorities are doing this work to save themselves, and incidentally we are letting them do it to save ourselves. But what have governments been thinking about in bygone years, that these vast reserves have not been developed for our own use?
Let us get back to the coal mining industry. I believe there are three essential needs to be kept in mind in endeavouring to find a solution of this coal mining emergency. The
first is that there should be made available sufficient man-power to man these mines. I do not think I need to elaborate on that point; the minister recognizes the importance of it. A second very important point in the solution of our national coal problem to-day, as I see it, is that there should be an orderly and adequate supply of necessary new equipment for the purpose of expanding our coal mining industry, if possible. I should like to say just a word about that. Last night I asked the Minister of Munitions and Supply if he had subsidized any coal mining industries in order that they might expand their plants. His reply was in the negative, but he went on to say that if any coal mining industry thought it could expand its plants, he would be the first to help it, and he would not let finance stand in his way, that it would have his assistance in doing so. Well, I was very glad to hear that statement, so that I asked the minister what procedure it would be necessary to follow. His reply was, "Just let the secretary of the coal mining company write the emergency coal production board." That is all right Mr. Chairman; but once again, as you see, the coal mining industry has to take the initiative; some secretary has to do it. Surely, if there is a fuel emergency in Canada, the government must accept some little responsibility in taking the initiative in that regard. These coal mining companies may or may not make application, but while they are making application, that does not help solve the immediate problem. Some expert has to go out; some engineer has to survey. They have to make their report. The matter must go through the various channels of red tape, and perhaps this coal mining company will be able to expand a little next fall, or a couple of years afterwards, I do not know when. Certainly something should be done immediately to increase the output of coal in Canada, if that is possible. Let us remember that there must be a time lag in this. The coal mining industry in Canada is not equipped- to put out more coal. In fact, if anything, its coal mining equipment is wearing out.
Another thing is that it must be remembered that the coal mining industry of Canada just cannot perform miracles. There is a third important matter in connection with the solution of the national coal emergency, namely, the* matter of distribution. I refer to a proper, adequate and orderly distribution of coal throughout Canada. I am told that today some shipments of coal are left unloaded in coal dealers' yards. Why? Because manpower cannot be obtained to do the unloading. Yard staffs are being depleted. There may be
War Appropriation-Labour

a man-power situation right there. Demurrage is charged on cars of coal left loaded. Undoubtedly delivery trucks are idle because there is not the man-power required for their operation. All these matters may seem tiny; nevertheless I suggest to the minister that the orderly distribution of coal should form part of the national coal policy of the country. Not only should the coal be got out, and not only should the men be put to work, but there should be supervision to see that it is adequately distributed, so that no city, town or hamlet will go cold this winter.
Before taking my seat I would say that there should be a little more coordination among government departments. When it comes to the man-power problem, as it affects coal mining, I am quite certain one could discover that there is not sufficient coordination among the three defence departments on the one hand, and the Department of Labour on the other, under which the national mobilization board operates. I have a point in mind which leads me to that belief. This is the case of a man who, although in the army, has certain deficiencies which prevent his going overseas. He is serving in what is known as the disposal corps.
I am not sure that I know the functions of that corps, but I would fancy it is sort of a clean-up organization. This man is a coal
miner,	holding his first-class papers. He applied for leave of absence to go back to the coal
mines.	I have regarded this case as a legitimate one, because the man in question had an elderly widowed mother who was in ill health and living alone. His home and that of his mother was in a coal mining town. This man had received a number of leaves of absence. He had gone back to the coal mines, and each time his leave expired he made his report. On a number of occasions leave was extended. This condition obtained until about six weeks ago, at which time, so I am informed, the national resources mobilization board recommended to the Department of National Defence that his request for leave to return to the coal mines be not granted. The result was that he was returned to the army, and so far as I know he is still there.
But what happened? Within a couple of weeks of the refusal of this man's application to return to the mines, the Prime Minister ran to the microphone or to the press announcing a national coal emergency in Canada. Sufely, if it were known to some members of the government that within a few days or weeks we would reach the stage where a national coal emergency would be declared, then all departments of government should have known about it. Surely the mobilization board should 
have known, and a recommendation of that kind should not have been made. This leads me to believe that there is not proper coordination among various departments of government in respect of this matter.
I close by taking just a little legitimate credit to this group, for the stand with respect to man-power it has taken in the past. This is the one group in the House of Commons that has had some foresight, even dating back to pre-war days-and it is the only one. This group has never had to retrace its steps. We have never had to change our policy.


An hon. MEMBER:: You never had one.


Ernest George Hansell: We shall not have to
retrace our steps, and we shall not have to change our policy, because we know where we are going.


Mr. GRANT:: You never had a policy.


Ernest George Hansell: Hon. members across the way may laugh-


An hon. MEMBER:: No wonder.


Mr. FOURNIER:: (Maisonneuve-Rosemont): If we laugh it is because we do not want to cry.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member who might be known as Count Haw-Haw, might haw-haw a little bit. Well, let him haw-haw about some of the things I shall say. It was only a few years ago that this group advised the government it was possible for the country to provide large sums of money.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Twenty-five dollars a month?


Ernest George Hansell: What did my hon. friend
say?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Twenty-five dollars a month?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, twenty-five dollars a month. Mr. Chairman, my hon. friends who cry out in that way should wake up to the fact that we are supplying dozens of times twenty-five dollars a month, and we are supplying it, not to feed the people or to build their homes, but to make munitions of war, necessary as they are, to be sunk to the bottom of the ocean, or blown into the air.
I say to my hon. friends that if it can be done for that, why can it not be done to bring Canada to a place where she will have developed a really Canadian civilization. Instead of that, what did we do?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Talk!


Ernest George Hansell: I will tell you what the government should do; they should hang

War Appropriation-Labour
three brass balls on the top of the peace tower, so that people who pass by may know that we have been put in pawn to the rest of the world! That is what we had better do. We said we could issue money. The government is now doing it. They cried out, "Inflation!" We told them they could handle inflation, by a proper system of price control. "No, no!" said the Minister of Finance, "I will never stand for price control in Canada!" Within a year after he had risen in his place and said that they put in price control. That is what we told them they would have to do, and they did it. We told them they should subsidize industry, and what are they doing to-day? They are subsidizing industry by the hundreds and by the millions of dollars.


Mr. JAQUES:: We said there should be a total war.


Ernest George Hansell: When the war broke out we said that we should not fool ourselves, that this war would be a long one, that we had better organize for total war.


Norman Jaques: Nobody knew where the money was coming from.


Ernest George Hansell: The Prime Minister of Canada was more interested in winning elections than he was in winning the war.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, nonsense.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend may say, "Oh, nonsense," but anyone that keeps half an eye open can see what has happened in Canada to-day. I knew that as soon as this group took a little credit for what it advised the government it would have to do, the pill would be too bitter for some private Liberal members to swallow.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It certainly would.


Ernest George Hansell: I am going to ask the minister to answer this question, to give this country an adequate answer if he can. Is the national coal emergency problem being solved? How is it being solved in respect of manpower, increased output and adequate and equitable distribution of coal? Let us remember that within two or three months cold weather will be upon us and then, if this problem is not solved, it will be an emergency indeed.


Mr. GILLIS:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of attention to the oration the minister delivered this afternoon, and I wish to compliment him upon his presentation. It was as comprehensive a survey of the department as it has been my pleasure to listen to since I have had the privilege of sitting
in this chamber. I say that regardless of the fact that the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty), who is sitting behind the minister, also made some pertinent statements while he was Minister of Labour. I think he laid the founda- . tion for the job the minister did to-day. I am sorry I cannot agree with everything the minister said. I am not going to attempt at this time to discuss the many ramifications of his statement, but for a few minutes I should like to deal with one aspect of what he said.
I believe this is the problem which is causing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and his genial undersecretary the greatest amount of anxiety and is one they would like to solve. Whether they have the authority to put into operation the necessary measures to solve this problem successfully, is a matter that will have to be determined by themselves.
This evening the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) discussed briefly the question of union recognition, a matter in which I am particularly interested. This problem is perhaps in the same position to-day as far as solution is concerned as it was when I first heard it discussed in this house in 1940, except that it may be more complicated. Many of the things that have been done since the outbreak of war have caused considerable confusion, and the complicated machinery that has been set up has retarded any progress in the right direction. For a few moments I should like to take the minister back over the trail and to try to draw the picture as I see it and have seen it for the past three years.
Over the week-end I sat in as a spectator at a conference of some 550 delegates who represented the trades union movement of Ontario. They were attending this conference irrespective of their union affiliations, they represented the C.I.O., the Canadian congress of labour and the A. F. of L. There was a unanimity of opinion because they had a common problem to solve. The thought that was uppermost in the minds of the delegates, section by section, was the establishment of industrial democracy. Democracy is not something that you can discuss in the abstract and let it go at that. We live in a democratic country; we are fighting for democracy and freedom; democracy is something that lives and must be exercised in the lives of the people in all phases of society. These men were discussing the industrial problems of Ontario, and they complained that democracy for the worker did not exist, regardless of all the platitudes the employers of Ontario have put out in advertising, in appeals to workers during victory bond campaigns and so forth.
War Appropriation-Labour

The Department of Labour is simply an instrument of the government to administer policy. I do not believe in pounding the minister or any other official of the department on account of the policy that is being administered. I think that is a wrong attitude to take. Any time I hear anyone saying that we should get rid of the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Finance, I always tell them to leave well enough alone, because every time that is done we generally get someone worse. They never make any improvement. What you must do is to change the policy that is being administered. If you do not do that, there is no use in bringing in someone else thinking he will do a better job.


Angus MacInnis: Is the hon. member suggesting that the present minister is worse than the former one?


Clarence Gillis: I leave that to the imagination of those who are listening. I am not going to make any accusations. I think the initial mistake that was made was to pass order in council 2685, which in very clear language gave the workers the right to organize. That order in council was nicely written, and it is a credit to the Secretary of State since it was during his regime that it was passed. It contained very nice language.


Humphrey Mitchell: I helped to write it.


Clarence Gillis: The minister did a very good job. The mistake that was made in passing this order in council, as well as the other
35,000	orders in council that have been passed since the outbreak of war, was that it was not given legal status. It should not have been left simply as a declaration of policy because it created the impression in the minds of the workers across the country that they had the right to go out and establish collective bargaining based on that order. By giving that order legal status; by making it mandatory, I think you would go a long way toward solving the problem with which we are confronted at the present time.
I have said on many occasions that since the outbreak of the war I did not think there had been a strike in this country where the workers had gone out because they had any desire to participate in a strike. I do not want to go through them all and thresh old straw but if you start off with Kirkland Lake and go on from there and examine all the representations that have been made and travel the road followed by the workers since, you will find that the legislation was the determining factor in bringing about the strike at Kirkland Lake. Although that strike took

place two years ago, I think it is not too late to .point out that if the employers at Kirkland Lake were as loyal as the workers to the interests of this country and had. recognized their responsibility in this serious war situation, there would have been no strike there. The government had appointed a commission headed by the man who now heads the national war labour board, M<r. Justice McTague, and that commission brought in a unanimous report recommending the miners' and smelters' union as the bargaining agency. But the employers at Kirkland Lake defied the laws of Canada and paid absolutely no attention to a government appointed board whose findings were implementing P.C. 2685. That strike was not brought about because the workers wanted to participate in it; they were forced to strike because the employers refused to recognize the laws of Canada and the findings brought in by that government-appointed board. You can go all through the ,piece and you will find that the same situation prevails. There is a reason for it, and this is my own opinion. I honestly believe that the employers in this country are not thinking in terms of winning the war, as the workers are. They are working on a long-range programme, and they are more concerned with their position when this war is over than they are in forgetting their own immediate problems and making an allout effort to bring this war to a successful conclusion as speedily as possible.
I say that the orders in council which form the basis of the government's labour policy are not an accident. They are a formula upon which the employers are working to keep the workers in an unorganized state, so that the employers may be in a position when this war is over, to dictate the labour policy of this country. I am not going to make that statement without qualifying it.
When I use the word "formula" I mean this. The formula upon which company unions were built in the United States for example, has been summed up in a very short sentence, as follows:
The fastest way to retard the growth of the trades union movement is to recognize it in principle, render it impotent, and do not allow it to function, and it will die of its own volition.
That formula is recognized in principle in P.C. 2685, which was followed by P.C. 7440, which partly tied up bargaining rights and restricted the right which had been exercise-able by unions prior to its passage. That order in council was followed by P.C. 8253.


Humphrey Mitchell: By P.C. 5963.

War Appropriation-Labour


Clarence Gillis: No; P.C. 8253 followed
P.C. 7440, and it further extended the restrictions. set up the bonus, and froze all wages at pre-war levels. That was not accidental. These things were well thought out by the heads of certain industries who exercise influence on certain boards. I said I was expressing my own opinion, but my analysis,
I believe, is based on common sense. I think that order in council was designed to keep wages at their pre-war level, so that they will be at that level when the war is over. That is the position the employers want to be in. The order in council means that the bonus goes off as soon as the war is over, but no one has passed an order in council saying that the cost of living will go back to pre-war levels when the war is over. Those wage rates are wage rates that should not be frozen upon any country. That order in council, P.C. 8253, after people had got used to it, slowly but surely prepared the minds of the industrial workers for what I term dictatorship, because when you get persons to accept direction from a certain quarter over a period of time, they gradually cease to struggle against it. The employers of this country realize that from an organization point of view the Canadian workers are in a very weak position. Perhaps only sixteen'per cent of those who are eligible for membership in trades unions actually belong to a union to-day.
Then they reached their arm in and took control over the franchise within the unions in P.C. 7307. I am not blaming the minister for the passage of these orders in council. My accusation is that the influence of the employers was sufficiently strong to have this formula worked out and passed along to someone who administers it. The government, of course, in the final analysis must bear the responsibility. Under P.C. 7307 the Minister of Labour has the right to determine how the vote shall be taken, who shall vote, how the vote shall be counted and scrutinized. There is only one instance that I know of where that power was exercised in a way that was detrimental to the best interests of the workers and to peace, order and good government in the section of the country concerned, and that was in Kirkland Lake, where that privilege was absolutely abused. I am not saying that it has been done since. What I am trying to point out is that every privilege and every right that the unions had under the laws of democracy has been usurped.
Then, of course, section 502A of the criminal code is supposed to give the workers a certain protection against discrimination. I am not a lawyer, but I have seen this issue tried in
the courts and it is impossible to get a conviction against an employer under section 502A. So that there is no protection there.
That formula has destroyed a very important section of organized society, the working people of this country. It is that formula against which I am trying to warn the people of Canada, because once you get a dictatorship over one section of society it is reflected sooner or later on every section. When you allow the liberties of one section of society to be taken away from them unfairly, it is not long before your own turn comes and you travel the same road. The formula that established company unionism I see clearly pictured in these five basic orders in council which frame the policy of the department. Any time the workers have a problem and appeal to the department, the department must take them through that formula. The net result is that frustration and delay occur, and later on the men walk off the job. Nothing else can happen. The steel walk-out was on that basis. After twenty months of negotiations; after travelling through all that machinery, the men went on strike. There is a situation now in Galt, Ontario, which has not yet been settled. Perhaps there have been mistakes on both sides. Nevertheless,, there is a serious interruption of work and a clash there.
The machinery as it exists at the present time makes it impossible to settle the matter, unless someone is big enough to exercise common sense and to say what is the solution of that problem. The solution of that problem is the exercise of democracy, the taking of a vote. That is the answer, and any employer who is not prepared tp accept that principle and to give the workers the privilege of voting on that question is not a democrat and does not believe in the exercise of democracy. I do not care about tags; I do not care what tag they give me-C.I.O., A.F. of L., or Canadian congress of labour. John L. Lewis has taken us around by the ears so much that I do not know' where we stand on these things. I sometimes think I am in the middle of the road, but it is immaterial to me. It is the principles of the organization that I stand for, and regardless of these tags that are hung upon them, the rank and file of the workers in any section of industry, in any of these organizations, are all fighting for the same thing, the right to the means of livelihood. Where there is a jurisdictional dispute I would be prepared to take exactly the same attitude with them as with the employers: You fellows cannot agree among yourselves. Fine. We will take a vote and settle this thing, and it will be settled on the same basis as that on which you elect
War Appropriation-Labour

your members of parliament and other representatives in other departments of organized society. No favouritism. That is exactly the basis on which it should be done. It is simple; it is plain; there is nothing to it. Take this Galt business. I have gone over the reports, both majority and minority reports, and I listened to the discussion on Sunday. It was focussed on that very question, and I think the Department of Labour should take immediate steps to see that the situation is handled in that way.
I am a little bit afraid of the way in which things are going. Labour is not making progress. You are facing a bad situation. The Minister of Munitions and Supply said about a month ago that they were changing their lines of production and that there would be interruption in plant after plant, retooling plants, and considerable unemployment for the next three or four months-that was his statement-and in the meantime, where you throw people from one section of industry to another and attempt to route them around, in an unorganized state, you have a problem on your hands.
The greatest asset you can have is to have your organization set up properly. Suppose you want to change a steel plant in Sydney to-morrow or over at the Sault. Your shortest cut and fastest way of doing the job is to get in touch with the union officials. They will do the job more effectively than anyone else I knojv of. But when you tackle a plant that has no organization, where the workers mill around in any direction, and you send a selective service officer in there, or an official from the labour department, to make that transfer or change, then you have a problem which it will take a long time to solve. You have suspicion and lack of direction. People do not want to move, and there is no direction. But that does not exist where workers are organized. Look at Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain. Why, collective bargaining is considered just as necessary to those countries as the functioning of our parliament here to-day is to us. It is part of the parliamentary set-up of those countries, and it is utilized to the fullest extent. I cannot understand, therefore, except for one reason, why the employers of Canada take the attitude they do in keeping their workers unorganized. There is only one answer, and it is this: I will get as much as I can during the process of winning the war. We will establish our controls in behind the scenes. We frame the policy upon which the workers will be kept disorganized, and when the war is over

we shall be in a position to control not only from the top but from the bottom, through the medium of plant council, superintendents and so forth, and the workers are not going to share in the democracy that we are fighting for overseas to-day. I know the minister is thinking about this. He is a trades unionist of long standing, and he realizes the significance of what I am saying on this question of the right of workers to sit around a conference table and to elect an agent who will sell their labour power to the boss. He said it was fundamental; that it was part of the set-up. Well, then, give legal status to order in Council P.C. 2685 and proclaim it and say that it must be accepted, otherwise there is a violation of the laws of the country. If it can be done with all the other orders in council that have been passed, it can be done with this one. Eliminate these disputes from all sections of the country These men want to elect someone to sell their labour power.
While I am on that subject, the Commercial Intelligence Journal of June 5 had an article from which I should like to quote. In New Zealand it is part of their regular set-up, part of their employment articles, part of their selective service regulations to recognize trade unions. I quote:
Employers in essential industries must notify tile district man-power officer of the names and addresses of all new workers. They are relieved of the responsibility, however, of ascertaining whether a man is a member of a trade union before engaging him. Now all workers in essential industries are to be considered members of an appropriate trade union and notifications to the man-power officers of names of new workers will be accessible to trade union secretaries. If a worker does not pay his trade union membership fee after reasonable requests it may be deducted from his pay.
Those are instructions right from the government to their selective service officers.
Mr. MITCHELL; One has to be a member by law.


Clarence Gillis: That is what I am pointing out, and I think the same thing should apply to Canada.
There is another point I wish to make and I am not saying this for the purpose of arguing with the minister. The minister said this afternoon that within his department labour had representatives on practically every section of the department, administering regulations. That may be true. They may have representatives sitting in; I am not quarrelling with that; but they are not on the basis where they can be considered as representing the viewpoint, the hopes and the aspirations of the organizations

War Appropriation-Labour
that sent them there. They are there in an administrative capacity or in an advisory capacity. They have no say in the making of the law. That is the point I want to make.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not wish to interrupt, but the governor in council and this chamber are the only people who can make the laws. That is fundamental. First of all, you have to be elected, and then of course you have to be called into the government. You have to have the two agencies. I know of no country where an individual belonging to an organization, whether it be employers or employees or farmers, fashions the laws. All they do is merely to advise. The final responsibility for the safety of the state must be with the government and this parliament.


Clarence Gillis: Yes; I agree with that. The minister says he does not know of any country in the world where the laws are made except by members of parliament and the government itself. We are living in one where that is done, right in Canada. That is exactly what I am quarrelling with. Your orders in council that are being passed have the same effect as the statute laws and are not drafted by the Minister of Labour or by any other minister, and they do not come before this parliament for ratification. Your emergency fuel production board formulates laws that will govern the producing of coal; and so on through each department. Your labour representatives are not given that privilege. Industry have their representatives in framing these orders in council.


Humphrey Mitchell: Not as far as my department is concerned.


Clarence Gillis: I am not now arguing with the minister; I do not know. But I am saying that labour is in an unfortunate position from the viewpoint of having any influence in the making of orders in council or of the laws, of having any opportunity of representing their people on that basis. They merely sit in and take whatever laws are framed by the department or its advisers, and they are placed in the position of having to go out and sell something to the workers of this country which they have no voice in determining. In Great Britain the trade union congress officials sit right in with the war boards which formulate war labour policies. Unless the representatives of labour in Canada can perform a similar function, I certainly would not want to be sent by my organization to take a position in the minister's department and have to justify existing orders in council which regulate labour affairs. The minister has many good men in
his department, but these men are placed in a rather impossible position. They are trying to make something work which is not workable, and they are in a sorry position when they face their organizations with a proposition of that kind. Until these fellows are given some opportunity of guiding those who are making the laws through order in council or otherwise, I do not think it can be said that labour has representation on any board that functions, since it has no say in the making of the laws.
Another matter: in making appointments the minister consults with the heads of the congresses, and persons are recommended by these bodies, but when they are taken in here and given a job on a board they are no longer responsible to their organizations. The organization has absolutely nothing to say as to the appointee's activities on the board; yet he has some responsibility to his union. These men should have at least sufficient freedom to give an account of their stewardship to their organizations.


Humphrey Mitchell: Is not the policy of
which my hon. friend speaks the policy as far as the British trades union congresses are concerned?


Clarence Gillis: They go back to their congress.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, no.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, yes; they do.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know whereof I speak. I have gone into that thoroughly; I have also gone into the other matters which my hon. friend has been discussing this evening. With a lot that he has said I agree. But any outside organization cannot in the very nature of things, * under a democratic form of government, be responsible for the fashioning of the laws; that is the responsibility of the government and parliament. This principle is elementary. I know the official attitude of the British trades union congress toward this matter. They send in a panel to the government, and the government picks out the members they want. The final authority is the government; they pick out the member they want on a particular board. From then on he is a free agent. I know what is in my hon. friend's mind. He has the United States viewpoint, with their international trades union movement. Like myself, he was raised in the international trades union movement and probably he has that North American viewpoint. When one talks about compulsory bargaining in Great Britain, my hon. friend knows there is no legal basis for a trade union in Great Britain such as there is in the United States.
War Appropriation-Labour


Clarence Gillis: I understand that. I am not arguing that point. The point I am making is that the British trades union congress have a policy. They have a policy with respect to this war; and when they send Sir Walter Citrine or anyone else to the government with a proposal for the enactment of certain laws or certain policies, he comes back and reports to the congress.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is, as a delegation.


Clarence Gillis: No; they have permanent officials sitting in.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know whereof I speak.


Clarence Gillis: They have permanent officials sitting in framing policies. Bevin is still responsible to his organization. Not so long ago he had some difficulty in justifying certain things which he was instrumental in bringing into the House of Commons. He is still responsible to his organization. These men are not cut adrift.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not going to argue. This is like being in a local union meeting. But if I might put it in this way, my hon. friend is not responsible to the United Mine Workers of America because he, being a member of them, is a member of the House of Commons. I am a member of the International Union of Operating Engineers, but as minister of the crown I am not responsible to that organization. It just does not add up.


Clarence Gillis: I think you are. I think, as members of the trades union movement, both yourself and myself are morally responsible in this house and out of this house to live up to the principles, policies and obligations of our organizations.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is another matter entirely.


Clarence Gillis: No; it is not another matter entirely. I keep closely in touch with what my union is doing, and they keep closely in touch with what I am doing, and any time I rise in my place in the house to make a pronouncement on that industry I am absolutely certain that what I am saying is in accordance with their policy. I hope I shall always retain that loyalty and recognition of the principles of the people who sent me here.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is different
altogether.


Clarence Gillis: In my opinion, when a member of a trades union movement gets away from that principle, he is slipping as far as the movement is concerned.

But I am not going to argue that point. The point I wanted to make was that labour, in my opinion, has no representation on these boards. I look upon them as merely, I do not want to say apologists, for legislation for which they are not responsible. Unless they are privileged to sit in with the minister or with those who are framing orders in council and have at least some recognition or have included in the regulations some of the principles which the organized movement supports, they cannot morally go out and support legislation which completely nullifies the whole work of the movement.
Under order in council P.'C. 5963 the cost of living bonus needs, I think, reexamination. I know the minister is well aware of the fact that it is not uniform, and I do not believe it is possible to establish in Canada from one coast to the other a satisfactory cost of living bonus based on the figures compiled by the bureau of statistics. I think wrhat the minister will have to do is to have a regional cost of living bonus arrangement set up, and when his board is determining wages in a certain section, the cost of living index as applicable to that particular section is the one on which it should base its findings when recommending a cost of living bonus. Go to the eastern end of Nova Scotia and compare the cost of living since the outbreak of war with -what it is here or in certain sections of Ontario, and you will find a great discrepancy. The index as handed out by the bureau of statistics is certainly not applicable to that section of the country.
With respect to labour management committees, I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East that the Department of Labour has missed the boat in not establishing national industrial councils for every section of industry in Canada, as exemplified by the building industiy. That was done early in the war; it has worked out satisfactorily, and there has been little difficulty in that industry. I think the same thing would apply in any branch of industry if they were granted the right of organization-the building industry is organized

and if you had a national council set up, so that you could call in representatives of the unions and of the employers and work out formulas in connection with the re-tooling of plants and the transfer from one kind of production to another. That would be a wonderful thing to have to-day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The present minister was the organizer of that construction council.


Clarence Gillis: I know that, and it is unfortunate that it was not done in every industry. If we could call in representatives

War Appropriation-Labour
of the employers and of labour in the steel industry, for example to work out plans for the re-tooling of plants, the shuffling of employees to other lines of work necessary to the war effort, and so on, it would certainly facilitate the work of the selective service officials.
The hon. member for Macleod spoke at some length on the fuel situation. I am not going to discuss that matter to-night because I went into it to a certain extent with the Minister of Munitions and Supply. I gave him my opinions; I told him what I thought was wrong and what I thought would have to be done to meet the situation. I believe that matter is now entirely in the hands of Munitions and Supply; the Department of Labour has nothing to do with the emergency war production board, so that I am not going to discuss that problem now. However, I would urge the minister to use whatever influence he has in the cabinet to have legal status given to order in council P.C. 2685', and then I would urge that he use every means at his disposal to settle the trouble at Galt. As I saw that situation on Sunday, it may develop into a very difficult matter to handle; many things may happen in connection with it. It is not good enough to say this side was wrong, or that side was wrong. Perhaps both sides were wrong; but still the problem exists; people are suffering who should be working and producing, and the war effort is suffering. Every effort should be made by the Department of Labour to settle the difficulty. It is an unfortunate situation, and the solution is so simple that it is hard to understand why such a situation should be allowed to continue. So that I would urge the minister to do what he can to settle that dispute. Then if he has any influence with national selective service and with the Department of Munitions and Supply, I urge him to exercise that influence to the end that the 289 men who were discharged from the Toronto shipyards and who, in my opinion, were dismissed illegally by their, employer, without consultation with selective service, may be put back at work as key men in a key industry at this time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have read with considerable interest the statements the minister had placed on our desks this evening, and I should like some further information with regard to this summary of mobilization statistics. I think it is somewhat misleading to term this information statistics. For example, the summary states:
The difference of approximately 380,000 between the number of men sent notices-medieal, and the number examined is accounted for by
notices undelivered, men who joined the forces voluntarily either before or on receiving notice-medical, men sent notices to whom the regulations do not apply, and some defaulters. Men registered from January to March 15, 1943, as not receiving notice-medical narrows the difference between notices sent and men examined. But without doubt voluntary enlistments account for a very substantial portion of the total difference. '
Then it goes on:
The reduction of approximately 319,000 in the number called for military training, compared to the number examined, is accounted for by men being medically unfit, men being granted postponements-and again (but no doubt fewer in number) voluntary enlistments. Defaulters would also add to the difference.
I think we should have some further information with regard to the difference of 380,000. A national registration was taken in 1940, when the people in all parts of Canada cooperated generously to give the government the information that was desired, and very large amounts of public money have been expended in maintaining the services. It seems hardly possible that 380,000 men could be notified to report for medical examination without some more definite information as to why they did not report. The figures by administrative -divisions are as follows:
		Medical examination	
Administrative	Number	Numberdivisions	called	examined"A"	London 	
74,578	43,479"B"	Toronto	
189,205	100,747"C"	Kingston	
60,008	38.594"D"	Port Arthur	
12,189	7.479"E"	Montreal	
210.245	140.508"F"	Quebec	
107.883	63.346"G"	Halifax	
43.113	29.172"H"	Saint John	
33.303	21,743<<	Charlottetown ...	
8.167	5.061"J"	Winnipeg 	
67,394	43,754"K"	1 Vancouver	
72,147	46,394"M'	' Regina	
69,000	38,956"N"	Edmonton	
41.243	29.409Total 	
988,475	608.642
As I have said, we would expect an' official document to give more specific information that is contained in this table. For example, I think we should know how many defaulters there were in the 380,000. I should like the minister particularly to give information as to the number of notices sent to men who at the time had been reported killed in action. I have had one case of this kind brought to my attention, and several hon. members have spoken about the same matter. There was one case of an airman who was reported missing and presumed dead. After his mother had received this sad information, a notice came to the home directing this young man to report for his medical examination. Would the minister give the committee the number

War Appropriation-Labour
of defaulters according to administrative divisions, and also the number of notices sent out to men who have been killed or reported missing?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. Before the
minister answers, I should like the opinion of the committee, as it was obtained in connection with the other departments which have been under consideration. The committee seemed to be satisfied with the general discussion we had to-day, which no doubt will be carried on for the first one or two items to be called. I should like the consensus of the committee as to whether or not an item should be called now. I realize it will have to be done as it was done in the other departments. I believe the committee wishes to apply the same principle at the present time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister made a general statement this afternoon, and he has given specific information. Before we proceed to the detailed discussion he should give us some additional information. That is why I raised the question to-night, so that we might have this information available when we come to this particular item.


Mr. SENN:: A number of hon. members are not present to-night on account of an important dinner held in connection with the meetings of the parliamentary association. I am sure some hon. members would like to speak to this question, and I hope the matter will not be closed until they have the opportunity to say something.


Thomas Langton Church: I think we should leave the matter open.


Humphrey Mitchell: To keep the discussion in order, I was going to suggest that I will get the information for which my hon. friend has asked in ample time for him to ask other questions. If, in the early part of the committee stage, we are to go on a roving commission, then we are likely to be here for a month. I thought that to-day and perhaps to-morrow certain members on both sides of the house would make statements. After that, many of the questions they have in the backs of their minds will come before the committee. Then I can have those questions looked into, and answers can be given the next day, the same as the other ministers have done. However, in my opinion it is unwise now to go on a roving commission. If we are to start with the estimates, we should keep them in order, commencing with this sheet, and following in sequence.
I agree with the hon. member for Haldimand that some hon. members on both sides of the house who would wish to make statements are not here to-night.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I believe it is agreed
that some hon. members who would like to make statements on the broad principles of the question are unavoidably absent. It might be well to leave the matter open until tomorrow. It would be well to proceed as we are now doing, and let any hon. member who wishes to speak to avail himself of the opportunity now offered.


Angus MacInnis: This is a regular session
of the committee. I agree with the minister when he suggests that we ought to be prepared to go on with the items. If we are finished with the general discussion, we ought to be prepared to go on with the items as they appear. If members are absent, it is their own fault. They know the house is sitting to-night, and they should be here. Let us get on with the business of the house.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: As the committee
realizes, in respect of the other four departments much latitude had to be given in the first part of the discussion. I understand fully the point raised by the hon. member for Haldimand, when he states that some hon. members to-night are unavoidably absent. They cannot be blamed for that. It seems to me a majority in the committee wishes to follow a certain procedure. I have noticed that officials of departments have had to be brought in at different times to give necessary information to ministers, and that fact must make us realize how difficult it is for the minister to have at hand all the information required. I would assume, however, that there would be a general discussion allowed at least on the first two items before they are passed.


Thomas Langton Church: A number of hon. members on this side of the house did not know the house was meeting to-night, and I suggest we might as well rise and report progress. This man-power question is the most important matter with which we are faced. A discussion of two or three hours would clear up a great deal of misunderstanding.


Mr. POULIOT:: I do not see why the
business of the house should be delayed because some hon. members wish to attend a dinner. That is not sufficient reason. If the business before the committee is of such great importance, why do they not attend the sittings, instead of a dinner? We must be reasonable in these matters. I should hope the fullest latitude would be given hon. members in this discussion.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Only three members of
the cabinet are in their seats to-night. They are just as much to blame as are private

War Appropriation-Labour
members. They were not told that if they were not here this debate would not go on. I noticed that the officials were being brought in, and I was going to say something about it. They should not have been brought in tonight. This matter cannot be rushed, because many hon. members will have something to say. I am not saying anything to-night, but I am going to see that those who1 do wish to speak will have some protection.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend will probably agree that we are the finest parliamentary association in this country.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I believe we should
carry on in the asking of questions and the making of statements.


Thomas Langton Church: I had not wished to take
part in this debate, but I can tell you this, that as one of the private members in the opposition I am very much surprised at the man-power policy of this government. I saw this war coming on in 1936, 1937 and 1938. I proposed that there should be a national selective service registration, because anyone who could read the signs of the times must have known that Canada would be involved in the war, and that the first thing required would be a national selective service register. That is something we had never had before. The first domesday book set out the population, and the available man-power between the ages of twenty-one and sixty. It is part and parcel of the assessment laws of the provinces and municipalities, and such a register should have been undertaken. This question came before the house on many occasions, but a selective service programme was not decided upon.
Then there was some consideration as to whether we should continue with the voluntary system under the Militia Act, or, in addition, have a compulsory system. When the war broke out, we found we had thrown away our army, navy and air force, and that to a great extent we were dependent upon the mother country for protection. I have no quarrel with the present minister at all. He has been trying to take up the load where others left off.
This government has never had a man-power policy. I remember the recruiting policy as it applied in Toronto shortly after the war broke out. Some of the young people walked in from Aurora and Newmarket, in the dead of winter -I believe the date was January 6, 1940- and landed at the armouries at Toronto. But the doors were not opened until after ten o'clock. The pictures of those young people
were put in the papers, and there was some discussion as to the way in which the manpower situation was being handled.
We have gone pretty far along that line when we announce the conscription of high school students between sixteen and eighteen years of age. We have gone a long way when we have brought them under the conscription regulations, because that is all it is. Some may not like the word, but the fact is that we have conscription in this country. We have conscription of man-power. What for? Well, we are told, it is for home defence. We know there is no such thing as home defence. The people in the invaded countries-Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Holland and France-found out there was no such thing as home defence against the axis powers. The government came along and said in an election campaign that as long as they were in power there would be no such thing as compulsory man-power. A vote was held on the policy and programme of the government as announced by the Prime Minister and other ministers of the crown during the election campaign.
What are the facts? We seem to be the only dominion which has been going on in this haphazard fashion, so far as the war and the question of man-power are concerned. I come from an industrial city, one which has made a magnificent contribution. Its supply of manpower was practically dried up from voluntary enlistments. Not only that, but young men from that city enlisted from points right across Canada. That became necessary on account of the arrangement whereby artillery units were formed in one province, infantry in another and air force in another. The result was that many Toronto citizens, and citizens of other cities in Ontario, enlisted at points from Halifax to Vancouver.
The Minister of Labour has a very able assistant in Mr. MacNamara. Mr. Mac-Namara cleaned up a very bad situation in connection with money for dependents, and he deserves {he thanks of the dependents of the soldiers who are fighting overseas to-day. I do not think the government have been fair with the people of Canada. Up to the last month there has been only one national seelctive industry in Canada, agriculture. About a month ago when the clamour rose for more fuel the government passed an order in council. I have known the Minister of Labour for many years, and he brought down a measure concerning the coal industry, making it the second national selective service industry.
They do not have this system of obtaining man-power in the air force or the navy
39SO
War Appropriation-Labour

because there has been a rush of men to those two services. In the army they have what is called voluntary service, and they have draftees for home defence. The work overseas is done largely by those who enlisted volnntarily. Then the home defence was widened to take in Bermuda and other territories in the Atlantic, as well as on the Pacific. I am very much disappointed in the *way in which the man-power problem has been handled. There has been no equality of service, nor has there been equality of sacrifice. There will be homes in Toronto where high school children of sixteen, seventeen and eighteen years of age will be taken away when the father is overseas and perhaps the mother in a munitions plant.
I have no personal quarrel with the minister or any other minister, as I have been a friend of his for a long time. But I say to him that he cannot succeed under the present belated system. I want to be fair to the government because I have known no politics since the war started. I have been ready to support the government if they had a total war effort, but they have not had that. I have seen how these recruiting units work around Toronto. It is a case of [DOT] on again, off again, on again. Then they went to work and put out a lot of advertising, they put up billboards and appointed citizens committees to aid recruiting. I am prepared to say that you might as well not spend any money on home defence because there is no such thing as home defence. We are continually going to Washington for ideas, but what did they do in that country? They put in the draft. Just shortly before Munich the Chamberlain government in Great Britain brought in a system of national selective service.
The programme of the minister is divided into a multiplicity of classifications, and I notice that there are many registers. The one register about which we heard so much was committed to the archives. It is a case of earth to earth, dust to dust and ashes to ashes. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Michaud) is somewhat of a humorist, but I can remember when he and some of his colleagues seemed to be quite pleased that this report dealing with man-power was put in the archives. Everybody had to register and carry around his registration certificate. They even went into the restaurants, theatres and along the streets to ask men for their registration cards. I see a former mayor over there, a very fine citizen in his country who is nowr sitting behind the minister. I do not know whether he wras asked for his

registration card, but I have seen men hauled out of hockey matches and football games, and asked to show their cards.
You cannot fight Hitler with registrations. There are no labour unions in Germany; far from it. If the United States had a system like this, they would not have the army they have to-day. What is the policy of the government in connection with conscripting these sixteen, seventeen and eighteen-year-old youths? What is the policy of the government with respect to amateur and professional sport? The minister has failed to give this matter any attention. We should have a national policy with regard to sport in connection with the war. The present head of the Free French has said that there should not be a-glorification of sport in connection with war. The figures presented by the minister are just the opposite to what the government has said. The government said that there would be no conscription in any form. That is what they told the electors of this country; that is what they told the people of Toronto; that is what they told the people of my constituency - they were promised that there would be no such thing as compulsory registration.
Then we have a registration of retail and wholesale trade. Is aynone allowed to conduct business? He cannot with the present controls and subcontrols that are in force. We have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) saying one thing and other ministers saying other things in connection with national selective service. Mr. Chairman, you have proved to be very popular, and I am sure that if you had had anything to do with it, we would not have the present mixup.
Here is the Minister of Labour bringing down this programme to-day to send our high school population of sixteeen, seventeen and eighteen years of age out into the woods to cut trees while a lot of the government are away out at the country club. I do not know what hours they keep there, but there must be a very large attendance at the country club to-night. I see many seats in the house vacant. Probably a great many members have gone home. If this is the best programme the Minister of Labour can bring down, to draft our high school population of sixteen, seventeen and eighteen years to go out into the woods and chop down trees, for that is what they are going to do, that is a fine exhibition of national selective service. The dog days are here. A lot of members have gone fishing, or will be going soon. The minister is a popular sport. If he goes through some of the departments of the public service, he will find in one

Privilege-Mr. Pouliot
department that over 5,976 officers in the air force who never knew how to form threes were put in uniform the next day and are now marching around the streets and in the department stores taking salutes. There is a large body of good sports on the government benches, many of whom have done good work in the municipal service of this country. I ask if they will rise in their places and say that they are in favour of the present form of conscription in this country. In the olden days it was declared by some of the leaders here that if war came we would have to have a national vote of the people before we could declare war. and one of our own leaders said it, too.
I look at this document which has been distributed among the members, entitled " Statistics on National Selective Service and Man-power." Statistics! That is all we have 'been getting. We have been fighting Germany on statistics all the time. There has been a regular carnival of statistics. In the early days of the war Britain did it. She dropped tons of literature on the cities and towns of Germany, and a great deal of it was written in the two great languages of this country.
My good friend beside me, the hon. member for Haldimand, seems very bashful to-night, and I see the young member for Fraser Valley in his place at the moment. A little while ago I saw him sitting in the seat of the Prime Minister and then he crossed the floor and sat in our leader's seat for a while.
I want to ask my friends to my left, and we have some good clergymen and good teachers among them, what do they think of this programme of sending our high school children, whose fathers are overseas, out into the woods to cut down timber?
I see magnificent parades around the city streets for victory loan, recruiting and national selective service. Last September there was a line up at 174 Spadina avenue of several thousand men and women to register at the selective service offices there, staffed by a lot of government-appointed officials with no war record. But if you want any kind of help you cannot get it from national selective service. A prominent citizen told me that as soon as he trains a man someone else calls him for something else. I never believed in this scheme of national selective service or in the government's handling of the whole manpower situation since the war began. I have lost all confidence in them. I believe in always telling the people the truth, especially during the war. I believe that one of the cardinal principles of good government is to keep people informed as to what goes on in
connection with the war. But the people have not been given the real facts of the man-power situation.
We have Mr. Donald Gordon. He has a man-power policy of his own. Does Gordon's department come under this programme of the minister? I can tell you, no, because he is a parliament in himself. The house of Gordon has assumed the powers and functions of the House of Commons and of the Senate too. It is eleven o'clock, I have not finished.


Mr. KNOWLES:: May I ask the minister or his assistant to make clear what items we shall be considering when we get to the stage of dealing with items?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If hon. members will refer to Hansard of March 3 of the present year, they will find at the bottom of page 919 under the general title "Labour", the items which we shall follow in committee. The statement furnished to the members to-day is a further break-down of items in accordance with the practice laid down by the ministers of defence when they presented their estimates.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish a happy birthday to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 24, 1943