[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Canadian government yet received a detailed statement of the British plan for a world food bank, referred to by Chairman Richard Law in an article appearing in yesterday's Canadian press from Hot Springs, Virginia?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend was kind enough to advise me of his question in advance. The memorandum submitted to the united nations food conference by the United Kingdom delegation last week, the full text of which has been printed in a number of Canadian newspapers, was prepared by the United Kingdom government and submitted to the conference for study and consideration. Canada is represented at the conference to
72537-189J ,
which this memorandum has been submitted, but naturally did not participate in the drafting of the United Kingdom plan. Progress reports on the discussion taking place are being received from time to time by the Canadian delegation, and after the conference is concluded and the delegation returns to Canada a statement of what it has accomplished, and of plans for further action, will be made in the house.



WATER POWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling) asked the following question:
In view of recent press dispatches can the Prime Minister inform the house whether this government has been approached .by the United States government for permission to construct storage dams on the Columbia and Pend d'Oreille rivers north of the international boundary?
I was not in a position to answer the question at the moment, although I knew that some weeks ago no approach had been made, and I may now inform the hon. member that the United States government has not up to the present approached the Canadian government with regard to this matter.



PASSPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln): There is a matter which I desire to direct to the attention of the government, presumably of the Prime Minister. It arises out of a letter, a copy of which I have just received, from the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is dated February 15, 1943, and reads in part:
. . . in view of the war-time necessity of conserving paper and the reduced demand for passports, a new method of distributing passport application forms has had to be adopted.
I rather question the necessity of conserving paper, and I think members of the house will perhaps bear me out in that regard. However, I would point out that according to this letter it is necessary to apply individually to Ottawa td obtain these passport applications for renewals. At border points that is
War Appropriation-Army
[Stage Direction]
a serious handicap. Very often emergencies arise and a person with a current passport cannot rush down-at any rate, I am so informed-and get one of these temporary applications, and cross on a visa, a temporary crossing permit. It seems to me that some medium ought to be established, particularly at points along the border through which not only application forms but renewal forms might be obtained without a great deal of trouble and delay. I suggest to the Prime Minister that his department should do something to facilitate the distribution of these forms, because the excuse about the conservation of paper is something I cannot concede. Distribution should be facilitated particularly at border points so that people may be able to obtain the forms instead of having to write individually. I was told that we had to submit the name of the person desiring an extended passport before we could get an application form. The thing has gone from one extreme to the other.
Right Hon. W. L.' MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): I did answer a question some little time ago which was similar to the one with which my hon. friend began his remarks, but I should like to look very carefully into what he has said before attempting to give a further answer. I shall seek to give it to him to-morrow if possible.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 24, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1. Civil salaries and wages, $8,832,687.
Hon J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Last evening I gave some figures regarding civilian personnel which is provided for under this item. I gave the number of employees in the different military branches at Ottawa and in the different military districts. On checking these figures last night I found that there are certain special establishments and activities in connection with which civilian personnel are employed and which are covered by this item. These total 966 persons and they should be added to the total of 7,466 which was given last night and which appears
iMr. Lockhart.]
on page 2978 of Hansard. The establishments to which these 966 persons would be allotted are Canadian military headquarters in London, other units overseas, certain army trade schools, officers' training centres, cadet services and miscellaneous activities.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to be just as cool as a block of ice. We are dealing with item No. 1, civil salaries and wages, $8,832,687. This is a good occasion to apply my theories on auditing and accounting. They are not new. My argument will be based, first, on the departmental reports; second, on the estimates, and, third, on the [DOT]auditor general's reports. I found I had to do some statutory work which involved the reconstruction of the law in order to know the effect of subsequent amendments. As the reports of the auditor general with regard to the militia branch, and the departmental reports with regard to the militia branch, amount to practically nothing, I shall have to reconstitute the whole thing in my references to past reports.
I have in my hand reports of the Department of National Defence from 1938-39 down to the present fiscal year. The report which covered the twelve months ending March 31, 1939, contained 118 pages. Thirteen pages had to do with naval services, and 16 pages with air services, so that subtracting the total of these two, 29 pages, from the 118 pages, leaves
89	pages having to do with militia affairs. In 1939-40 the report contained 114 pages, less 4 for naval services, and 20 for air services, leaving
90	pages for the militia branch. Seven or eight pages were taken up in connection with general activities of the three branches of the armed services. In 1940-41 the report contained only 39 pages. This was the first year in which the present incumbent was in charge of the department. Five pages were taken for naval services, and 10 pages for air services, which left only 24 pages for the militia. In 1941-42 the report contained 48 pages. Five pages had reference to naval services, 12 pages to air services, which left 31 pages for the militia branch.
The report of 1938-39 was submitted to the governor general by the then Minister of National Defence who is now Minister of Pensions and National Health. It was prepared by the present Minister of National War Services, who was then Deputy Minister of National Defence. I am satisfied with that report. The following year the report was signed by Mr. Maelachlan and Colonel DesRosiers, joint deputy ministers of national defence. The fiscal year ended on March 31, 1940, and the

War Appropriation-Army
Hon, Norman Rogers was killed in June, 1940. This was the last report issued when he was head of the department. These two reports contained eighty-nine and ninety pages respectively for the militia branch, but since the present incumbent took charge the militia branch activities have covered only twenty-four and thirty-one pages.
Let us look at the estimates for some of these years. I have the estimates for 1938-39, 1939^40, and the fiscal year which will end on March 31 next. I have made a tabulation, which shows that for the fiscal year 1938-39 the militia estimates amounted to something over $34,000,000; the militia items numbered nineteen and the details of services covered six pages. In the following year, 1939-40, the main estimates provided a total of $63,435,000 for the militia department; the items numbered twenty-eight and the details of services covered nine pages, though in that year the actual expenditures amounted to $125,679,000. For the year 1943-44 * there is an item of $40,510.42, involving eleven militia items, with the details of services on one page. Now we have before us an estimate of $1,764,000,000, covering eleven militia items. In other words there were eleven militia items covered by $40,000 and now we have eleven militia items covered by $1,764,000,000- Is that a satisfactory proportion? One has only to divide $40,000 by eieven and also to divide $1,764,000,000 by eleven to see the proportion that exists in this regard.
Then let us take the auditor general's report. In 1938-39, when the expenditure was just over $34,000,000, this department was given seventy-seven pages in the auditor general's report. In 1939-40, when the expenditure was $125,000,000, the number of pages in the auditor general's report was decreased to forty-four; in other words when the expenditure was about four and a half times greater, the pages of details were approximately only two-fifths fewer. Mark you, sir; seventy-seven pages in 1938-39, the last year of peace, for an expenditure of $34,000,000; forty-four pages for an expenditure of S125,000,000 in 1940, the first year of the war, and ever since then the expenditure has been increasing while the number of pages in the auditor general's report has been decreasing. You will be astonished, sir, to learn that in 1940-41 this department covered only five and a half pages in the auditor general's report, and the same in 194142. The details were given only in regard to a small amount, approximately $40,000; for the rest we have no information.
My contention, Mr. Chairman, is that there is no possible justification for refusing to give the house and the country details as to the expenditures of this department in Ottawa. If we compare the estimates for this year, 1943-44. with those of 1940, which bear the signature of the present incumbent though they cover the last year of service of a gentleman who was respectful of the old parliamentary tradition of rendering detailed accounts to the House of Commons, we see that only the minor items have been put in. Out of respect to the memory of the late Hon. Norman Rogers I must mention the fact that in the main estimates of 1939-40 there appeared item No. 173, covering departmental administration, amounting to $438,900. I submit that the salaries paid in Ottawa to all those employed here should be shown separately in the estimates; I do not think even the minister should object to that. There were small items then, as there are small items now; for instance, item 174 covers grants to military associations and amounts to $11,600. In 1939-40 it was item No. 189. Then item No. 176 was item No. 209, in 1939-40; items 177 to 182 were items 212 to 216. Two have been added, but they are relatively small, amounting to $40,000. The total in the main estimates of 1939-40, the first year of the war, when Mr. Rogers was minister, was $63,435,000; that was shown in the estimates. Compare that with $40,510 which is shown this year. I submit, sir, that instead of having these estimates appearing in a forgotten copy of Hansard, they should appear in the main estimates. I do not suggest that the Minister of Finance should not table the estimates, because all payments come under his department, but on the other hand I submit that the estimates we are discussing now should appear not in Hansard but in the main estimates.
Now, sir, I come to civil salaries and wages. Last year was the first time such an item appeared in the estimates. We have it again this year, but no details are given. There is no rendering of accounts. The last accounts we have are for the year 1941-42, which is over a year ago. What has happened since, we do not know. The last fiscal year ended March 31, 1943. We will have those accounts only when the next session comes round. I find it is most unsatisfactory to have accounts covering a period so long expired.	.
I come again to the departmental reports. I have been struck by what has been said concerning the item now before us, namely that respecting civil salaries and wages. In the report for the year 1938-39 there is an item
War Appropriation-Army

for civilian personnel. The following statement shows the number of employees on March 31, 1939, at Ottawa and1 elsewhere:
siderably. The following statement shows the number of employees on March 31, 1941, at Ottawa and at outside points in Canada:
At Ottawa- Permanent Temporary
Number of employees March 31,1939
.	280
.	210
Outside Ottawa-[DOT]
Permanent	   326
Temporary	 611
Mechanics and skilled and unskilled labourers at Dominion
Arsenal, Quebec	 646
Workmen at naval dockyards,
Halifax and Esquimalt		163
Number of employees March 31, 1941
Naval services-
At Ottawa	 535
Outside Ottawa	 538
Total	 1,073
Army services-
At Ottaw-a		1,625
Outside Ottawa	 1,843
Total	 3,468
2,236
Net increase	 185
That was the number of civilian personnel when the present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) was at the head of the Department of National Defence, and when the present Minister of National War Sendees (Mr. LaFleche) was his deputy. Then, we find a different list for the year ending March 31, 1940. This report is for the last year the late Hon. Mr. Rogers was in charge of the department, and it was tabled by the present incumbent. The following statement shows the number of employees on March 31, 1940, at Ottawa and elsewhere:
Number of employees March 31,1940
At Ottawa-
Full time	 1,858
Part time	 1
Seasonal	 48
Total	 1,907
Outside Ottawa-
Full time	 1,315
Part time	 83
Seasonal	 290
Total	 1,688
Grand total	 3,595
The following are not included in the above figures, i.e., skilled and unskilled classes of labour:
Dominion Arsenal P.	Quebec		936
C. I. of A. & A	 259
Halifax dockyard	 328
Esquimalt dockyard		47
Total	 1,570
This total of 1,570 must be added to the 3,595. Then, for the year ending March 31, 1941, the civilian personnel had increased con-

Air services-
At Ottawa	 1,154
Outside Ottawa	 2,487
Total	 3,041
The following are not included in the above figures, i.e., skilled and unskilled classes of labour:
Dominion Arsenal, Quebec	 3,445
Halifax dockyard	 621
Esquimalt dockyard	 49
Chief inspector of arms and
ammunition	 0
Air services	 6,864
Total	 10,979
This latter figure must be added to the 3,641.
The situation is different to-day, because the Dominion arsenal has been transferred from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Munitions and Supply. At page 39 of the report of the Department of National Defence for the year ended March 31, 1942, we find this:
The following statement shows the number of employees on March 31, 1942, at Ottawa and at outside points in Canada:
Number of employees March 31, 1942
Naval services-
At Ottawa	 1,033
Outside Ottawa	 832
Total	 1,865
Army services-
At Ottawa	 2,405
Outside Ottawa	 2,739
Total	 5,144
Air .services-
At Ottawa..,	 1,602
Outside Ottawa	 3,853
Total	 5,455

War Appropriation-Army
I submit it is something to have the number of employees, but we must also know what they are doing. We must know how much they are being paid. Yesterday the minister said that information had never been given. Of course it has. If hon. members who have been kind enough to listen to me now would take time to go through the estimates for the years 1938-39, 1939-40, and previous years, they would find that while the names of those employed in the department are not mentioned in the estimates, the positions and salaries are mentioned. There is no reason why we should not have that information now.
An increase in the number on the staff is no justification for not informing the committee with respect to the positions among the civilian personnel in the department. We have to have that information in order to redress wrongs. We do not have it any more. Moreover, sir, the detailed expenditures which were found in part M in the auditor general's report for 1938-39, when the present Minister of Pensions and National Health was in charge of the Department of National Defence, and when his assistant was the present Minister of National War Services, covered 77 pages of the report. In that report were shown the salaries of everybody, and all expenditures of the department. That is a point I think should be made now. When the present auditor general was appointed, during the recess-I do not know if any hon. member was asked about that appointment- these things started to change, and the number of pages telling the country about the money spent for each one in the department and for each matter involved fell to forty-four; and in the last two years it has fallen to five and a half pages for a relatively small item of about $40,000. Well, this cannot be accepted. I wonder what representations have been made to the minister on. behalf of that change? What I know is that although there was a reduction in respect of the last year that the late Mr. Rogers was minister, we must bear in mind that he died in June, 1940, and the auditor general's reports were published a long time afterwards, after the present minister had every opportunity to make the changes he desired. And this I regret. I have already expressed regret that information detailing expenditures is not contained in a book which is not private information, which can be read by anybody, and should form a check, and a salutary check, on expenditures. It is a protection for the taxpayers of this country; and this is why, sir, I insist on a reformation of the estimates and on a reformation of the auditor general's report.
According to what the minister said yesterday, his civilian personnel consists mostly of clerks and minor employees. Of course the employees in the minister's office who do not wear the uniform must be included in this item of $8,800,000. He did not give us any detail about that, as all his colleagues excepting those in charge of the armed services have done. Why is there the exception in regard to the minister's staff here in Ottawa and those of his colleagues responsible for the other branches of the armed forces, when his other colleagues-the former minister of national defence, whom I see among the ministers who honour me by being here at the moment, the Ministers of Pensions and National Health, Public Works, Transport, National Revenue-all having large departments, mention in the estimates what is their staff? Why is there any exception for the three branches of the military forces? Can it help Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese to know howr much is paid to those who work in the minister's office? My remarks apply to all the army ministers, and my praise goes to their colleagues who follow the traditions. How is it that the government has two different ways of dealing with ministers' staffs? How is it that that information is not given to the House of Commons of Canada? How is it that it does not appear in the estimates nor in the auditor general's reports? Is there any sensible reason for that omission? The staff is increased.
At the opening of the sitting, just before I spoke, the minister made a correction, and I congratulate him upon being so precise in that information, but what he said did not inform us regarding those people who belong to the civilian personnel of his department. On the other hand, as I said yesterday, there are precedents for acting as the ministers of the military departments have done-I did not take the trouble to check the practice of the Department of Munitions and Supply; but what I state is correct; I wonder why they have not followed the traditions of the United States and Great Britain, by informing the people of this country of the expenditures for their own staffs. No hon. member will be so foolish as to criticize reasonable expenditure for the assistance of the ministers in their work. I know very well that, if he performs his work conscientiously, no minister can discharge his duties alone; naturally he needs some help. But in order that there shall be no abuse, a check must be made. I remember distinctly that, when one of the war departments-whether it was Munitions and Supply or National Defence for Air, I do not recall- was created, the Minister of National Defence
War Appropriation-Army

for Air said in this chamber that every member of the staff would be appointed by the civil service commission. Was that done? No, sir. And yesterday, when the minister stated that an order in council was in force regarding appointments, he forgot to add- that at least one-half if not all of the major appointments in the three army departments, and probably also the Department of Muntions and Supply, are made, not by the civil service commission after a regular competition, but by order in council. Some of those people may be blanketed in to obtain a pension or superannuation allowance and to enjoy all increases which are given to civil servants who are regularly appointed-I mean, appointed in virtue of the Civil Service Act.
In most of the appointments made by the government, made by order in council without a previous test, there may be partisanship to a large degree. And, as those appointments are made without the knowledge of the public, as they are not all printed in the Canada Gazette, how can hon. members be informed of what is going on? What I want is clear and precise information regarding the employment of civil servants. I will tell the minister this, that in the year 1934, I believe in the month of June, I accompanied my friend Mitchell Hepburn, who was afterwards premier of. Ontario, and spoke with him in the armoury at Chatham. [DOT] On the way back from Wallaceburg, where I had spent the night, I asked him if a large number of men had been hired by the government of the day to work on the roads at the time of the election; and he said to me, "Watch out." The road was beautiful. It was a fine day and the highway required no repairs. But turning a corner I was surprised to see a multitude of men on an elevation about one hundred feet away from the road. Their task, their election task, was to bring that hill down. Each of the men had a pick in one hand and a shovel in the other, but they were so numerous and close together that they could not work at all for fear of injuring each other. That reminds me of the numbers of people who are employed in the war departments at the present time. That is why we have the right to know what these people are doing. When I say that, I remember what was said here in this building, in the civil service committee room, by Mr. Putman, who was then chief of the organization branch of the civil service commission. He was.speaking under oath-I had them all put under oath because I wanted the truth-and he admitted in giving his evidence that one consideration in improving the status of a civil 
servant was the enlargement of his staff, meaning by that, that what was considered was not the work performed by an individual but how many people he had assisting him. Therefore, it was to the personal interest of a chief or sub-chief of a branch to surround himself with the largest number of assistants.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Mr. Chairman, yesterday, when I was speaking on this resolution I suggested that the draftees should be sent to Alaska. Subsequently the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the member for York West (Mr. Adamson) took me to task for my remarks. The member for York West suggested that it was tantamount to saying that some other nation should do our fighting. I wish to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I had no such intention. I know the member for Lake Centre and the member for York West and respect them highly. I know that neither of them would knowingly put a wrong interpretation on any remarks I made. I must therefore conclude that I did not make myself clear, and I shall endeavour this afternoon in a very few minutes to do so.
Here are the facts. At the present time there are in Canada 80,000 men who have been called for military training under the National Resources Mobilization Act and who have not volunteered for service overseas. By a recent order in council these men can be sent to Alaska. At the present time they are being used largely to garrison Labrador, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and the shores of Canada along the Pacific ocean. I do not think, considering the present state of the war, that it requires 80,000 men for this purpose, and my suggestion is that a considerable number of them should be sent immediately to Alaska.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Would the hon. member limit his suggestion to sending them to Alaska alone?


William Ross Macdonald: I am speaking about Alaska at the moment. My suggestion is that a considerable number of the 80,000 draftees to whom I have referred should be sent to Alaska immediately and that as other draftees are called up who do not volunteer for service overseas, they also should be sent in ever increasing numbers to Alaska.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Where
they will not have to fight?


William Ross Macdonald: That is the conclusion which the hon. member for York-Sunbury is jumping at. It is

War Appropriation-Army
not the proper conclusion, and if he will follow me in my argument I think he will agree with me.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury) We will listen.


William Ross Macdonald: This would relieve a considerable number of United States troops who are now in Alaska. The Canadian troops, as soon as they are properly trained and equipped, could go into action in Alaska. Those who have criticized my suggestion apparently do not realize that bloody and decisive battles are taking place in Alaska at this very moment. Apparently they do not realize that the islands of Attu and Kiska are both in Alaska and that if Canada took over the defence of Alaska our troops would immediately be in the thick of the fight. Surely that is not asking any other country to do our fighting for us. On the contrary, it is the suggestion that we should do for ourselves the fighting which another nation is now doing. But in this war no one of the united nations is fighting for itself. We are fighting side by side in a common cause. It is an instance of all for one and one for all. If our soldiers engaged in battle in Alaska I am sure they would bring honour and glory to Canada. At the same time it would enable a number of the United States troops to withdraw and consolidate their forces for battle on another front. It would not be more dangerous or more important than the front in Alaska. We would merely be taking over a very important battle front. Personally if I were fighting in this war I would rather fight on any other front than on the bleak and barren islands of the north Pacific. If Canadians are sent to Alaska and take over the defence of that country and engage in battles which will continue throughout the summer, Canada will play a greater part in this war than she has heretofore played. It would be no task for meek or weak-kneed Canadians. The Japanese are a brutal foe, and for us to take over from the United States a portion of the front on which they are fighting is certainly not asking United States to fight our war.
It may be that a number of Canadians will say that we should not attack Japan because Japan is not attacking us at this moment. Surely we are not living in the days of Pearl Harbor. Surely the attack and bombing of Hong Kong ami Singapore, Malaya and Burma has awakened the Rip Van Winkles in this country. There is no use in living in a fool's paradise. Make no mistake about it, Japan will attack Canada
at the first opportunity, and so far as I am concerned Canada should attack Japan first., and it can be done through Alaska.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the hon. member will allow me a question, Canada was one of the first nations to declare war on Japan.


William Ross Macdonald: I always take pride in that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, you do, but faith without works availeth nothing. What have we done to fight Japan?


William Ross Macdonald: I am now suggesting one way in which we can fight Japan. As I stated at the outset, I knew before I concluded that the hon. member for York-Sunbury would agree with me that we should fight Japan as soon as possible. Of course, it is quite possible that the United States will not want to step out of Alaska. It is a natural pathway from the orient to Canada and eventually to the United States. It may be that owing to the importance of that front the United States might desire to continue the conduct of the war in that area. If it takes that attitude, I suggest to the Minister of National Defence that Canadians be sent to Alaska to fight side by side with the Americans. Our air force is fighting there. Why should not our army fight there too? Someone may ask me, why do you not suggest sending them to Europe. In reply I would point out that we have to-day 190,000 men in Europe waiting to fight. I would also point out that we have a wTar in Alaska which is almost on our very doorstep, and we do not have to wait to go to Europe to fight; we can enter the combat almost to-day. Alaska is the natural place where Canadians should be fighting. When Australia was likely to be attacked, the United States sent its forces in large numbers to that commonwealth. Australians joined with the Americans and to-day they are fighting side by side on the islands adjacent to and in the neighbourhood of Australia. Alaska is situated geographically, in relation to Canada, just as New Guinea and the islands of the south Pacific are situated in relation to Australia.
If the Americans do not wish us to take over the complete defence of Alaska, why should not Canadians be fighting side by side with them on the island of Attu? I would again remind the committee that we have in Canada 80,000 Canadians liable for service in Alaska. Unfortunately, many of them are under the impression that if they go to Europe they will be fighting for Britain
War Appropriation-Army

and- not for Canada. Of course, that is wrong. They are all intensely loyal an|d courageous Canadians, and I feel they would fight in Alaska and the islands of Attu and Kiska to keep the Japs out of Canada. American and British troops fought side by side and drove the Germans from North Africa. Canadians and Americans can, by their united efforts, drive the Japs out of Alaska, and thereby save Canada from the horrors of the Japanese invasion.


Mr. CHURCH:: I have no desire to criticize or to interfere with the conduct of the war in relation to strategy, as has the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald). I think the hon. gentleman should be in charge of strategy instead of being a member of parliament. I have great respect for him because he is a returned soldier and all his family have been soldiers for many years past. From what I have seen of him in the house, I suggest that the remark of Lord Salisbury with reference to the Duke of Devonshire a few years ago is apropos. When they were members of the same cabinet Lord Salisbury said of his colleague that, in order to show his impartiality, he would talk one way and then vote the other. That seems to be what the hon. member for Brantford1 City is doing. Last year in connection with the plebiscite campaign that appeared to be his attitude. Indeed, it was characteristic of a number of hon. members. The newspapers had carried headlines as well as advertisements-I know that this is certainly true so far as the Toronto papers are concerned, and it is true of other newspapers as well-and these headlines and advertisements seemed to indicate that these gentlemen would undoubtedly take one attitude in connection with the plebiscite. But they did not. They criticized the government for the same thing about which they are complaining again

military strategy, man-power, conscription, and the question of efficiency in the conduct of the war. Many of us did not believe in the plebiscite to begin with. The Minister of National Defence had been very strong, with some of his colleagues in the cabinet, for a change in the man-power policy, and I thought he did what a minister of the crown should do at a time of grave danger to the British empire. The plebiscite matter caused wide disunity in Canada, the greatest disunity since confederation, and I believe that future historians will record that it delayed our war effort for fifteen months and got us nowhere. It tied the hands of the three ministers in charge of the conduct of the war for that period so that they did not know where they were.
It is all very well to say that Japan is our chief enemy. That no doubt will please Washington, but everyone who knows anything about military strategy in this war knows that Germany is our principal enemy at the present time, and until we regain command of the seas we can do nothing at all. We lost command of the sea and until we regain it nothing can be done about a second front along the lines suggested by the hon. gentleman. I am surprised at my hon. friend the member for Brantford City, because he knows more about military matters than I do, and as I say he was an excellent soldier in the last war. He seems to forget, however, that the winning of the war is the only issue before us at the present time. This is the first, last and only question for us to settle. Neither victory nor any amount of planning will ever bring about the millennium. There are too many red herrings being drawn across the trail to-day. For instance, we have heard a great deal of talk about social security. We find that ninety per cent of the talk everywhere has to do with social planning, but surely it must be obvious that social planning and social security will mean nothing at all to us unless we win the war. Why have we all these red herrings across the trail? Why should the attention of the house and of the country be diverted from the consideration of the grave danger that faces us in 1943? After all, 1943 is the most serious year ahead of us. Hitler is far from beaten, and I think the same is true of the morale of the German people. Wars are won by soldiers, sailors and airmen, and not by controls and subcontrols and planners and muddlers or by radio, or by information bureaus and bureaucrats.
We changed the regulations of a year or two ago as to discussion of the appropriation bill and I suggest, in view of the discussion that took place in the house last session, that we would have got on very much better, and the ministers would have been further ahead with their estimates, if we had stuck to the old system on this measure. Very few members on this side of the house, at any rate, would have spoken in connection with the army, and I think it would have been better to stick to the old plan. Members of parliament get only one chance a year to discuss these matters when the army estimates are under consideration. The minister is bearing the 'brunt of the discussion regarding the army. I have no desire to roam all over the place, in discussing these items, as some have done in this debate, but I would point out that all this talk about planning is futile unless we do something to win the war. In January, February and March all

JFnr Appropriation-Army
the people in England, and members of parliament, except for ten per cent, thought that the war was over and that Britain would find herself without a plan of social security. We thought the same thing here. What .was the result? We had proposals in connection with social planning and all that kind of thing, but we should leave it until Germany is beaten. An attempt has been made to prevent fair discussion of the most important thing- the estimates of the war ministers.
I may say to my hon. friend the member for Brantford City that I do not believe in all this adjacent territory home defence policy of the government. Why should our more experienced troops play second fiddle in Alaska to the United States forces? Some of our soldiers have been in arms for three or four years; they have had the necessary training. In my opinion the proposal is ridiculous. Washington was not ready for the war. The position of the American troops, even in the African campaign, which is good, comparatively speaking, reminded me of the position of the British troops about the time of Dunkirk. I can tell you this, that this "adjacent" policy is just camouflage for home defence, and there is no such thing as home defence. Norway found that out; they were not prepared. Little Denmark had about 250 men; of what avail was "home defence" to them? Belgium and Holland went through a similar experience, followed by France. Every country in Europe has learned by bitter experience, that there is no such things as home defence against the mechanized forces of the axis powers.
I have no objection to planning; I am in favour of it; but I believe we should not sidetrack the conduct and the winning of the war, which is the main thing. Remember that the war is far from being won so far as Canada is concerned. After the last war we threw away our defences and also threw away our friends and lost two former allies. Many hon. members opposite, and some on this side, believed in the League of Nations, disarmament, and such fancies as collective security. Well, there was no such thing as collective security. Britain, after a period of disarmament, faced insult, risked invasion and later almost extinction. The policy of the government here seems to be, instead of going to fight Germany in Europe and every other place we can find the enemy, to defend adjacent territories-Labrador, Newfoundland, Alaska and the rest. The hon. member for Brantford was not the gentleman who started this idea; it was the minister to Australia who began it. Mr. Davis, in his first speech in Australia, said that Japan, not Germany, was our main enemy. Japan is not
our main enemy; she is one of our enemies, and one of the dirtiest fighters the world has ever seen; her practices are intolerable.
If the policy of the government is to send men to Alaska to fight, we might just as well not look for recruits at all, even draftees. The policy about which the hon. member for Brantford City is so enthusiastic was started at Washington and pursued at Casablanca. It was tried out in Iceland. We sent troops to adjacent territories all along the United States seaboard. It wras disclosed during a debate in the British House of Commons on the appropriation bill that Canada had some men to prevent a strike down in Jamaica. I can give the minister the citation from Hansard if he wants it. I am wholly opposed to this home defence policy. I do not believe there is any such thing as home defence. The moment we lose overseas to Germany we may expect the enemy to cross the Atlantic. I asked in 1937, when I urged rearmament and supported the minister's estimates, if we intended to wait till the enemy came up the St. Lawrence by land, sea and air, and bombed the citadel at Quebec and this building and the Chateau Laurier. Do not let us make any mistake about it; Germany is our main enemy. They are " priorities," as Mr. Churchill has insisted since the war started. But there remains much to do elsewhere. We have seen what happened in the far east, at Singapore, Hong Kong and many other places; we have read of the survivors of the Repulse and the Prince of Wales being marched, as they arrived, off to internment camps. The battle in the Pacific has not been forgotten. United States naval and air forces have done splendid work there, assisted very largely by the men of the sister dominions of Australia and New Zealand. When North America has produced the necessary ships we shall regain command of the sea, and thus, I think, the difficulty to which the hon. member for Brantford City alluded will be overcome.
The subject of civil salaries and wages has been referred to. Large increases are shown, for which explanations have been given to parliament in the last few days. One matter of complaint in connection with the Department of National Defence is the state of the records branch. During the victory loan campaign we knew day by day how much money was being subscribed in each municipality throughout Canada, but in the records office the system seems no better than it was in the last war, with the result that a municipality is not able to find out how many men enlisted from its
War Appropriation

Army

own district, and is to that extent handicapped in preparing to deal with post-war unemployment.
I find that there is a contest on between the civil service commission and the three defence departments. A return by the Department of National Defence for Air shows that about four hundred civilians were engaged for service in that department in the Toronto district over the head of the civil service commission -the same system extends throughout the armed services-but the civil service commission had very little to do with the appointments. We have dual control.
Another matter to which I would draw attention in connection with this vote is the inequalities of pay. Why should men who have been over in Egypt or in England for nearly four years get only $1.30 per day, the same pay which is given to those who will not leave Canada at all, or who have proceeded no farther than Labrador? We had a return last session on this subject. I admit that the minister went to a great deal of trouble to supply information relating to the army, the navy and the air force rates of pay. The return started with the pay of a private, and went across the page, giving the pay of a second lieutenant, a lieutenant, a captain, a major, a colonel, with subsistence and all other allowances, and the total for the year, and- the same information relative to the naval and air forces. I look on the duties of the citizen in our citizen's army as subject to the same principle in war as in peace; it is something like jury service. There should be an increase in the pay of the private. Why should one man receive $1.30 a day, while somebody else, because he has taken an officer's course, gets four, five or ten dollars a day? There is a great deal of dissatisfaction on account of the variations, injustices and inequalities in the pay of our forces as between those overseas and those at home.
As regards dependents' allowances, I have received a great many letters written by soldiers in the old country who were on the first item and are now in the second, saying that they have not received the small allowance or cost-of-living bonus which was made last fall under the bonus system. Why some get it and others do not, I do not know. There are also complaints from men who are overseas. A young soldier who has been over for three years writes me that it is a funny thing that some of them have not got the allowance yet, while others, who had been overseas only a few days, were drawing the extra pay and officers could refuse to 
allow it. Much hardship has been caused by this delay, both at home and overseas. This grievance should be remedied at once.
If we are to have a citizen army let us have a citizen army, and let us have civilian inquests. If a fatality occurs to a man who is in section 1 or 2, there should be a civilian inquest. Why should the soldier lose his civilian rights because he joins the army? Are not the parents entitled to know how a man died, with at least the same amount of information and according to the same procedure as if he were killed overseas?
There is another matter I should like to mention. When a soldier enlists he is required to place on his attestation papers the religious denomination to which he belongs. Surely there can be no objection to that; that is the law of England. Yet the department here seems to have some difficulty in giving any figures in that connection. For another thing, many of these young soldiers, instead of being trained for overseas service, are kept at home to shovel snow around the union station and do work of that kind. Is that the way to win the war? If we are to have equality of sacrifice and service and treatment our soldiers should not be expected to undertake duties of that kind, which keep them away from their military training. Further I believe that the out of pocket expenses which are paid the people in this department while they are absent from Ottawa should be indicated in these estimates. It is said that the travelling expenses vary with the rank. Well, does it include drawing rooms on the trains, meals, hotel expenses, taxicabs, other incidentals and all that sort of thing? I do not believe in being small about any of these things, far from it; but I believe a return of those expenses should be made. We all know that these men are working day and night, Sundays and holidays. I do not know of anyone who would want to work as the minister and many of his staff must work. I have a great deal of sympathy for them, and I am not complaining about this matter, but I believe there should be some return made giving more information about liaison officers.
Then I submit that there should be relaxation of the fifty mile rule in connection with buses. If soldiers want to travel to their homes at Easter or other holidays or seasons of the year, they should be provided with transportation. If necessary let the civilians stay at home. Our two railways are making more money now than ever before in their history, yet I have seen some of our soldiers in troop trains which in my opinion were not fit for human occupation. Since the railways are

War Appropriation-Army
earning these fabulous sums of money, to the end of 1940 they made more than they did in the four years of the last war-they should give better service to our soldiers. Then each soldier should be given a life insurance policy, which would provide for his dependents both during and after the war. I have had a resolution dealing with this matter on the order paper since the beginning of the war. Then provision should be made for local carfare for these men. Why should soldiers have to pay carfare to and from the cities near which the camps are located? Some provision should be made for that. During the last war many of our cities and towns allowed soldiers to ride free. Even to-day they are allowed to ride free in Detroit and almost all the larger cities in the United States, but in Canada they are charged carfare all the time. I should like to see soldiers given lower rates or free transportation on the railways. I want to be fair; the minister has made some progress in this regard, as to cheaper fares and meals for soldiers, and I hope he may continue to do so, because I believe it would have a good effect on soldiers and civilians alike. I repeat that there should be some relaxation of the fifty mile bus rule. I had a hand in starting the operation of buses in Ontario when the city of Toronto took over the street railway; we obtained legislation which permitted us to operate buses, and then they began to travel all over the province and into the United States. We have buses for the civilians, and in my opinion there should be special buses to take the soldiers back to Camp Borden, instead of dumping them off at Stroud, ten or twelve miles away from Borden, while the buses go to the end of the line empty and return, using just as much rubber and gasoline as though they had carried the soldiers the whole distance to camp. That is all wrong, and should be changed.
The other day the hon. member for Cape Breton South mentioned the veterans' guard, and complained because many of them had been sent outside their own province. He is an old soldier himself and knows what this means. The same thing has happened in my constituency; some men have been sent as far away as British Columbia, which means they can get home only about once a year. In- my opinion it would be much better to keep these veterans in their own province, which- they know something about and where they will give much better service. Already this session I have referred to the cost-of-living bonus. Something has been done in that connection, but now it is only charity and it
applies to only about ten per cent of the soldiers. It is not paid to sergeants or noncommissioned officers, and as far as I can find out, it is not paid to very many others. I hope there may be some revision of the order so that it may be given to all non-commissioned officers and men, and- so that their dependents may get it more directly. Another thing the soldiers complain about is the lack of a moratorium to protect their families from foreclosure and eviction, together with certain other immunities from debt, during the period of the war and for six months after, as well as the lack of adequate housing for themselves and their families. The things that are going on to-day along this line should not be allowed. Down in Washington they passed an act protecting their soldiers, the Sparkman Act, based largely upon what was done here in Canada during the'last war. I understand that the three defence ministers have taken up this matter, along with the minister of pensions; I have had some correspondence with- the four ministers in regard to the situation, but not very much has been done. During the last war nearly all the provinces had legislation of this kind, and I agree that it has to do very largely with property and civil rights, which are under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The matter has been under review, and the ministers hope something may be done, but so far I think only Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario have any legislation along this line, while I believe a bill is being considered in Quebec. Some people hold the opinion that the provinces have no jurisdiction, because it has to do with the war and militia and defence, but in any case under the War Measures Act this matter could be nationally dealt with, equitably and fairly for everyone concerned.
Then I should like to say a word about prisoners of war. No doubt our men who are held in Germany, Japan and other places get their pay and allowances; I am prepared to admit that the minister has brought about considerable improvement in that connection, but I believe much more remains to be done. The Red Cross has done magnificent work; it has been an efficient and trustworthy agency, but I believe the government of the day also owes a duty to its citizens-because ours is a citizens' army-to supplement the work of the Red Cross, not only in seeing that our men who are prisoners of war get their pay and allowances, and food, their mail and parcels and all that sort of thing, but in addition doing their utmost in regard to this infamous, crued and barbarous shackling which has been carried on by Germany so extensively,
War Appropriation-Army

if one is to judge the comments which have been appearing in the newspapers for some time past. I believe the government should keep the people at home well informed as to the conduct and progress of the war. We have a large number of press officers, but I am not at all satisfied with what is being done, and I believe many people throughout the country agree that we do not need many of these gentlemen who, though far from the scene of battle and knowing very little about what is going on, travel across Canada from coast to coast making radio addresses which bring very little comfort to those at home, especially when later it is found that some of the information they give is not correct.
I should like to say a word with regard to the chaplain service. Most of it has been most praiseworthy. We should have a statement on how many chaplains have been appointed in each of his majesty's forces since this war began, by provinces or military districts. We should know on what basis they are appointed, and what is the unit of soldier population set out for each denomination, per chaplain, and who authorized it. We should know the soldier unit of population for each chaplain, per denomination per unit. We should have information as to their pay and all other allowances. Then, are all chaplains who enlist required to go overseas later? What military exoerience is required before they are appointed? Are there senior or head chaplains in each military district, and [DOT]what are such officers' rank, pay or other emoluments? Are they required to go overseas by rotation after a certain period? Are all these chaplains required in the services, for home training purposes, when in cities there are so many clergy not in the enlisted forces, who are willing to help with the work of chaplains, in connection with their denominations?
I do not know, Mr. Chairman, that I can say much further under these two items. I do intend to say something on another item, at some later opportunity. All I can say is that under sections 1 and 2 of these estimates we should next year stop this practice of having alien enemies in our universities in this country. I have seen a good deal of that in connection with the university of Toronto. In attendance there have been alien enemies who never took the king's oath, and who have never subscribed to the test act. They are to be found on the playing fields and at lectures and parades in the king's uniform, in company with our own citizen soldiers. A return has been made 
in the house; in fact returns have been brought down on various occasions, but I can tell the committee that it is against all military policy and against all proper public policy that we in this country should have Germans in our universities. They should not be permitted to meet our own students and have the opportunity of sending information out of the country. That is a totally wrong policy, and one which certainly was not followed at the time of the last war, no matter who asked for it-the mother country or any other country. I know that some of the student body of the university of Toronto feel very strongly in the matter. I do not know what is to become of those alien students in the summer months or what regulation they are under. Where have they gone now? The universities are now closed and I do not know where they have gone. I am anxious that that practice should not be followed next year. Some change should be made. A member of the senate of the university writes to me in these words:
The part I object to is that these Germans march shoulder to shoulder with Canadians in the king's uniform, and if and when they are promoted from the base battalion of the C.O.T.C. into the first or senior unit, they will then be afforded the same instruction as those Canadians who have gone active, and are presumably being given the latest and most practical instructions on how to kill Germans.
There may be an opportunity to mention one or two further matters later on. I believe however that we should stop this planning business until we know the war is won. I do not object to planning-far from it-but I think we should first of all remember that the war comes first. It is of primary importance, and other matters should be considered only when victory is won.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I always enjoy following the hon. member who immediately preceded me (Mr. Church), because he speaks so seldom in the house. May I tell the Minister of National Defence at the outset that I am not going to abuse him. I listened to eighty minutes of it yesterday and another forty minutes to-day, and I will probably get another tody minutes to-night. That is about enough. But may I assure the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that those eighty minutes yesterday and forty minutes to-day do not represent the opinion of any other hon. member in the house, nor do they widely represent opinions in any other part of Canada.

War Appropriation-Army
I would not speak to-day, were it not for the fact that as an, ex-soldier there is one point I should like to place before the minister. I want to say here that there is o.ne thing the minister could do to effect an economy in his department. I understand there are two or three hundred on the minister's staff in Ottawa. Apparently he could dispose of them, because it would appear we have four or five military strategists right here in the house who could tell the minister how to win the war. Why keep the two or three hundred?	[DOT]
To show that I make no distinction between parties, I wish to dissociate myself from what was said by the hon. member for Brantford City. Whether he meant to do it or not, he has created an impression which should not be allowed to go unchallenged to the United States. If, as he says, it is the most difficult front we have in this war, why should we send our trainees or draftees over there? He was a gallant soldier in the last war, and I have no doubt he would be in this one too if he could. I am going to accept his explanation that he did not mean what he said-'and we know there are a lot of members who do the same thing. I am willing to accept the statement that he did not mean what he said. But unfortunately the Hamilton Fish's and the McCormicks in the United States will be only too glad to adopt what he has said, and publish it. In my part of Canada at least we are prepared to send the best troops we have to the United States, to back our good neighbour. And we are not sending any troops there because they are not right up to a certain level.
I listened yesterday to eighty minutes of what was supposed to be a representation of the views of one part of Canada. I thought it was a misrepresentation of the views of even, one constituency. I am sorry we have to hear repetition after repetition of it. What a wonderful army we would have to send to Alaska, or anywhere else, if we followed what the hon. member said. He has said that he came from a farming constituency. He did not want farmers in the army; he did not want tinsmiths in the army; he did not want blacksmiths in the army. Heaven only knows what he does want in the army. Having said that, and hoping-and I know it is a vain hope- that we will not hear more from that quarter, at least until eight o'clock, there are one or two things I should like to say.
Incidentally, I can endorse most of what was said by the last speaker-most of it, I say.
I can endorse in its entirety what was said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Particularly I object to the fact that he stole much of my thunder. I thought it could be done in a more eloquent manner. I am from British Columbia, the garden of Canada, where the minister's secretary likes to visit. I can only say that the secretary of the Minister of Pensions and National Health comes second.
One particular point was mentioned by the previous speaker, namely, the handling of the veterans guard in Canada. In this connection I suggest that if the minister could ever find time he should travel across Canada, not as Minister of National Defence, but rather as an ordinary citizen-he deserves a rest-and come in contact with ordinary people. Probably he would have to get a toupee to disguise himself. He should travel across Canada in the smoking compartments of railway trains and listen to some of the discussions among the soldiers. He ought not to mention that he is Minister of National Defence, but just be content to listen. I see another cabinet minister smiling. I want to tell the whole cabinet it would do them a world of good if they would listen to what is said in the smoking car by the ordinary garden variety of citizen.
We had one company of veterans guard in British Columbia who had been assured, whether correctly or not, that they would be placed! near their homes. I make that statement, despite what the minister may say. They were sent to Alberta and then were moved back to British Columbia. After being in British Columbia for ten days they were moved back to Alberta. The same happened to a company from Winnipeg which was moved to British Columbia, and in less than a month was moved back to Winnipeg. Surely there is something wrong with that. Surely there is no necessity for a movement of that kind. I also know of one very gallant member of the Canadian Women's Army Corps, from British Columbia, who was moved back to Toronto for a month's training in saluting. Then she was moved back to Vancouver to work in an office four doors away from the place she had been working for the previous three years. I do not think there is any necessity for that sort of thing and it certainly will not help with our victory loans.
I agree with one statement made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South in connection with pay and allowances. I did not know until yesterday that every soldier overseas had not received the full increase. I certainly did not know that some little
War Appropriation-Army

crime would prevent him from getting this increase for some months. I served both as a private and as an officer in the last war, and I can assure the committee that I did not think I was a soldier until I had been in the clink twice. It is pure nonsense to keep these men from getting this increase simply because they have committed some minor offence, such as climbing a fence when they have been late coming back from leave. I contend that every soldier, certainly every soldier serving overseas, is entitled to this increase.
What criticism I intend to make now is not made in any personal way, but speaking again as an ex-soldier I want to say to the minister that I think he could dispense with a couple of his staff who apparently were engaged as interior decorators before enlisting. That is the only way I can describe them when I see these badges with "G.P.P.Q.G.G." on their arms. Yesterday an hon. member referred to the patches being worn. During the last war I wore probably one of the nicest patches in the Canadian army. It had a "C.II." with a little inverted V on top, and the colour was a nice blue. From the experience I have obtained from travelling across Canada I know that the soldiers themselves do not like the way these badges and ribbons are distributed around.
I should like to be able to read my speech as many members from Toronto and from elsewhere do. The other day I had the privilege of listening to one of the world's greatest speakers. He never even looked at his notes and he was saying something. That cannot be said for all those who read their speeches. As I say, I should like to read mine so that I will not miss anything. I know this is a reiteration of what has been said-I do not want to give too much credit to the hon. member for Cape Breton South because he never says a good word about me-but I want to say that I was impressed with what the hon. member for Cape Breton South said about allowances paid in connection with adopted children who may not be legally adopted. He referred also to girls who were serving in any branch of the armed forces, in the air force or the navy as well as the army. If such a girl is the support of aged parents, surely they are just as much . entitled to an allowance as anybody else. I think the pay of these girls should be brought up to the regular standard.
I realize that it takes a considerable staff to run the army, but there seem to be a number of men in good physical shape and of military age in Ottawa. You are advertising in the papers of British Columbia for 10,000 girls for service overseas to release troops for the front

line. If we are prepared to send 10,000 girls overseas to release men, surely we can spare a couple of hundred to replace men in Ottawa. I do not intend to speak disrespectfully of the staff here; I think they are doing a good job, but some attention should be paid to this matter.
There is another matter I should like to touch on briefly. At the beginning of the war we were told that no member would be allowed to recommend anyone for a commission. I suppose all hon. members have done what I have done and have not recommended anyone. I realized the minister would not pay any attention to my recommendation and that is the only reason I did not make one. However, I think there should be a little more fairness shown in connection with commissions granted in the veterans' guard. I know of one man in British Columbia who earned his captaincy in the field during the last war and was awarded the military cross and the croix de guerre. That meant something in the last war, and yet this man is serving as a private in the veterans' guard, and a man who, I regret to say, was asked to leave the army because, to put it mildly, he was not any too brave, is senior to him. That is not good enough and it should be investigated.
I sincerely hope that the minister will endeavour to give commissions to some of these boys who have been overseas for two or three years. I realize that the department is training a lot of university boys and I do not want to say anything derogatory about them, but speaking from experience in the last war I know that you will build up morale considerably if you are able to spare two or three hundred or more of these men who have been overseas for two or three years and have them take the necessary training. No one makes a better officer than the man in the ranks who has had two or three years' experience.
I do not want to take up any more of the time of the committee. I assure you that unlike one other member I am not going to speak forty minutes on agriculture and theD forty minutes on something else. I do not think the minister knows much about agriculture. If I have anything to say about agriculture, I will say it to the Minister of Agri culture. I come from a rural riding and I want to tell the committee that we are not looking for postponements for our farmers' sons. We are short of labour the same as any other place in Canada. The reason we do not have to ask for postponements is that every eligible young farmer in the riding enlisted at the beginning of the war.

War Appropriation-Army


Mr. ADAMSON:: Following the discussion of Alaska by the hon. member for Brantford City, another question comes up which I think the minister should answer immediately. It has to do with a matter of geography. Attu and Kiska islands are 1,680 miles from the tip of the Alaska peninsula. Actually they are closer to Japan than they are to the north American continent or Alaska. These islands belong to the United States. They are just east of the international date line at the 180th meridian. So far as I can gather from a large scale map, Attu is 172 degrees east longitude and 53 degrees north latitude. If it is the policy of the government to send home defence units or home defence personnel to Attu or Kiska, that statement should be made now. Hawaii is 155 degrees west longitude and 20 degrees north latitude. It is almost 20 degrees nearer to the north American continent than are Kiska and Attu. I criticized the hon. member for Brantford City for suggesting the sending of troops to the mainland of Alaska to do guard duty and to allow United States troops to go on and fight for us. As I say, if it is the policy of the government to send home defence personnel 1,680 miles beyond the north American continent, then I believe the house should have that statement now. Actually those islands are farther away than the nearest point of the European continent.


Mr. GILLIS:: There was a question I wanted to ask the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) but evidently he could not hear me. He made a statement to the effect that the universities across Canada were full of enemy aliens, that there was no check on their mail going out of this country, and all that kind of thing. That was a serious statement to make, and I think the minister should deal with ' it now. I know that this question was raised at several meetings which I attended in my part of the country during the Easter recess. Instead of enemy aliens being in the universities, as stated by the hon. member, I think the reverse is true. These people are refugees from the totalitarian nations that we are fighting to-day. The minister should clear up this point; it should not be left to go out to the country as it is now.


Mr. HAZEN:: When this bill was before the committee last evening the Minister of National Defence, in reply to a question I asked, referred to the directorate of public relations. He also used the term, the branch of the director of information. "Directorate of public relations" appears on page 2978 of Hansard, in the left-hand column, about eight lines from the bottom, and "the branch of the director of information" appears on the same
page in the right-hand column about thirteen lines from the top. Did the minister mean one and the same branch of his department when he used those two terms?


James Layton Ralston: I was talking about the same thing.


Douglas King Hazen: Will the minister furnish us with the number of military personnel and the number of civilian personnel employed by the directorate of public relations during the past fiscal year, and show how this personnel was distributed?


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps it would be more informative if I gave the present personnel. It is not easy to speak for the whole year because some are coming in and others are going out. I presume my hon. friend wants the present strength as of a near date?


Douglas King Hazen: Up to any date for which the minister has the figures.


James Layton Ralston: I will make a note of it.


Douglas King Hazen: Will the minister also tell us how this personnel was distributed by provinces or by military districts, also the numbers in Great Britain and the numbers in the United States? Will he also furnish us wdth the total amount of salaries and wages paid to military personnel and civilian personnel by the directorate of public relations during the past fiscal year, or up to any subsequent date for which the minister has the figures? Will he also give us the travelling expenses and all other expenses and costs that were paid to military personnel and to civilian personnel in addition to their salaries during the past fiscal year or up to any subsequent date?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend understands that most of that relates to item 2, but I am glad to get notice of his questions.


Douglas King Hazen: Some of them would come under item 2. Will the minister also tell us what it is estimated will be required this year for salaries and wages for the increased personnel? Will he also tell us how many of the military personnel and how many of the civilian personnel who are employed by the directorate of public relations receive salaries of over 85,000, how many receive salaries of over S4.000, and how many receive salaries of over $3,000?


James Layton Ralston: I will make a note of it.


Mr. SHAW:: Mr. Chairman, which item are we on?


The CHAIRMAN:: Item 1.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Much of the discussion relates
to item 2. If it is the desire of the committee to dispose first of item 1, I shall reserve my remarks until we reach item 2.
War Appropriation-Army


Mr. BENCE:: I would ask the minister
under which item may me ask questions in connection with medical categories.


James Layton Ralston: I would think under
item 2, dealing with pay and allowances.


Alfred Henry Bence: There is no other that I
can see.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Mr. Chairman, you called, "shall item 1 carry"; does the minister mean that he is going to answer all the questions that have been asked- after we have passed all the items, or just what procedure are we following?


James Layton Ralston: I think most of the
questions that were asked come under other items than item 1. The hon. member for Temiscouata perhaps might -be regarded- as having spoken to that particular item, and I want to say a word in reply, but I do not recall any other questions relating to item 1.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I understand that the minister will answer the questions on a particular item as we go along and that then the- item will be disposed of?


James Layton Ralston: I should like to go as
far as I can in replying to questions, if hon. members would consider them answered then.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That is the way I
understood it yesterday. We had a fairly general discussion yesterday, and 'then the minister brought in a summary of eleven different items and the understanding was that the committee would consider the summary item by item and dispose of each item as we went along.


Mr. PERLEY:: Can the minister give us
a break-down, by provinces, of the civil salaries and wages and tell us how many of the personnel are coming to Ottawa and how many are remaining in the provinces? I understand that a great many of the personnel in the west are coming to Ottawa. How many will remain in Saskatchewan, for instance?


James Layton Ralston: These are the estimates of the number of positions likely to be required, including present 'positions, -in the different districts during 'the fiscal year 194344. They are .the total:
M.D. 1,	London	
329M.D. 2,	Toronto	
791M.D. 3,	Kingston	
702M.D. 4,	Montreal	
559M.D. 5,	Quebec	
239M.D. 6,	Halifax	
707M.D. 7,	Saint John	
148M.D. 10,	Winnipeg	
175M.D. 11,	Vancouver. Pacific command 340M.D. 12,	Regina	
187M.D. 13,	Calgary	
163

Then there are in addition 13 in the Atlantic command, 26 at Camp Borden, 47 at Petawawa; and in addition to that there are the 966 I mentioned; this afternoon. These -cannot be -divided into provinces because they go to different localities. The only district as such, which would have a part of that 966, is M.D. 3, eighty-one; for Canadian military headquarters overseas, 435; for army trade schools, 153; for cadet services, 30; and miscellaneous activities 267, or a total of 966, in addition to the numbers which I have just read, which -amount to 4,426. That is outside Ottawa. In Ottawa the total is 3,040.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should1 like the minister to explain why the report of the auditor general is so succinct with regard to the militia department, while the details in the estimates are so few.


James Layton Ralston: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the minister leaves that phase of the matter, as one of those who have been rather critical of the present set-up of the auditor general's report, I agree that information of a strategical nature, such as the report of the chief of the general staff, should not appear any longer in the auditor general's report, for the reasons which the minister gave. But I would call this to the attention of the minister and of those charged with the responsibility of preparing the auditor general's report. Hon. members and the public are entitled to more details as to where the money has gone, how it has been expended, and who has received it. That, I think, is the gravamen of the criticism which I myself have registered against the present set-up, and that is what I fear we shall not get if the proposal of the auditor general, which was the subject matter of a discussion between t'he Minister of Finance and myself the other night, is carried through. Those of us who have given thought to the subject will agree that the information contained in the reports of certain officers of the Department of National Defence, including most of those, perhaps not all of them, to which the minister has referred should no longer be made public. But I submit this, and I think the submission is a sound one, that statements of expenditure in much more detail than we now have them should be given to the membership of the house and to the public. That .is one point to which I ask the minister to give attention. With his general statement I am to a large degree in accord. I do not make these observations in a critical sense at all, but rather in a constructive sense.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend did, I know, fairly well exhaust the subject the" other evening in discussion with the Minister of Finance. I got the point of what he said then and what he says now. But what the hon. member for Temiscouata is complaining of is that the departmental report does not contain sufficient information. In both cases those reports are rather late, that is they are a year after the expenditure is being made; and what we are trying to do is to anticipate as far as we can, by giving as much information as is possible with regard to items upon which expenditures will be made. I shall take note of what my hon. friend has said and see if there is any opportunity of expanding the information, if not in the auditor general's report, maybe in the report of the Department of National Defence itself.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very good. One other thing, if I may; I am asking this so that the minister may get the information and give it at a later time. I notice under "B-Sundry services: dependents' allowance board", the department proposes an expenditure of $657,700. That is the cost of administration? That does not, of course, include the expenditures on payments to dependents by way of allowances?


James Layton Ralston: That comes under item No. 2.
War Appropriation-Army


Richard Burpee Hanson: I ask the minister to give us, when we come to that, some information about the cutting off of dependents' allowances for dependents of men, we will say overseas, who have been convicted of offences over there and are no longer in the armed services. Some very serious cases lave arisen. A soldier who had a wife and children enlisted voluntarily and went overseas; his wife and children got dependents' allowance as well as assigned pay; and then, as a result of some action on the part of the enlisted man he got into difficulties, was sentenced to prison, and automatically the wife and children become destitute. It seems to me that such cases merit our most charitable consideration, and the minister might make a statement as to the policy of the department with regard to that, when we come to it. I am serving this more or less as notice of motion.


James Layton Ralston: Notice to produce?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunburv):: Notice to produce, yes.


James Layton Ralston: I just wish to finish what I was saying. I should like to call the attention of the committee to the-procedure which exists in the United Kingdom with regard to [DOT] this matter of furnishing information, and the dealing with the war appropriation there. I have in my hand the army estimates of 1942.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They
are very meagre, are they not?


James Layton Ralston: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister will agree, however, that the chancellor of the exchequer in his budget did give substantial figures-


James Layton Ralston: Oh, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -when bringing down his taxation proposals; and he showed what had been spent in the services and what was proposed to be spent-very large sums of money.


James Layton Ralston: And that is what the
Minister of Finance has done here, but not in detail. I would just mention this further, that I looked up Hansard in the period of the last war, when, if I remember correctly, exactly the same policy was followed. As I think I called to the attention of the house at one time, during the last war the whole war appropriation bill passed on at least one occasion in five or six days.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Here in this house?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. I take full responsibility, of course, for the conciseness of the report of the Department of National Defence. I only say to the members of the committee that it has been restricted simply because these reports are omitted and a general report is put in with regard to the activities of the army, the navy and the air force, and the
method by war appropriation bill is substituted for the usual practice under which peacetime estimates are considered by the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there not in the United States a different practice from that in Great Britain? Does it not parallel our practice-I think, with considerable detail?


Ernest Edward Perley: With regard to the staff or civil operations, will all of them have to be approved by the civil service commission, or will a certain percentage be appointed by the minister?


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid this is a pure estimate, but I would not think one per cent would be appointed in any other way than by the civil service commission.
I shall be quite frank with the committee; from time to time there comes to me from the deputy minister a recommendation that I present to His Excellency the Governor General for the authorization of the establishment of, let us say, 139 positions, which have been outlined by the different districts, which have sent them in until there has been a certain accumulation. That authorization is given, subject to approval by the civil service commission of the particular positions and the rates of salary applicable thereto; and on the side of the submission to council is a memorandum signed by the civil service commission officer certifying that he has examined these applications, that he considers them necessary, and that the work cannot be. performed in any other way. I think that general practice applies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is really pro forma on the part of the civil service commission, is it not? I am not criticizing it at all.


James Layton Ralston: I hope it is not. It is the only protection I have, of course, other than the recommendation of the deputy minister; the civil service commission officer is there for that purpose.


Mr. BRUCE:: The hon. member for
Fraser Valley expressed a desire to dissociate himself from the sentiments expressed yesterday by the hon. member for Brantford City, who suggested that we should send troops to Alaska to relieve United States troops there and enable them to fight anywhere in the world.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I made no such statement. I said I would not send the trainees,
War Appropriation-Army

that I would send the best troops we had if we were sending them at all, which is altogether different.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I understood the hon. member wished to dissociate himself from the idea of sending trainees to Alaska to replace United States troops there. Is that not so?


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is correct. If I may repeat my statement, and I think hon. members will bear me out, I said I was absolutely opposed to what the hon. member for Brantford City suggested, when he advocated sending trainees there. His own statement was that this was a most difficult front, and I said we should send our best troops, not the trainees.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Then I wish to dissociate the members of the group to which I belong, the Progressive Conservative group, from the statement made yesterday by the hon. member for Brantford City. His statement was perfectly clear to me, and I do not think he has made matters any better by the further statement he made this afternoon.


William Ross Macdonald: Would you not send troops to Alaska?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I would not send troops to Alaska in order to allow the United States troops there to go abroad and fight the battles that we should be fighting.


William Ross Macdonald: No, not the battles we should be fighting elsewhere; they should go to Alaska to fight the battles we should be fighting there.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I am not aware that any troops of ours or of the United States are fighting in Alaska at the moment. I think the air force is fighting over Attu.


William Ross Macdonald: And United States troops are fighting on Attu.
^Mr. BRUCE: As the hon. member for York West said a few moments ago, Attu is a long way from the coast of Alaska.


William Ross Macdonald: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Parkdale has said that Attu is not in Alaska. He is incorrect. Attu is just as much in Alaska as the mainland' of Alaska itself.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I shall not discuss the matter further, but I was very much disappointed that the hon. gentleman did not call upon the government to adopt the suggestion he advanced yesterday and, by the scratch of 
a pen remove the restrictions from the National Resources Mobilization Act and enable our troops to fight in any part of the world.


William Ross Macdonald: I
did not ask the government to do any such thing.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The hon. member said yesterday, "By a scratch of the pen men called for compulsory military training could be required to go anywhere in the world." I wish to express my dismay and astonishment that the hon. member did not go just a little farther to-day and ask the government if they would not take that forward step.


William Ross Macdonald: When I feel that this forward step should be taken I shall express myself in that manner.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I understood that was the position taken by the hon. member some months ago when that matter was under discussion in this house, but he never followed it
up.


William Ross Macdonald: I must correct the hon. member again. I stated in this house that when it was necessary the government would pass the order in council and that I would support the government.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for Parkdale must accept the statement of the hon. member for Brantford City.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I shall certainly accept his statement. Listening to the amazing speech of the hon. member yesterday, I could not help being very much disturbed at the thought of the effect that speech might have upon United States public opinion. I cannot imagine anything being said in this house that would be more dangerous or harmful, in the possible upsetting of the good relations that exist between ourselves and the United States, than the statement made by the hon. member for Brantford City. That is even more the case on account of the added weight which may be given his words because some people may mistake him for the newly appointed parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence, since the names are the same.


William Ross Macdonald: I rise to a question of privilege.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Would the hon. member
please stop interrupting me? I thought I had finished with him.


William Ross Macdonald: I am rising to a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman has suggested that a statement I made might cause some concern in the United States. I would say that no statement I

War Appropriation-Army
might make could cause as much concern in the United States as the comments made by members of the opposition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not a question of privilege; that is a matter of opinion.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: In a recent speech the Minister of National Defence stated that it had always been the intention of the Canadian government, the Department of National Defence and the military advisers to put the Canadian divisions in action as separate military formations.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend must not say that. Le: him just read what I said, without attempting to paraphrase it. That statement is absolutely incorrect; I did not say it was always the intention. I think it would be advisable if the hon. member read what I did say.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: If the minister says he did not make that statement, I am willing to accept his denial.


James Layton Ralston: If I merely make that statement, without repeating what I did say, there might be some misunderstanding somewhere else. What I said was that the Canadian government had always been prepared and ready to have Canadian troops serve either in whole or in part wherever they could best help to win the war; that this had been made clear to the authorities in Great Britain; that they knew it already, and that they had taken full account of it in the direction of the major strategy of the war. That is a very different thing from saying it is the intention that the Canadian troops shall serve separately.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: If it was the intention of having these divisions used separately, then I would ask the minister why he developed in his department the cumbersome army organization which was created in 1942.


James Layton Ralston: So that we might be in a position to serve however and wherever we could serve best, and in wdiatever formations.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: As an army?


James Layton Ralston: Either way. My hon. friend was not here, perhaps, when I made my speech.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I read what the minister said.


James Layton Ralston: Was the hon. member here when I made my speech?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I was here when the minister spoke on two occasions, and read what the minister said on the third.


James Layton Ralston: If the hon. member will read what I said, he will find I said that the idea that the army organization was rigid was incorrect, and that units of the army, or formations of it, could be used separately.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I am suggesting that if it had been the intention of using the divisions as divisions, separately, then the cumbersome army organization was not necessary; because by doing so you appointed additional lieutenant-generals, majoi>generals and brigadiers.


James Layton Ralston: I have read all this in the Globe and Mail before; there is nothing
new in it. In his speech my hon. friend has expressed the opinion that the army organization is cumbersome. The army organization is well known to military men. I do not profess to be a military man, but I would suggest it is up to military men to decide whether the army organization is cumbersome, or whether it is satisfactory, as a matter of efficient military organization.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I should like to say the impression has been created throughout the country-


James Layton Ralston: By you.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Not by me, at all, but by announcements which have been made in this house by the minister, and by others, that this army would fight as a unit, and that when rve invaded the continent it would be the spearhead of the invading force.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend wish the army to fight as a unit, or separately?


Olof Hanson: He is not under cross-examination.


James Layton Ralston: I should like to know.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I did not hear what was said


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend advise fighting as an army, or separately??


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do not answer it; because you are not under crossexamination.


James Layton Ralston: Be careful; don't answer it!


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I do not happen to be here to give you expert advice.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, oh.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: And I am not under crossexamination by you, as a lawyer, either.


James Layton Ralston: I should think that as a Canadian citizen and a member of the House of Commons my hon. friend, if he has an opinion, should give us the benefit of it.
War Appropriation-Army


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just now he is criticizing you, as he is perfectly entitled to do.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would ask hon. members in debate to address the Chair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think that is right, too.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I think as a member of the house, and a taxpayer, and speaking for taxpayers who are helping to meet the bill which is now under discussion-


James Layton Ralston: And so are we all.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: -I have a right to express my views.


James Layton Ralston: I am asking for your
views.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: My views are that we should have had one or two divisions where they could have had battle experience, instead of leaving them in Britain for three years.


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon. friend .suggest Narvik, Dunkirk, Tobruk, Greece or Crete? Which place would he suggest?


Jean-François Pouliot: Toronto.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: They might very well have gone to North Africa.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And a lot of people have thought that.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: If the minister did not hear what I said, I would repeat that I think a division or two could have gone to North Africa.


James Layton Ralston: I can say to my hon. friend that last fall, when I was over in England,
I discussed the sending of a division of Canadian troops to North Africa, and I was given what I considered to be good and sufficient reasons, by those who were best qualified to know, that the suggestion could not be accepted.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I think the army itself, and those of us who have friends and relatives in the army, will regret very much the lack of battle experience, when our army goes into action, as it may do shortly.
The question I would ask the minister is a very simple one, and I hope I shall receive a simple answer. It is one which is agitating the minds of the people of this country to-day. Is the minister satisfied that there are adequate reinforcements to keep the five divisions overseas at battle strength, if engaged simultaneously in sustained offensive for three months?


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will read the statement I made with respect to reinforcements, he will find exactly what my views are.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You never told us on what they are based.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I do not consider that a sufficient answer.


James Layton Ralston: Nothing I could say would be sufficient for my hon. friend.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I would ask him to say, yes or no. I have asked a simple question, and I am now invited to read what appears in Hansard. If that is the only answer the minister has, then I think it will not be satisfactory to the country, and it will probably give comfort to the enemy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The use and allocation of manpower have been mishandled from the beginning of the war by this government, which is afraid of the consequences of its own short-sightedness, and which is putting political advantage before the interests of the country. We have only to look back over the years since this war broke out, to get ample proof of the statement I have just made.
First, we had the National Resources Mobilization Act of 1940, with its hamstringing clauses limiting compulsory service to Canada, and within its territorial waters. Then we had the plebiscite of 1942, which I might describe as a scandalous and immoral violation of the fundamental workings of the British parliamentary system of government. Following this, belatedly, we had bill No. 80, passed after weeks of acrimonious debate, during which the then Minister of Public Works resigned his portfolio. A year has passed; the government still dodges the issue, and the man-power crisis which Mr. Elliott Little foretold last November, is now upon us.
A week ago the Prime Minister announced a national emergency to deal with the acute coal shortage. Could there be any greater condemnation of the operation of the government's national selective service plan than the Prime Minister's declaration of Monday last with respect to a national emergency? The issue is further confused by the reply given by the Minister of Labour on Tuesday last, as reported at page 2755 of Hansard. An inquiry was then made {sy the leader of the opposition, to which the minister replied

War Appropriation-Army
that men in the coal mines would be permitted to volunteer for the armed forces. Is it any wonder then-


Mr. MITCHELL:: Mr. Chairman,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: -that the people are mystified at what took place in one of the local mining areas of Nova Scotia last week when thirty-seven miners were taken-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Does the minister raise a point of order?


Humphrey Mitchell: A point of order. If
my hon. friend had followed Hansard-


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I will give the minister an
opportunity to speak in a moment.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I ask the hon. member for Parkdale to resume his seat for a moment. When an hon. member speaks he has the right to keep the floor if he does not want to answer a question, unless a point of order is raised.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member was
not here when I made the correction in Hansard that coal miners would not be permitted to volunteer for the armed forces. Either the leader of the opposition was incorrectly reported in Hansard, or he made the same correction himself.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I did not happen to be'
here when the Minister of Labour made that correction, but I read in Hansard what he said on a previous occasion. Of course, I accept his correction. Last week in a local mining area of Nova Scotia thirty-seven miners were taken from the mines by the recruiting officers for service in the army, while the selective service officers were busy securing the release of eleven experienced miners from the army. As an example of further confusion we have the Prime Minister finally approving the voluntary transfer of miners back to the mines and the placing of a ban upon their voluntary enlistment. Eveiy man-power problem with which we are faced to-day stems from the government's unwillingness to enforce compulsory selective service for all, according to their ability to serve.


James Layton Ralston: What has that to do
with coal miners?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I did1 not hear what the
minister said. The shortage of farm labour is principally due to the patriotism of the men working on the farms. At the outbreak of war they immediately offered their services to the armed forces. This number, added to
those who have been allowed to go into industry, makes up the 400,000 men who, we have been given to understand, have been removed from the farms. On May 15 the Minister of Labour stated that out of
700,000	farms, only 4,600 asked for help. No doubt the impression he wished to leave was an entirely erroneous one. The realization of the futility of applying to government agencies has caused the farmer to give up any hope of securing assistance from that source.
What is the result? In this year of food rationing, in a land of plenty, we have farmers abandoning their farms and selling their herds. Shortage of labour forced the hon. member for Portage la Prairie to dispose of his Aberdeen Angus herd which he had built up and which had a great reputation throughout Canada, just as it is causing me to dispose of my herd of Ayrshire cattle on Monday next. Another herd of 100 Ayrshire cattle is being sold on Saturday of this week from the southern part of Ontario.
As a further illustration of the manpower muddle, there is the confession of failure which was issued on January 26 by the departments of defence-and labour, and the disclosures made by Mr. Grant Dexter in the Winnipeg Free Press that out of 750.611 notices for call-Uips under the National Resources Mobilization Act only [DOT] 107,678 men responded. In short, out of every 100 prospects only eleven men were obtained. These were for home defence only. When all this muddling was taking place in connection with the call-up of home defence draftees, thousands of good men were being encouraged to volunteer for service overseas, men who were vitally needed at home, men such as coal miners, steel workers and even scientists.
Apart from the expense and delay in this method of recruiting,, the important question of man-power was involved because the government refused to apply the system which Britain and the United States adopted even before hostilities began, namely, compulsory selective service. This system would have assigned every capable person where he belonged, to military service, to industry or to agriculture. If this system had been adopted, the large number of delinquents and missing persons would not have occurred because they could have been accounted for in the records.


James Layton Ralston: I want to understand my hon. friend. What difference would it have made in the records if these men had been called up for service in Canada or for service overseas? Would there not have been the

War Appropriation-Army

same delinquency? What does my hon. friend suggest would make the difference if the service had been for overseas?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I assume that the military authorities calling them up for service would call up the entire man-power of the country.


James Layton Ralston: That is exactly what national war service is doing. The military authorities are not doing it, either in the United States or in Great Britain; it is being done by an entirely separate department.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I would hope that they would have a more efficient way of doing it than has been the situation here where the government has had to employ an agency and pay them $2.50 a head for each man whom they traced.


James Layton Ralston: How is that affected by the type of service for which they are called up?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I think in the first instance it would have meant all the difference in the world. All men between certain ages would be required to report and would be put into the service where they belonged. I do not think we would have had anything like this muddle and1 mix-up, which is a consequence of the method of handling this man-power problem.


Humphrey Mitchell: Suppose a man did
not report under the conditions the hon. member speaks of; what would happen then?
* Mr. BRUCE:	Suppose he did not report?


Humphrey Mitchell: Are we to assume that everybody would report if you had your way?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I do not know what the minister is trying to get at, but at any rate I am quite sure we would not have the muddle he is experiencing in trying to get men to report.


William Ross Macdonald: You would have put them all in the army two years ago.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I want to say just a word about the Canadian army's battle honours. After nearly four years of war they are represented by two tragic failures, Hong Kong and Dieppe. They were not failures to fight courageously to the death on the part of the rank and file and the officers in charge of the attacks, but they were due to incompetent leadership in the high command.


James Layton Ralston: I may say to my hon. friend that that statement is not worthy of

him; that I did not believe he would make it and that some of these days those words will Choke in his throat.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is pretty rough talk, and I do not think the minister has a right to say that.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I do not think that sort of talk is a credit to the minister even if he is a clever lawyer.


James Layton Ralston: Neither is the talk just used by my hon. friend.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The minister is a clever lawyer, and he is accustomed to browbeating witnesses in the witness box, and I resent his trying to browbeat me.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is talking about battle experiences one minute, and then he talks about tragic failures in the next. Those operations were approved by the highest military authorities, and my hon. friend knows that they were not tragic failures.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The minister has had an opportunity of speaking several times, and this is my first opportunity to express my views in connection with the matter under discussion. The minister has paid a deserved tribute to the men who took part in the Dieppe raid. Their ability, courage and tenacity were never doubted. There has never been any criticism of the men; on the contrary, there has been nothing but the highest praise. One might with equal justice criticize the men who took part in the charge of the Light Brigade. It seems to me that the Minister of National Defence has gone out of his way to overemphasize the value of the terribly costly experience gained at Dieppe. It would have been better had he adopted the stand taken by the Duke of Wellington and said that he profited by his mistakes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take the speech up in your hands and read it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I appeal to you for order. On a point of order, so-called gentlemen are catcalling to try to intimidate the hon. member for Parkdale. I suggest to you that if every member were penalized for reading his speech, ninety per cent of the members of this house would be penalized, including the members of the government. I do not say that offensively because very often it has to be done. I have had to do it myself. Let us have a little order and a little gentlemanly courtesy. We have not had it since the hon. member for Parkdale took the floor.

War Appropriation-Army


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have heard no catcalling, but there should be less interrupting when an hon. member has the floor. Other hon. members may not always agree with him, nevertheless he should be allowed to proceed unless a point of order is raised.


Mr. GOLDING:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there have been rulings given in this house before with respect to the reading of speeches, and my hon. friend who is at the moment leading the opposition knows those rulings. Citation 314, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, reads:
It is a rule in both houses of parliament that a member must address the house orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech, for the reason that "if the practice of reading speeches should prevail, members might read speeches that were written by other people, and the time of the house be taken up in considering the arguments of persons who were not deserving of their attention."
We have rules. Let us observe them.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: His Honour the Speaker made it very clear last session that an hon. member should not read his speech. At the same time we all realize that a member making a speech on a difficult matter must, of necessity, have some notes to guide him, and I presume that the hon. member is following closely his manuscript and not reading it.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I quite expected the hon.
member for Huron-Perth to interrupt me; he always does.


William Henry Golding: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I was not going to interrupt the hon. member for Parlcdale. I should not have risen had it not been for the point of order raised by the acting leader of the opposition, and now that I am on my feet may I say that the hon. member for Parkdale knows the rules of the house as well as anybody else. He knows whether he is right or wrong in standing there reading as he does time after time in this house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point of order the acting leader of the opposition referred to so-called gentlemen. My understanding of the rules of the house is that you cannot use an offensive term of a fellow-member, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that term. I ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is impossible to raise a point of order on a point of order. I did not see anything offensive in the remarks of the hon. member for York-Sunbury.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us
have a little order and go on.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I think it is rather far-fetched for the hon. member for Huron-Perth or anyone else in the house to complain of a man who reads a portion of his speech or refers closely to his notes. I have sat in this house for two or three years and have observed member after member reading word for word from his manuscript and yet the hon. member for Huron-Perth has sat glued to his seat. It 'happened to be some of his friends, so that he had nothing to say. If I refer to some notes to refresh my memory, he objects. I wish to tell him that I prepare every word of what I say in this house, and that is what I fear all hon. members are not able to say, particularly those who are so ready to interrupt.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I say that the disorganization on the farms and the confusion in the coal mines have resulted in a serious [DOT]setback to the production of food and fuel in this country and are due to the man-power policy of the government, which can only be described as organized hypocrisy.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just one word to say in reply to what the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) has said. I was surprised at the sharp exchange between the hon. member and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), for a very good reason. There is only one member who has suggested one of our colleagues to replace the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King), and the one who made that suggestion was the hon. member for Parkdale, while the recipient of the suggestion was the Minister of National Defence. Turning to Hansard of May 28, 1940, I find that the hon. member for Parkdale is reported as follows, at page 305:
I wonder whether these qualities, which are so admirable in times of peace, are not the very qualities which disqualify him-
The Prime Minister.

now in time of war.
Some hon. Members: No, no.
An hon. Member: Shame.
Mr. Bruce:	. . . The Minister of Finance
enjoys the respect and confidence of both sides of this house, as well as that of the people of Canada generally. With his splendid war record, his undoubted ability in finance and law, his well known driving force and character, may I venture to suggest that he is the one man in the Prime Minister's cabinet-
War Appropriation-Army

Mr. Martin:	You are trying to undermine
him.
Mr. Bruce: *-qualified and equipped to lead a war government. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was changed. . . .
And so on.
On May 30, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) brought the matter up, and I did so in February of the following year. I had sharp exchanges with the hon. member for Parkdale previously, when be was making that suggestion, because at that time I stood by my chief, the Prime Minister, and I did my best to defend him against the hon. member for Parkdale, who was advocating a union government. Now, however, I must congratulate the hon. member for Parkdale upon what he said this afternoon in one part of his speech, in which he referred to the distress of agriculture and the necessity for men in the mining industry. Those were the views I advocated from the first, and I am delighted to see that a good imperialist like the hon. member is now with us on the disastrous results of the policy which he then advocated and which he thought would be put into force by the present Minister of National Defence.
I have no grudge against any one. I simply discuss matters on principle, and the stand taken by the hon. member for Parkdale this afternoon shows his honesty and sincerity of purpose. If any other hon. member than the Minister of National Defence had been suggested as Prime Minister to replace the present incumbent, and by any other hon. member, I am sure no one would have been treated as the hon. member for Parkdale was this afternoon. There were quick repartees at times, and I found it deplorable to listen to any such dialogue. I am not in favour of those who are always loudly cheered, because the banging of desks is no argument, but in this matter I think credit is due the hon. gentleman for not being afraid to express such different views when he believes the time has come for him to do so.
Just one word in reply to what has been said by the Minister of National Defence. He quoted the English estimates. Of course, they were on a different sheet and were not in Hansard, like those we are now discussing. There is one thing that must not be forgotten. In England before the war they had a national economy committee which studied with magnifying-glasses each item of the estimates. Since the beginning of the war the same committee has been working, not perhaps so openly, but daily, and there is a great difference between that body and our own committee on war

expenditures, notice of which appears on the first page of the orders of the day and bears the date February 24, while it is now May 25. It means, therefore, that for the last three months that committee has not been sitting, although the appointment of the committee was mentioned in the first place three months ago. So that there is a great deal of difference between England and Canada in this regard.
In England the parties are all largely represented on these committees, the items are taken one after the other, and they do not have such lectures or presentations as the members here have to listen to when they sit on the war expenditures committee.
With regard to the United States, the estimates are very much detailed. Last year I submitted a copy of the United States budget. It is a big book, but it is not complete. There is a statement here with regard to military activities-and the same is repeated for the navy:-
Because of possible material changes in war conditions, the estimates of appropriations in detail for the fiscal year 1944 will be submitted to the congress as part of a supplementary budget in the spring of 1943. However, the summary financial statements include an estimate of total war appropriations and expenditures for the fiscal year 1944 as well as for the fiscal year 1943.
This means that they will give supplementary estimates in detail this spring, and we have not received that information yet. I call this to the attention of the minister. Speaking of civil salaries and wages, I would ask him whether Colonel A. A. Magee is still senior executive assistant in the department.


James Layton Ralston: Colonel A. A. Magee has not been senior executive assistant nor has he held any office in the Department of National Defence since a year ago last January.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As I understood the arrangement that was made when we entered upon this resolution, we were to go down the list of these items, ask questions about them, get answers to each item in turn, pass that item as we do in the estimates and then go on to the next. I can understand a number of general statements being made at the beginning, but if such statements are to continue we shall not get any information nor shall we make any progress. I suggest that we ought to try to regularize our procedure if we are to get any work done. Before this item passes, I wish the minister would give a breakdown of the 3,040 persons hired in Ottawa, as to the number who are stenographers and bookkeepers and the different positions which they hold. Then perhaps we can get a breakdown of this $5,300,715 which was spent last year

War Appropriation-Army
for civil salaries and wages, as to how much was spent in headquarters, and how much in each military district.


James Layton Ralston: Is the hon. member speaking about last year?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am speaking of last year's expenditures for this particular purpose.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend, as I understand it, is asking for the breakdown for the past year?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is right.


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry I have not the actual expenditures here, but I think this will give the committee a general idea: what I have here is, as a matter of fact, the estimates for 1942-43. Has my hon. friend the number there?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is $5,300,000.


James Layton Ralston: These estimates were approximately $4,500,000. Perhaps that will give my hon. friend an idea. I can give him the breakdown for each of these districts in the estimates, and he will have to add a little to each estimate:
Number of employees
Headquarters, Ottawa	 1,673
M.I). 1,	London	
180M.D. 2,	Toronto	
467M.D. 3,	Kingston	
335M.D. 4,	Montreal	
252M.D. 5,	Quebec	
143M.D. 6,	Halifax	
373M.D. 7,	Saint John	
94M.D. 10,	Winnipeg	
202M.D. 11,	Pacific command	
204M.D. 12,	Regina	
131M.D. 13,	Calgary	
105


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


James Layton Ralston: Yes. The amount in all for Ottawa is $1,848,380; and for outside Ottawa, $2,722,021.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is not broken into militia districts?


James Layton Ralston: Yes; I have the figures of the districts. I have given my hon. friend the number of employees; I will now give him a breakdown of the expenditure by districts.
Expenditure
Headquarters, Ottawa	 $1,848,380
M.D.	1	
168,067M.D.	2	
522,245M.D.	3	
470,770M.D.	4	
270,590M.D.	5	
153,893M.D.	6	
337,845M.D.	7	
96,758M.D.	10	
232,184M.D.	11	
242,634M.D.	12	
115,597M.D.	13	
111,438


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wonder whether the minister realizes how hard some of these officials work for the pay they get. I have no personal knowledge of any military district outside of M.D. 7. The minister gave the number of men as ninety-four, and I did not catch the actual amount of their compensation. I want to tell him that these men work Sunday and Monday, and they have scarcely any breathing time at all. I am not one of those Who are throwing mud at administrative officers. They are soldiers.


James Layton Ralston: No. These are civilians.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I am not speqking about the right thing. But while I am on my feet I have something to say to the minister about an incident which occurred in this chamber this afternoon which I do not think reflects great credit upon the minister. I take serious exception to the language he then used to the hon. member for Parkdale. If I interpret the minister's language and his action correctly, he takes the view that no man in this house, layman or other, and that nobody in Canada has any right to criticize the high command; that that should be left to those who have military knowledge. At first blush that statement might seem to have some authority behind it. But let me call the minister's attention to the record of history. I have been a student nearly all my life of Abraham Lincoln, and I recall the days when General George B. McClellan was the leader of the army of the Potomac-a leader who refused to fight and a leader who refused to lead his army into battle. I recall, too, the criticism which contemporary history of that day levelled against McClellan and against the administration at that time. Was that unjustified? I take this view-I wish to state the principle plainly-that, come what may, civil authority must be paramount; that because of that primary principle it is open to parliament, if it is so disposed, and can make a case, to criticize any officer of the army in the course of his official conduct. I am not going any farther than that, but I take a different view from what the minister indicated was his view. I recall, too, that history shows us that when Lincoln called to his councils General Grant to lead the armies of the Union, he was assailed from every side on the ground, we will say, that Grant was a drunkard; and I recall the classic reply of President Lincoln, that he wished he knew what brand of liquor Grant drank so that he could feed it to some of his other generals.
It will not do to say that the high command are sacrosanct. I am not to be construed as levelling criticism at anybody at the moment; it is the principle for which I am contending. Remember the stand of Mr. Lloyd George
War Appropriation-Army

during the last war. He did not hesitate to criticize the high command, nor did organs of public opinion in England refrain from doing so. I think the minister owes it to the hon. member for Parkdale and, above all, to the public of this country, at least to review the language which he used1 this afternoon.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend begins with a premise which I do not think he can support. I do not contend and I never have contended in this house1 that one cannot criticize military officers. I have said-I said to the hon-. member for Weyburn the other evening-that I did not myself propose to address interrogatories to officers who were overseas and were very much engaged in what are most important matters, as to the details of an operation, to give them the impression that they had to justify before a board of civilian strategists-I said that-every detail of an operation. That is my position; it may be right and it may be wrong, but I think it is sound, because otherwise I cannot expect and this country cannot expect the best work from officers who are, to use my hon. friend's description of officers in more junior positions, giving days and nights in connection with matters the importance of which cannot be overestimated. That is the position I took.
This afternoon the hon. member for Park-dale went far beyond criticism. He said, in a sneering way, "I want to say just a word about the Canadian army's battle honours," sneering at the fact that the Canadian army had not been in action, when I think he knew perfectly well why they had not been. He went on, "After nearly four years of war they are represented1 by two tragic failures, Hong Kong and Dieppe. They were not failures to fight courageously to the death on the part of the rank and file and the officers in charge of the attack, but they were due to incompetent leadership in the high command." He was not singling out those who took part in the actual operation. He was singling out the chief of combined operations, the men who had to do with that operation beginning with General Montgomery, who was ini the southeast command at the time and under whom our troops were operating; the chief of the imperial general staff, and all those who had to do with making the plans for that operation.
I quite admit in the presence of this committee and to the country, if necessary, that in my reply I was perhaps a little rough, but I felt exactly as I spoke. When I heard the words my hon. friend used in talking about Canadian battle honours, saying they were represented by two tragic failures and that this was due to incompetent leadership in the high command, when I knew who the leaders

were and he knew, because I told this committee the other night, then I said that some day those words would choke in his throat; or in other words that some day he would be sorry he had used them. That is an expression used very frequently; perhaps from the point of view of parliamentary language it was too strong, but it expressed exactly what I had in mind. I felt that my hon. friend had gone far indeed, first when he described Dieppe as a tragic failure; second when he sneered at the battle honours of the Canadian army, and third when he said it was due to incompetent leadership in the high command. I leave that with this committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the
minister explain to the conSmittee and the country why General Roberts, who led the forces at Dieppe, and, I thought, heroically, has been demoted or, to use the expression which I have seen in the public press, has been kicked upstairs?


James Layton Ralston: I will say that the giving to General Roberts of the post which he occupies at present had nothing whatever to do with his conduct of the Dieppe operation; not the slightest.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
may be true, but he has been demoted.


James Layton Ralston: That may be my hon.
friend's idea.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that
not the idea of the public?


James Layton Ralston: It may be the idea of
the public. Nevertheless General Roberts is a man who has had as much military training and background as anyone of whom I know. He is a particularly capable man in connection with the matter of training. Reinforcement units over there were growing. They had always been commanded- by a brigadier. It was recommended by the army commander and concurred in by the chief of the general staff and approved by myself that General Roberts take command of the whole Canadian reinforcement unit group, making it a major-general's command for the first time, and General Roberts was the first to be put in that position.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then it
was not intended as a demotion?


James Layton Ralston: It was not intended as a demotion; it was a change of job.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
public have rather thought it was the other way.

War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: It was not General
Roberts about whom my hon. friendl was talking; it was the high command, and the high command were those of whom I was speaking, the officers I have mentioned.
Let me finish, now that we are talking about Dieppe. I have never said that Dieppe was a complete success, but on the other hand I have not said that it was either a tragic or a ghastly failure, because that would be untrue. As I told the committee the other night, the operation at Dieppe had two major objectives. The first was a strategic objective, which consisted of getting information as to the enemy dispositions, something we did not know and could not get, as was indicated in this book, " Combined Operations," without actually fighting for it. The second abjective was to get information with regard to enemy dispositions across the channel, because we had never set foot there since the days of Dunkirk, when those heroic men left that beach. It was also to test out our own equipment. We had equipment, but the question was, how would it do; how would it go in battle? We had. been through all sorts of manoeuvres, and these men had been trained in the use of that equipment, but would it stand up under battle conditions? Then, it was to test our own dispositions and our own handling of landing craft.
In those respects Dieppe was a success, because it gave us information on all those points, and I am going to quote "Combined Operations" in that regard in a moment. Dieppe, as "Combined Operations" says, was an indispensable prelude-not a tragic failure, as the hon. member for Farkdale says-to further operations. Dieppe was conceived, planned, worked on, practised and put on with that in view. Where Dieppe failed to a considerable extent was in connection with the tactical results. That is to say, it did not destroy the number of enemy installations that they expected to destroy in the area of Dieppe. But Dieppe did something more than that. Dieppe for the first time flushed the German air force; it caused the Germans to withdraw a considerable part of their air force from the front farther east in order to combat our air force. The battle which was fought in the air and the victories which were won on that occasion were part of the gain at Dieppe.
That was Dieppe. The losses were heavy; there is no doubt about that. Nobody deplores them more than members of this house, and I know the hon. member for York-Sunbury joins with me in that just as much as any other hon. member. But that was Dieppe, and
it was not a tragic failure nor was there any incompetent leadership by the high command. It was a climax of operations which are described in this book, "Combined Operations"; small commando raids, getting larger and larger until Dieppe was the climax. I am going to trouble the committee, if I may, by reading not any grandiloquent phrases, but just a plain statement of facts by a man who has become known and trusted, I think, for his truthful recital and truthful appraisal of these operations. This is Mr. Saunders, in "Combined Operations":
In the words of the Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons on the 8th September, 1942, "The Dieppe raid must be considered a reconnaissance in force. . . .
What is a reconnaissance for? It is for tb's purpose of getting information.
"It was a hard, savage clash, such as is likely to become increasingly numerous as the war deepens."
If we are going to have ,the people who conduct these operations called incompetent, and the operations called tragic failures; if that is to be the general feeling, I am afraid we are in a fair way to lose the war.
"We had to get all the information necessary-"
Before what?
"-before landing operations on a much larger scale."
This is the Prime Minister of Great Britain speaking:
This raid, apart from its reconnaissance value, brought about an extremely satisfactory air battle in the west, which fighter command wish they could repeat every week."
Then Mr. Saunders says:
The results to which the Prime Minister referred were indeed of the highest importance. Two were outstanding. In the first place we learnt much about the German defences in the west. In the second place, and of still greater value, was the first-hand experience we acquired of the conditions which may be met with in a large scale assault on a strongly held channel port. The details of these experiences must not be revealed. The enemy -will know in due course how we have profited by them. While the Dieppe raid was an indispensable prelude for what was to take place later, in a sense it was also the culminating point in the series of reconnaissances of which some account has now been given. Certain of the results achieved became visible later when a combined operation on a much larger scale was successfully launched; others will appear in the major assaults to come.
The results were purchased at a high cost in casualties. The Canadians suffered particularly heavily.
War Appropriation-Army

Then he goes on to quote the announcement which I made with regard to the number of troops engaged and the number of casualties. He goes on to say:
It is sometimes possible to judge the effect of action otherwise than by the public analysis of such of its results as the military authorities are able to divulge in time of war. Phrases like "synchronization" and "timing" do not always convey the full importance which should be attached to them unless a yardstick is provided by which they can be measured.
Such a yardstick was produced by Goebbels. It was the reaction of his propaganda machine.
That is, the reactions of his machine to Dieppe.
The enemy was very badly rattled. For the better part of a day, axis wireless stations broadcast statements which were at once fantastic and contradictory. Thus they said the raid showed every sign of hasty preparation; it had been ordered by the Prime Minister on his return from Moscow four days previously as a sop to Stalin.
Rehearsing had been going on for that show for months.
Almost in the same breath they said that it was the culmination of ten months' planning of so extensive a nature that the chief of combined operations had paid a special visit to the United States of America in connection with its preparation. A little later they maintained that the raid was meant to be the opening of the second front, a little later still that it was not a second front at all but only a raid. By these and equally glaring contradictions did the enemy betray his troubled and uneasy spirit. The phrase "perfect synchronization," which passed almost unnoticed or was taken for granted by the ordinary British or American citizen, had for the Germans a most precise and sinister significance. They realized that their enemies were able to stage with success a landing on a scale heavy enough to make a still larger combined operation a practical proposition. Where that larger landing would take place, and when, they did not know, but German political warfare, which from the beginning of the war had taken and maintained the offensive, began on the day of Dieppe to turn to the defensive.
The enemy's apprehension concerning a major assault was well founded. Eighty days later the occupation of French North Africa began.
That is Saunders' summary of Dieppe. I submit there is nothing there to justify any hon. member in calling Dieppe a tragic failure, much less to suggest incompetent leadership. That is the reason which prompted me, on the spur of the moment, to say what I said to the hon. member for Parkdale. If my words were too rough, then I regret them, and would be glad to withdraw them. But I must say they expressed the sentiments I felt at the time, which might perhaps have been put in more elegant language. I felt that what I said was justified, having regard to the statement the hon. member had made.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunlbury); Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to labour the incident of this afternoon further. Perhaps the minister's statement now does him credit, and we can very well leave the incident as it is. Neither do I rise for the purpose of making any analysis of Dieppe. I have never looked upon Dieppe as a great tragedy, except in respect of the severe casualty lists which resulted.
The minister called it a reconnaissance in force. I think if there was failure at Dieppe it was due to the element of lack of surprise, for which certainly those who planned the expedition could in no way be held responsible. It has been explained both here and in Great Britain that the attack lacked the element of surprise. That was due to fortuitous circumstances with which, I think, the British-Canadian command could not cope.
But I am just wondering-and perhaps the minister can enlighten me, as a layman-having regard to the terrain at Dieppe, having regard to the fact that there was a sea wall averaging twelve feet in height, and having regard to the fact that competent observers have said that a frontal attack on Dieppe could never succeed, why was not a flank attack considered-[DOT] if in fact it was not considered? I have been told by those who at least know the terrain intimately, and by others who have some knowledge of strategy, that in respect of a frontal attack on Dieppe the odds were against the success of such an attack. I will put it in that way.
Nevertheless the minister may be able to enlighten us as to why the frontal attack was selected, instead of a flank attack. The theory I had propounded to me was that to be successful, surprise or no surprise, the probability in favour of success would have been much greater by a flank rather than by a frontal attack, -having regard to the almost insuperable position offered, the resistance offered not only by natural defences but by artificial defences as well.
Then, I suggest the minister ought to tell the committee and the country, if he is able to do so, just how far our mechanized equipment was able to penetrate. I listened to his statement the other day, and read it very carefully. I had been told, and the aerial photographs so indicate, I believe, that only one tank actually reached the Casino on the boulevard or the street behind the sea-wall. The minister used the word, "some". The information I have is that most of the tanks were bogged down in the sand, and never reached the sea-wall at all. I am not blaming anybody, but I think a true picture ought to be given to the committee. We ought to be told the reasons for failure to get through. Was it due

IFar Appropriation-Army
to a lack of surprise? Was it due to the fact that the enemy were expecting the raid? I have the idea that probably, being apprised that a raid was coming, they had ample time to prepare.
Then, in the statement the minister made some weeks ago, just after the Dieppe attack, he said that one of the lessons to be learned from Dieppe was-and I must say to him that I was rather surprised when I heard his statement-that Dieppe demonstrated that the gallant Canadian soldiers who went into the raid, who behaved so heroically, and so many of whom lost their lives, had confidence in the leadership of their officers. Although I have not the article under my hand, I think that is what the minister said, and he will no doubt correct me if I am wrong.
That is a rather surprising statement, when one analyses it. When did the time ever arrive that a trained Canadian soldier going into battle did not have confidence in his commanding officers? That statement was on a par with the statement made by the chief of the general staff in September, 1940, before the Canadian club at Ottawa, when he was put up by the government to defend government policy, and told the people present that one of the reasons for the thirty-day training plan was that the youth of Canada had to be taught a sense of national obligation. It is just that type of statement. Did the minister make that statement in defence of the Dieppe raid, namely, that it demonstrated that the Canadian soldier, as good as any in the world, as was shown in the last war and, if an opportunity is given, will be shown again in this one, was brave and courageous, and would follow his commanding officers? I wonder if that is one of the main lessons learned from Dieppe, and why that statement was ever made.


James Layton Ralston: First, with respect to the flank attack, I have not examined the minutes to see what other forms of attack were considered. I can only say to the committee that the plans for the attack which was made were, as I have said, gone over, and gone over, and gone over, time and again. Theyi were changed from time to time, until the conclusion was arrived at that a certain plan was the best one. That conclusion was arrived at by those in whom I have confidence, and in whom I believe the country has confidence. My hon. friend's assumption is a little incorrect when he suggests it was altogether a frontal attack. I presume my hon. friend has in mind that there were two flank attacks on each flank.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The main attack was the front.


James Layton Ralston: Two flank attacks on each flank were planned to take place before the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry and the
Essex Scottish were to land on the front. The two flank attacks on the west were by No. 4 commando-they were to capture the battery-and by the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders and the South Saskatchewan Regiment who were, among other tasks, to attempt to gain command of the west headland. No. 3 commando was to capture the battery at Berneval, farthest to the east, and the Royal Regiment of Canada were to land and take the. eastern headland. Whoever planned the operation understood fully the desirability of securing the flanks and, if possible, silencing the fire which would come on the beach when the main landing was made in front. I am not going into the details of why that did not succeed.
Hon. members will remember that No. 4 commando succeeded completely. The South Saskatchewan Regiment got in quite deeply, as did the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada. No. 3 commando, as the committee will remember, intercepted a German convoy coming up the channel, or the convoy intercepted them. They met and a great many shots were fired. The landing craft were dispersed, and only a small number, I think something less than twenty, of No. 3 commando actually landed. But so daring were they that for something like an hour or an hour and a half, according to the statement of "Combined Operations", they succeeded in practically silencing the battery which they were to capture, by sniping at the gunners.
The Royal Regiment of Canada-this is anybody's guess as to why it was caused; the interception of this convoy had probably something to do with it-landed later than was planned, and the result was that they never captured the headland. In the meantime General Roberts had information, according to combined operations, that the attack was going on; that a landing had been made on the beach and that the tanks had come ashore. It was after that that he ordered in the Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal, and later on ordered in the Marine Corps Commando, which was the second reserve. So much for the form of attack. I have not heard anything which would indicate that the job should not have been done in that way.
With regard to the other statement that was made, when I was in England near the end of September I saw these men, some of them in hospital. I had seen the adjutant-general after he came home, having seen

War Appropriation-Army

these men, in hospital. The adjutant-general told me [DOT] that the thing that impressed him above all else, besides the spirit of these men generally and their anxiety to get back at the huns was the absolute admiration and confidence with which the men spoke of their officers and of the way in which they had been led. It was equally true on the part of the officers with regard to the men. It seemed that there could not have been more perfect confidence and coordination and cooperation than existed between the officers and men at Dieppe.
This is evidenced by some of the deeds of gallantry on that occasion. The hon. member for Weyburn, I think it was, referred to Colonel Merritt. He led his men over a bridge, and reassured them at a time when it was actually under fire. We had universal testimony, not just from the officers but from the men themselves. They had complete admiration for the way in which the officers had carried on. There was no idea of the officers sitting back in a dug-out or in support trenches and sending the men up. The officers were up with the men and the men were up with the officers. That is all I have to say about that. I do not think there is anything wrong in calling attention to it. I certainly regard it as the outstanding feature of Dieppe as it has been related to me by both officers and men.


Mr. ROSS (Souris) :: I do not wish to
make any comment at this stage about the leadership of the high command. As I said a week ago, it may be difficult for us properly to appraise the success or failure at Dieppe. In making his statement the minister went out of his way to defend the operation at that time. We all greatly respect the heroic performance of the Canadian troops at the Dieppe raid. I think of one man, Captain James Brown, who came from my own locality. In order to get over, he went as a medical sergeant, did heroic work and was decorated.
In view of the defence the minister has put forth, I wish to ask some questions at this time. I should like to know the number of prisoners which the nazis took and the number of casualties among those who actually landed. I should like to know the percentage lost as prisoners and as casualties. I should like to know the number of enemy prisoners that we took. Will the minister not say that in his opinion it is just possible that the nazis got just as much, if not more, information as a result of this raid as we did? Is it not true that our people lost operational orders which were captured by the enemy? These certainly

would have been beneficial to the enemy. As a result of this raid we had the shackling of prisoners and other unfortunate incidents.


James Layton Ralston: One can only express
one's opinion. From having talked with those who were connected with the raid, from Lord Louis Mountbatten down, I do not think the information obtained by the enemy was at all equal in value to the information we obtained on the points in connection with which the raid was launched and which would be of assistance to us with regard to future operations. I have heard the idea expressed in the house two or three times, but it never occurred to me that the Germans had obtained information which was equal in any way to that obtained by us.


James Arthur Ross: Did they obtain any
of our operational orders?


James Layton Ralston: They may have obtained operational orders, but "Combined Operations" gives the operational orders in effect. I gave a general outline of the operations when I made a statement, I think in November..


James Arthur Ross: The minister would
not say that they did not capture those orders? I should1 like to have the number of prisoners and casualties.


James Layton Ralston: I quote from "Combined Operations":
Subsequent announcements raised the total to 3.372 out of the 5,000. This included 593 officers and other ranks killed or died of wounds, and 1.901 who were prisoners or otherwise detained on the continent, and 287 missing; while 591 returned wounded to England.


James Arthur Ross: Out of a total of
how many?


James Layton Ralston: I said, about 5,000.


James Arthur Ross: How many prisoners
did we take in turn?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell my hon.
friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would
that 5,000 include the air force?


James Layton Ralston: No; they were Canadian
troops.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That number would include Canadian troops only and would have no reference to the navy or air force?


James Arthur Ross: Will the minister give us the number of prisoners taken, because that is part of the picture?


James Layton Ralston: Certainly.

War Appropriation-Army


James Arthur Ross: I should like to ask another question in connection with Major General Roberts. I have the highest regard for that gentleman, but I wish to ask the minister if it was his experience in the last war that when a high ranking officer was taken out of active service and placed on some reserve duty, this was considered1 as a promotion. Whenever a high ranking officer was taken out of active service and placed on some other duty with the reserve, it certainly was not considered as an appointment.


James Layton Ralston: I would have to recall the particular instance. It would depend upon the officer and the job he was doing. I can recall some officers who went back to England, and it was considered as a distinct promotion. My hon. friend used the word "reserve". General Roberts was given command of the whole reinforcement group.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to discuss the Dieppe operations again. I have asked questions about it and have expressed my views upon it on two occasions, and I do not think it necessary for me to go over it again, except to say that while I agree with the minister as to the value of the experience gained, I cannot altogether agree with him with reference to the second value he pointed out, namely, knowledge of the disposition of enemy troops. The disposition of enemy troops will vary from week to week and from month to month, and any information about enemy dispositions last fall will not likely be of much value in the event of an invasion of the continent this summer.


James Layton Ralston: I mean disposition of
enemy defences, not simply troops-the siting of anti-aircraft and other guns, for instance. That is what I was talking about.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would say the same thing of that, too, to a lesser extent, because the enemy disposition of its defences, mortars and artillery will change. But the operation did show two things. It showed enemy technique, the methods they intended to employ in repulsing an invasion. That is valuable. It also showed the particular types of weapon which the enemy used with great effectiveness. I talked with some of the men who came back from Dieppe, and they were particularly impressed with the German use of the mortar. From w'hat I have gathered from some of the men who came back, changes have been made in training among our own troops with respect to that weapon on account of the effective use which the Germans made
of it. There is no doubt that this experience which the men gained will be of tremendous value in any future operations.
I am sure that the minister cannot be altogether serious when he says that if we are to have criticism of the high command or of the men who plan the operations, we certainly shall lose the war.


James Layton Ralston: I did not say that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I may not be quoting the minister exactly. Let me put it in this way. I think what he had in mind was that if derogatory statements were made about the high command-I am not one of those who said that Dieppe was a tragic failure-it would have a detrimental effect. I have not discussed Dieppe publicly outside the house. I have spoken of it inside the house and said that in my opinion the Dieppe operation was not an unqualified success. I am not keen about discussing these matters publicly in war time. But there is a value in discussing in this house the extent to which there is proper co-ordination between the services with a view to guaranteeing the maximum possible success with an absolute minimum of casualties. I think the criticism in this house of the Hong Kong expedition, for instance, had some value because, as the minister himself said in the debate, following that criticism changes were made in the general staff, particularly in ordnance, and I think, a good deal of that came about as a result of criticism in various parts of the country. Men in high positions in the armed services who are charged with the disposition of our troops and upon whose judgment will depend the lives of the sons of citizens of Canada ought to feel that our eyes are upon them and that, while we may pardon errors in judgment, this house will not forgive and the minister will not condone any carelessness or negligence or any lack in the essential planning that goes to make a successful operation. I do not think it is a bad thing for the high military authorities to feel that we are watching them. I think it would be bad for us to be too sweeping in our condemnation. I think it would be wrong for us to criticize without at the same time giving credit where credit is due. But I can think of no greater service which this house can do for the minister and which the minister can do for the country than to make those who are responsible feel that we are watching them with concern, for, after all, there has been given into their hands the lives of young Canadians, Canada's most precious possession.
I should like to ask the minister a question. Will he explain the increase of 3,300 in civilian staff which is contemplated this year? Last
3014
War Appropriation-Army

year the staff over-all is quoted at 7,466. This year there is an increase of 3,300, or almost fifty per cent. As I understood the minister's statement the other day, the requirements this year will be for about 100,000 more men. I would think that the present civilian personnel would be able to look after quite an increase in the armed services without a correspondingly tremendous increase in civilian staff. What is the reason for this large increase of fifty per cent? Is the army to be increased by that amount? That surely is not contemplated in view of the minister's statement that 100,000 more will be required.


James Layton Ralston: I asked the same question myself, I may say to my hon. friend, and from the information I got I would think it is safe to say that by far the larger proportion of this increase is due to the fact that physically unfit civilians will be substituted in quite a large number of positions at present occupied by men in category A or category B1; that is to say, in clerical positions, in connection with engineers, firemen, watchmen, operators, instructors at trades schools, laboratory, photographers, X-rays, certain hospital staffs, waitresses, cooks, orderlies, dispensers, scientists, research assistants, specialists in history, languages and chemistry'-these latter are not replacing soldiers but are being taken on as civilians-survey engineers, cartographers, lithographic printers, topographical engineers, design engineers, architects, structural engineers, mechanical engineers, and certain tradesmen, painters, machinists, shoemakers, metal workers, toolmakers, textile refitters, truck and car drivers, motor mechanics, and labourers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A large part of the increase is due to the replacement of army personnel by civilian personnel?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of privilege. I understand that in my absence from the house a few minutes ago the Minister of National Defence stated that I had referred to the battle honours at Dieppe with a sneer in my voice. That is absolutely untrue, and I ask the minister to withdraw that statement.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend must not ask people to withdraw things they heard. He can make any statement he likes, and I have to take his statement, but he cannot make a statement as to his own attitude which I observed and as to his words which are down here, and simply on that account have me withdraw what I said.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The minister said I spoke with a sneer in my voice.


James Layton Ralston: I will help my hon. friend out. If he says he did not intend to sneer, I will accept his statement.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: That is quite an improper thing for the minister to say, and I object to it.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I would ask the minister a question arising out of what he said a few moments ago when he was telling the committee how much experience our troops had gained at Dieppe and how beneficial that experience would be to them in future operations. With that I agree. I think they would gain a good deal of experience. We have read in the newspapers quite frequently that the Canadian troops now in England are to be the spearhead of any attack on Europe, and I have often asked myself how effective they can be without having had' any previous actual battle experience. That question is prompted by the minister's statement that much experience was gained through the attack on Dieppe. I know that when the Canadians get into the war actively in the army, in battle line, they will give as good an account of themselves in this war as they did in the last. There are no better soldiers in the world. But I would be sorry to see them thrown as the spearhead into battle without previous battle experience. Can the minister say whether they will be thrown into battle as the spearhead without previous experience of that kind?


James Layton Ralston: All I can say is that troops cannot get battle experience without being in battle. That is trite; but at the same time it is true, and the question is, what place you are to select to put them into battle? If my hon. friend suggests that there is some sort of pre-battle-


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have read the statement by General McNaughton that they would be the spearhead. How can they be the spearhead without battle experience?


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member says
they should have battle experience, and he realizes they have to go into battle to get battle experience. In other words, troops have to go into actual combat where they can get such experience. Whether they go into battle as an army is another matter, and perhaps that is what the hon. member has in mind. You cannot possibly have battle experience without going into battle. There must be a first time for all troops. A good many of us have had that experience. I only say to my hon. friend, as I said this afternoon, in answer to the hon. member for Parkdale, that I invite all hon. members to suggest where, up to date, we would have

War Appropriation-Army
put our men in for battle experience. I mentioned some of the actions that have taken place. I mentioned Narvik, and I asked, did anyone here feel that we should have put them there, or that they should have been at Dunkirk, or that we should have insisted upon throwing them into Greece or Crete or in Egypt, when the troops were driven back? I am sure the committee would say, no; we do not want that. It comes to this, therefore, that we want them to have battle experience, but we want to be sure that they are in a successful show. Well, you cannot pick and choose in that respect. Dieppe gave battle experience and there has been a good deal of criticism of it; why? Because it was not wholly successful. I am afraid the government and the commanders cannot always pick the operation in which there can be an absolute guarantee of success, and I simply say to the hon. member that no one is more alive to the desirability of having battle experience than is General McNaughton or your humble servant. At the same time, however, we have to take things as they are, bearing in mind that desirability in so far as it can be attained. In the meantime, what these men have done, many of them, for the last three years-they are not green troops-has been to train in practical manoeuvres and battle drill undfer the most gruelling circumstances, so that they might be fitted as nearly as men can possibly be fitted in rehearsal for actual battle operations.
The term "spearhead" has been frequently used, but it does not necessarily indicate the operation or the role which Canadians will play. The role which Canadians will play will depend upon the circumstances, and upon what those who have1 to do with major strategy in the war will decide, in consultation with the Canadian government and with our military advisers, is the best way in which Canadians can help either as an army or in individual formations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like to give the minister another notice to produce.


James Layton Ralston: To-night?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; when the information is available. It arises out of the minister's statement made in the earlier part; I am not sure whether it was in chapter 1 or 2 or 3.	>


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps the appendix.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have
had a good many instalments of the speech, not through any fault of the minister's. However, he said that during the past fiscal year
there were 125,000 volunteers for the Canadian active army. How many of these were women?


James Layton Ralston: None.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very
well; that is answered now. Next I want to know how many of these volunteers came into the army, by districts.


James Layton Ralston: I can give that now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That, of
course is the only way in which the minister could answer the question, by districts. The minister will recall that in June of last year he made some very frank statements about enlistments, and I should like him to be equally frank in this regard, following the pattern, I believe, of June 24, if he will refer to that. That is all I have to say at the moment.


Mr. HANSELL:: We in this corner have been sitting patiently all day, saying nothing but listening to a good deal. Some of the things to which we have listened we have regarded as perhaps of considerable value, but there have been other things which, we may have not regarded as so valuable. Perhaps that is all a matter of one's personal opinion. I do not think the government or the minister need be undiuly alarmed if hon. members ask questions with regard to anything. We have a right to expect an answer to these questions.
Somebody this afternoon suggested that the minister should take a train trip some time, sit in the smoker and listen to the conversation of the men. Members of the House of Commons, I believe, live a little closer to the Canadian people than does the minister or the government, and I think we can feel the pulse of public opinion in regard to some of these matters.
I am not going to take up time in discussing Dieppe or Hong Kong, because I frankly confess I do not know much about- it, I have read what the papers have to say and I have certain opinions of my own, but I am not a military strategist and I do not wish to enter where angels fear to tread. I do say, however, that when certain things take place in connection with the war, pass into history and become matters of record, members of the House of Commons have a right to ask for any information they desire with regard to these incidents. We have a right to ask that investigations be carried on in respect of anything we believe it is the public's right to know. We have the right to criticize our war effort. But it is a bit comical to me when hon. members
War Appropriation-Army

rise in their places and state what should be and what should not be done in the way of military strategy. I listened this afternoon to part of the debate and read the report of part of the discussion which it was not my privilege to hear, and I find that hon. members were talking about whether a force should be sent to Alaska or to the Aleutian islands. Well, as far as I am concerned I do not know anything about that, and I doubt whether any other hon. member knows anything about it.
In the first place, we are not provided with all the facts. We do not know how many men are there. So far as I am concerned, and I think in saying this I voice the views of our party, I am willing to leave military strategy with the admirals, the air marshals and the generals, who are trained technicians in matters of warfare. What do we know about it?
But let me add this, that these men have great authority; it is an axiom of logic that with authority comes responsibility; and if, with that authority and responsibility, blunders are made, we have a right to know why, and who is to blame. But until that happens, personally I cannot see a great deal of advantage in discussing whether an army should be sent here or sent there. We are not in possession of the information. When I hear men expressing their opinions on such matters, I turn to the "Parliamentary Guide", and I do not find there any Montgomerys or Alexanders; I do not, I am sure, find any "Eisenhowsers" there. I should have said "Eisenhower"; my hon. friend here confused me; he said that we do not find any Ralstons there, but that is one name we do find in the "Parliamentary Guide".
It may appear that we in this corner of the house are not particularly interested in today's debate on our war effort because we are not -rising in our places every moment and asking something about Dieppe or about some other little bit of military strategy. The fact of the matter is that all one can say in this chamber does not amount to a row of pins in influencing General So-and-so and Admiral So-and-so. Often we hear the cry, "Let us get on with the war"-as though discussing these matters gets on with the war! As a matter of fact, it does not. I am quite certain that those who are in high command, who plan military strategy, do not read what we here are saying.
When it comes to military strategy-and I am not posing as a strategist-if such questions could usefully be asked, there are a number which I should like to bring forward 
The common man in Canada is wondering about some very vital matters. I do not expect an answer to this query which I am about to present, but, as an example, I was talking the other day to a man who said, "I do not understand a lot of things in respect of this war". "Well," I said, "do not come to me and ask me to explain anything about it. Perhaps I am just as confused as you are." He said, "Sometimes I wonder whether it is a game that the nations are playing." "Well, now," I said, "just a moment; do not talk like that, because I would hate to think, with all respect to mothers and fathers who give their sons, that this is a game we are playing." "Well, now," he said

this is the way the common man argues it out-"I would imagine that the best way to gain a victory is to pop off the men who are at the head of things. Adolf Hitler tells the world he is going to meet Mussolini; he tells everybody where he is going to meet him-right in the Brenner pass. We hear of our bombs and blockbusters being dropped over there and wrecking railways and engines. Why do our fliers not go to the Brenner pass and drop bombs there?" We may smile, but so far as I am concerned that man showed1 a good deal of horse sense.
This is a sample of the questions which the average man is inclined to ask. Surely the authorities know where the enemy leaders are once in a while. If we want to wreck German morale, we might do it if we could drop a few thousand tons of bombs in the Brenner pass, wdien wre know the day and the hour Hitler and Mussolini will be there. I do not intend to ask the minister to rise and show me why this is not done. I do not know, but I am quite willing to leave it with the military strategists. I would only repeat that these are the things which the common man is asking.
With respect to military strategy, we have not many strategists here; certainly we have not any who are in possession of all the facts necessary to discuss the subject intelligently. But when it comes to our war effort, or to incidents which are now history and which to the public may appear to be blunders, we have a right to the closest scrutiny of these matters, and those in responsible positions who have made blunders should be taken to task accordingly.


Thomas Langton Church: I said this afternoon that about ten minutes would complete on item No. 1 the remarks which I have to make. Inasmuch as the subject of the Dieppe raid has

War Appropriation-Army
been raised since, I wish to say a few words in order to state facts and what we faced, although not in any critical spirit. I am not going to criticize anybody, but I come from a district which, with the surrounding ridings in Toronto, suffered a great deal from casualties incurred in this unfortunate raid. I would not go so far as to blame any member of the government or any officer of the army. But I believe this particular raid must be regarded against a background of the disarmament propaganda which went on for so many years in this country, in Great Britain and elsewhere. You refused to arm on land, on the sea or in the air and threw away your defences. In this particular connection I find that three or four hundred pages of the British Hansard, starting away back last spring, are devoted to criticisms of the British government for the conduct of the war the world over in all theatres. As hon. members know, you Cannot go to war without getting hurt; and we started with a civilian army. We started with a civilian army, started from scratch on land, on sea and in the air, and it took us some time to achieve any results. There was a great deal of criticism last June and July after Mr. Willkie, accompanied by Mr. Fog, made that memorable trip to Russia, round the world in sixty days. All over the world there was a clamour for a second front, coming from those who knew nothing about it and who forgot the great preparations which must be made under conditions of modern warfare. It is a gigantic task to gather the men, equipment, munitions and all the rest of the things that are needed for an action of that kind.
In my opinion it is the duty of an opposition to offer constructive criticism, and that is what I propose to do in the few words I have to say on this subject. Last July, when the war in Africa was going very badly, there was a long discussion for many days in the British House of Commons with regard to mistakes made, and if we had the criticism in Canada that they had over there I am afraid there would be a riot. Member after member got up in the British house; some of them returned from the various theatres of war-admirals, generals, air marshals and all the rest of them-and criticized the way in which the war was being conducted. Mr. Churchill saw fit to move four or five generals, including General Wavell, an all-time military genius, General Auchinleek, General Ritchie and others who had been in charge of the campaign in North Africa; but the war had gone badly for us there because our forces had no equipment. They lacked tanks, anti-tank guns, aeroplanes
and all the rest of it, to do a thing there. Once they obtained proper equipment there was an immediate change.
All this has a direct bearing on this issue. If we go from Africa to the other theatre of war, to Russia and Stalingrad, we find that many changes were made there also. At page 397 of British Hansard Major Markham, a very prominent soldier, is reported to have said:
These officers are perhaps second to none in patriotism, in keenness for their profession and in determination to serve . . .
Then he goes on to say that in Russia-and the same is true of Germany also-they removed staff officers who were in charge of the professional corps of regular officers and replaced them with civilians, who brought about many of the Russian victories in the course of that campaign. On March 31, 1941, a discussion took place in this house between the hon. member for Yale, the hon. member for York-Sunbury and the Minister of National Defence, during which I think the minister gave a very fair statement of the case, setting out the functions of the cabinet in this country, the heads of the army, navy and air force here and those in charge of our' forces in England, in strategy and the conduct of the war. The situation may have changed since that time, but I thought the statement he gave was very good. Part of the discussion was as follows:
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):	Was it not
really ratified by the Canadian government afterwards?
Mr. Ralston: Hon. members can realize that, on the ground, plans would be made in the expectation that the Canadian government would ratify the judgment of the officer commanding the Canadian corps, if he saw fit to commit his troops; but in connection with one of these matters I have a distinct recollection of communications indicating most clearly that the Canadian government must be consulted with regard to matters of this kind. It is not a case of ratification; it is a case of approval.
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury): Beforehand?
Mr. Ralston: Beforehand. I am talking particularly about moving out of England.
Mr. Casselman:	Would that be so if the
governor in council had passed the order in council which is provided for in either section 6 or section 8 of the Visiting Forces Act?
Mr. Ralston: Yes, in my opinion.
I think that is the situation as to strategy and consent to training and use of troops that has obtained ever since.
In connection with the Dieppe raid I should like to quote two or three short paragraphs. First, I should like to refer to the remarks of the Prime Minister of Great Britain as to the reasons for this raid and whether or not it was a military success. Speaking in the House of
War Appropriation-Army

Commons in London on September 8, 1942, on commandos and a second front and invasion of Europe, Mr. Churchill said:
The second important operation was the attack upon Dieppe. It is a mistake to speak or write of this as "a commando raid," although some commando troops distinguished themselves remarkably in it. The military credit for this most gallant affair goes to the Canadian troops, who formed five-sixths of the assaulting force, and to the Royal Navy, which carried them all there and which carried most of them back. The raid must be considered as a reconnaissance in force. It was a hard, savage clash such as are likely to become increasingly numerous as the war deepens. We had to get all the information necessary before launching operations on a much larger scale. This raid, apart from its reconnaissance value, brought about an extremely satisfactory air battle in the west which the fighter command wish they could repeat every week. It inflicted perhaps as much loss upon the enemy in killed and wounded as we suffered ourselves. I, personally, regarded the Dieppe assault, to which 1 gave my sanction, as an indispensable preliminary to full-scale operations. I do not intend to give any information about these operations, and I have only said as much as I have because the enemy can see by his daily reconnaissances of our ports many signs of movements that we are unable to conceal from his photography.
A few months later, on Armistice day, November 11, the Prime Minister clarified what he had said previously and1 put a slightly different construction upon it. That was at a time when Mr. Willkie and Mr. Fog had returned to the United States, and almost everybody else was calling for a second front, without knowing a thing about it or having any military experience in this regard or the reason for the delay. At page 25 of British Hansard for November 11, 1942-this was in the new session, which opened three days before-Mr. Churchill said:
The Russians have borne the burden and the heat of the day, and I think it absolutely natural on their part, and fully within their rights, for them to make the very strong and stark assertions which they have made.
Then, in two sentences, he dealt with the Dieppe raid:
It might have been a relief to our feelings

at least, in the early stages-if we had delivered a premature attack across the channel, if we had had, for instance, a dozen Dieppes on one day and a couple of Dunkirks a week or two later. But a disaster of that character would have been of no help to Russia. It would have been the greatest disservice to Russia.
But the attack which will be made in due course across the channel or the North Sea requires an immense degree of preparation, vast numbers of special landing craft and a great army trained, division by division, in amphibious warfare. All this is proceeding, but it takes time. Of course, should the enemy become demoralized at any moment, the same careful preparations would not be needed.

Risks could be run on a large scale. But this is certainly not the case at the present time. There is a German army in France as large, apart from the home guard, as ours in Great Britain. It is not so well equipped as the British or American troops, but it contains many veteran German soldiers, many experienced officers who have taken part in the overthrow and massacre of a dozen countries. It has ample weapons of the latest type; it has the aid of the immense fortifications erected along the Channel and North Sea coasts. There are also the extraordinary and peculiar difficulties attendant on. all landings across the sea in the teeth of opposition-the chances of weather in this somewhat variable northern climate, the difficulty of reconciling tides and the moons, of catching at one moment high visibility from the air and smooth waters for the landing craft. There are many other factors. I could speak for an hour upon them, but I do not intend to labour the matter, certainly not in public session, because a great many of these difficulties it will be our duty to overcome.
It goes on in this Hansard to refer to conditions in the invasion which were then encountered. A lot has been said and written about the raid'. The Toronto district has been greatly affected in casualties by it, and I have had many letters with regard to it. I have had conversation with several men who were in it. I do not wish to express an opinion, because the casualties were as heavy as were experienced in the last war.
I will say, however, that a great German general has spoken about such raids as this in his textbook,, one of the greatest in Germany. I refer to Marshal von Leeb. I find this in "Crisis in Strategy" in the National Review for November, 1942, at page 401:
Long before this war, von Leeb regarded the problem of defence as of primary importance for the whole of German strategy. In an important manual on the subject von Leeb wrote.
This was a textbook at West Point and at many other military schools long before this war, and the German government in planning their strategy in this war adopted this plan. The quotation continues:
"Let us always remember that attack is the method which decides war and battle. But let us not as a result misread the situation of Germany. Her experiences in the wrorld war of 1914-18, her geographical situation, and the importance of her essentially defensive position emphasize the significance of the defensive within the general development of war."
And he proceeded to develop his ideas in accordance with the lessons which he held that these facts taught. Von Leeb drew on Clause-witz to point the importance of defence, especially when fighting a number of powerful enemies. In that situation, he said, the vital thing is to lose correctly; that is, since to defend everything is to defend nothing, to plan necessary sacrifices so that at the end it is the attacking

War Appropriation-Army
enemy who is at a disadvantage while the defender finishes by rallying himself for successful attack. Von Leeb underlines the importance of this. He writes:
"In particular, everything on all other fronts must be sacrificed so as to bring about a decision in one sector on one front."
And he continues with a complex analysis of the practical problems of defence in terms of tanks, anti-tank guns, aircraft, swift-moving mechanized transport, and such other technological instruments of war as chemical weapons and wireless communications.
A long series 'of allied failures in practicaly every campaign which at one stage or another attempted a sustained offensive against German forces testifies alike to the thoroughness with which the Germans have analysed the problems of modern defence and the efficiency with which they have devised weapons, training and detailed tactics with which to solve those problems.
The names of these gallant but unsuccessful fields are -written in blood in the records of allied warfare. "Knightsbridge" and the "Cauldron" in Libya last June, when 270 British tanks out of 300 were destroyed by the German defences without countervailing tank losses on their side, constitute one example of which we are only too bitterly aware. In Russia, the great German defensive positions at Rhev, Gzhatsk and Sehluesselburg are among the German defensive positions attack on which, though brave, determined, tenacious, and thoroughly organized, has cost our Russian allies only too dear for the results achieved. Our latest experience of the strength of German defences in the west was gained at Dieppe; and Dieppe showed once again that the allies have not yet solved the tactical and operational problems of smashing German defences; problems that must be solved before we can beat the German armed forces; problems that will be solved once we put our full minds and wills into devising their solution.
The recommendation for this raid, or the statement as to who should take part in it was of course the function of the officers in England. A great many men of the city of Toronto were casualties, or were among the missing and! injured. I believe the strategy or plan must have been first submitted in Canada to the war committee of the cabinet, and action taken thereon, as announced by the minister. The minister has replied to the question respecting the survey made of German defences before the raid. I do not know whether he. has seen the leaflet issued here about a month after this raid by the information bureau. However, it was a long sheet of white paper, stating that Yanks were there; they were not and when Mr. Churchill, as shown in Hansard, had said that the Canadians did most of the work and had to.
I should like to quote some further articles in the press handed out, but that would only add to the discomfort of the families of those connected with the raid. Many people have been writing books, and that sort of thing
and propaganda, some of them knowing very little about it. The censor should have stopped it until after the war. A lot of it is not correct.
There has been one criticism however by Admiral Iveyes. His criticism is only partial. In a lecture in England, at Cambridge,, on March 10, 1943, he criticized the conduct of the raid on Dieppe. This British admiral was a former director of combined operations at Zeebrugge and Ostend in the last war. The article, a Canadian Press dispatch, in reporting the lecture states:
Lord Keyes, retired in November, 1941, said he knew "very little about the Dieppe raid except the part played by the 3rd and 4th commandos in their attacks on German batteries on either side of the town." He made no mention of Major General Roberts, commander of a Canadian division, who directed the operation from a ship lying offshore.
He said he thought the plan to land these commandos so close to dawn was running a great risk "since it did not allow for any unforeseen delays, with disastrous results, not only to the 3rd commando but also to the main operation."
"As events proved the main landing at Dieppe against a heavily defended position did not take place early enough to secure the beach and permit the tanks which were timed to land after daylight to make good their landing," Lord Keyes said.
"They were all knocked out by well-sited anti-tank guns which could not be dealt with either from the air or the sea."
He conceded that the fact that more than 300 vessels crossed the Channel through a minefield which had to be swept and that with the exception of one, that carrying the third commando, arrived at their destinations at the appointed times was "greatly to the credit of the navy."
Then, one other article on "Facts of the Raid" from the National Review of last September:
Early on Wednesday, August 19. a combined operations raid was made near Dieppe, when troops and tanks were landed by the Navy under the cover of a powerful air force. The French had been warned by radio that they must keep out of the fight and not expose themselves to German reprisals. The raiding parties were on shore for nine hours. They were composed mostly of Canadians, though there were British, Poles, and Czechs among them. The official .account, gave this picture of the work done.
"It was known that as a consequence of our avowed aggressive policy the Germans had recently been heavily reinforcing the coastal defences of the whole of the occupied territory. Heavy opposition was, therefore, anticipated. In fact it became clear during the raid that the enemy had brought additional troops and guns to the Dieppe area quite recently.
"Despite this heavy opposition, forces were landed on all the beaches together with some tanks. They succeeded in destroying two batteries and the radiolocation station, in-
War Appropriation-Army

flicting heavy casualties upon the enemy forces, in sinking two small _ vessels, and in bringing back a number of prisoners."
This is the first daylight landing we have made in France since the Germans took that country over, and it was successful in its aim and satisfactory as a military exercise. The tanks cruised about the country and streets and the whole operation gave evidence of first-rate staff work.
Once more, as so often happens in our history, the navy held the sea and the army fought across it. But the most important result of the Dieppe raid was that it led to a very large air battle. The official air account is not lengthy and reads:
While the principal objective of the air operations was to give support to the landing and cover to the forces during the land engagement, and to the naval craft, there, in fact, developed one of the greatest air battles of the war. Although this air battle had not been planned as one of the objectives of the operation, the Germans were forced to call up aircraft reinforcements from all parts of occupied France, Holland and Belgium. Many of these enemy aircraft were engaged before they ever reached the area of the operations, large formations being broken up and dispersed particularly over the mouth of the Somme.
During the engagement ninety-one German aircraft are officially known to have been destroyed and about twice that number have probably been destroyed or damaged. In all these operations ninety-eight of our aircraft were lost and the pilots of thirty of these are saved.
The air losses suffered by the enemy temporarily crippled him, and a sweep the next day over northern France to Amiens showed that there were few German fighter aircraft able to fly in that region. The navy took the troops across the narrow seas, waited for them and brought back every possible one of them. One destroyer, H.M.S. Berkeley, was lost, as well as a number of landing craft. The timing went as by clockwork. Only one party was twenty minutes late, and this because they met an enemy convoy and had an encounter with a German armed trawler, which they sank. This delay made for sharp fighting because the element of surprise, in this case, was not present. This particular unit landed under fire. A vivid picture was given in the press of the adventures of Lord Lovat's commando No. 4, and the story reads like a page from Marryat.
The Canadians suffered very heavily. In my opinion there is one unfortunate angle to this particular raid. It seems that we cannot carry on modem warfare without press agents being right up with the troops all the time. They are allowed everywhere. The censors should regulate this better. I believe that many of

the losses would not have occurred if the Germans had not in some way had a tip about the raid. I lost twenty-five of my best friends, many of whom I had known for many years. I do not think it helps to have all these books published, or radio articles or pamphlets. There should be censorship, not only on books but on a great deal of the information given out by some correspondents. Bishop Wells, chief chaplain, said he could not see how war correspondents and press officers could have known all about' the raid from ships outside.
This raid shows that there will have to be another peninsular war in Europe if Germany is to be beaten. She now occupies two-thirds of Europe, and we have not as yet got inside her defences in Europe. If we are to carry out a successful peninsular war, we must regain command of the sea. While it has been predicted by many authorities, I do not think we can win this war alone from the air, without a peninsular war in Europe and the regaining of sea control. The predictions were made two or three years ago that this would be possible, but Germany is yet far from beaten. I am surprised at the way things are going in this country. A red herring, known as social planning, is being drawn across the trail, and the war is now only secondary. I think we should first catch the fox we are hunting before we start after another one, known as social security.
I am sorry for the families of the men in my district who lost their all in this raid. I believe that the disarmament that took place was partly to blame, and the raid) was not worth it. Some mistakes were made in England. I do not think it should be necessary that a man should be a staff college man in order to climb to the top in the army. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that this is the case. Germany and Russia even brought in civilians at Stalingrad. Before we can invade Europe we shall have to be prepared and ready for anything that may happen. This war will not be won without an extensive peninsular war, with a year or more of planning. We have had some victories in Africa, but we are now at the darkest and gravest hour of the war. I wish the government every success in carrying out a total war effort. It is the duty of every citizen in Canada to support a total war effort. If the man-power situation had been handled correctly since the war began, and there had been selective service, we would have more men on the front to-day. I am one of those who believe that there is

War Appropriation-Army
no such thing as home defence. We must seek the enemy abroad wherever we can find him, on land, sea or in the air.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I asked the minister whether home defence personnel could be sent to Attu and Kiska islands.


James Layton Ralston: The governor in council has the authority under the act that was passed last year to send them to Attu and Kiska.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Would they be covered by the act as it now stands? The question was raised last night about sending troops to Alaska, and the hon. member for Brantford City suggested that they could be sent to Attu and Kiska. Since he was a government supporter, I questioned1 him. I should like to know now whether the regulations as they at present exist would permit home defence personnel to be sent to Attu and Kiska.


James Layton Ralston: An order in council could be passed under the provisions of the bill passed last year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That just removed the disabilities. Has there been any general revision of the regulations, or is each case dealt with by a separate order in council?


James Layton Ralston: The orders in council have all been tabled. I do not think there is any order in council covering Attu and Kiska, unless they are included in Alaska.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not
a fact that before any troops can be sent outside the territorial jurisdiction of Canada a special order in council must be passed covering that particular operation?


James Layton Ralston: No, not where the particular place is covered by a general order in council.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there
now in process a drafting of the general regulations which would provide authority to send them out without anything more being done?


James Layton Ralston: Not that I know of. We have passed-several orders in council regarding Newfoundland and the United States and Alaska.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall item No. 1 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The next item is pay
and allowances, $539,730,211.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I should like to
ask the minister a question arising out of an article which appeared in the press a short time ago. It reads:	.
Basic Training
A soldier's wife with a husband three years overseas says she, and many of her friends in similar status, neveF received any increase in pay when the soldiers on this side of the water got a raise to $1.50 a day.
She writes: "I have been told that they do not figure our men have had basic training. Can you tell me when they are likely to get basic training if they have not had it after three and a half years of service? I should be very pleased if you could put us all straight on this matter."
Many people are wondering why these men have not received this increase in pay, and I know some of the men overseas find it difficult to understand this.


Mr. KNOWLES:: When the minister
answers that question I wonder if he could give us the information which he told me the other day he had with respect to the percentage of men, both overseas and in Canada, who have received this raise. He will recall that we had some difficulty in getting the question worded properly.


James Layton Ralston: The question just asked
is along the same line as the one asked by the hon. member for St. Paul's. Here is what I have in regard to Canada. A survey was made covering 187,000 troops. The survey is not complete, but it ought to be a fair indication of the percentage throughout. Of those who have had four months training, 27-8 per cent are still receiving $1.30 a day.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are the overseas men receiving $1.30 a day?


James Layton Ralston: I will come to that in a moment. Then 18-6 per cent of those who have served four months are receiving $1.40 a day, and 53-6 per cent are receiving $1.50 a day. That is, 72-2 per cent

18 -6 plus 53-6 per cent-of the number who have served for four months out of the group in respect of which the check was made are receiving either SI.40 or $1.50 a day. It may be that those receiving $1.40 a day have not served the additional two months, but I cannot say as to that.
Answering my hon. friend's question about overseas men, I can give roughly these figures. We telegraphed Canadian military headquarters, and they took a test check of certain units, in order to give the information back promptly to us, which they thought would be indicative. The telegram we have received is that between 80 and 85 per cent-I think it was
War Appropriation-Army

a little more than 85 per cent-of those who have served four months are receiving the increase in pay, and about the same percentage for those who have served over six months. I would like any cases that hon. members have in hand brought to my attention so that I can wire the names over. I want to ascertain what has gone wrong. We had communications by wire some time ago. There was a little delay in dealing with the matter in some of the units, and we wired indicating clearly that we desired the utmost expedition to be used in having the increase in pay put into effect as rapidly as possible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I had quite a number of communications about this very matter, but on analysis I came to the conclusion that my inquirers did not thoroughly understand the regulations. I could well understand that when I came to see and read the regulations for myself, because there were a good many conditions precedent to obtaining the increased pay. On explaining that to my correspondents I found that in ninety per cent of the cases some one or more than one of the necessary conditions had not been fulfilled. I think in fairness to the national defence department that ought to be stated.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What are the conditions? Here is the case of a man who has been overseas for three years. He had a clean sheet until just three months before this increase came into effect, and he did not get the increase. I do not think anybody can understand why that would be.


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry that I have not the regulations with me, but I shall be glad to give them to the committee to-morrow.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That would be a good idea.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Do the draftees get the increased pay, too?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. I think there has been a little misunderstanding about the increased pay. When the increased pay was put into effect applying to the army it was intended to be along the lines of the increased pay which was given in the air force to the AC2 who becomes AC1 after three months service and becomes LAC. after six months' service. Under the air force regulations the commanding officer decides whether the increase is merited having regard to the training of the man and the degree of proficiency he has attained. Men in the air force are reclassified as AC1 after three months, and there is another reclassification after six months. In the army the increase is made after four months, instead of three, because there was a definite break at the

end of four months; that is to say, the man was supposed to be taking basic training which would be completed in four months. But there has been this difficulty, and these are probably the cases that hon. members have in mind, that some men have not had basic training at basic training centres and passed the test expressly provided. So that we have provided a fifty-hour course which enables a man on passing to qualify, notwithstanding the fact that he does not strictly come within the letter of the regulations which my hon. friend saw. I presume those were the printed regulations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister sent me a copy.


James Layton Ralston: There is a provision that if the man takes that fifty-hour course and passes, that is compliance with the conditions which are required with reference to basic training. There is a further provision applying to the older men, the veterans, who are not in a position to take the same sort of strenuous training as the younger men. We have made special provision for them. I wish to impress on the committee that there is a degree of proficiency required in connection with increased pay.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And good conduct?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, and good conduct. If there has been a forfeiture of three days pay within the four months, they do not get the increase until there is a clear conduct sheet for the required period.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is a fairly
severe penalty for a minor offence. Here is a case of a man who has been overseas for three years and had a clear sheet, and just because of that forfeiture he does not get the increase. That is rather serious.


James Layton Ralston: It is not so serious. He has to have a clean conduct sheet for a clear four months.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He has to begin all over again for the four months.


James Layton Ralston: That is all. There are three conditions: (1) length of service; (2) good conduct, and (3) a certain degree of proficiency.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: May I ask a question with respect to the men who have an opportunity of taking the fifty-hour course? Is it fair to make them wait? Men have come back from overseas and cannot understand why they should not get the increased pay. They have been overseas but have not had

War Appropriation-Army
basic training. When they come back they cannot understand why they should not have had the increased pay long before this, but they cannot get increased pay. Why should the increased pay not be made retroactive to some reasonable date?


James Layton Ralston: I must say that I have not had a word of complaint from overseas. Canadian military headquarters were satisfied that the increase was being paid to all those who were entitled. We took pains to have Canadian military headquarters understand that they were not to be reluctant about granting increased pay but rather to assist the men in every way possible to qualify for it. There is nothing niggardly about it at all. We are giving the trained soldier badge, notwithstanding the objection of some hon. member to badges, to a man along the same lines as the LAC. badges are given in the air force. The increased pay implies training as well as service. A man getting a badge has a certain amount of pride in it, and it is also better for the army.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: Under this item I should like to support one thing which the minister said when giving his report to the committee. He said that while basic pay of women was lower than that of men, consideration was being given to the question of training pay being on the same basis and of granting dependents' allowance to women. I would urge not only that consideration be given to the question of having equal pay for various trades, but also that the whole question of basic pay for women be put forward as a basis of equality with that of men in the armed forces.
I was hoping, some time during the discussion of the war appropriations, to be able to review fairly generally the position of women in this country in our war effort, but under this special item I cannot go farther than women in the auxiliary services. The question of women in other fields will have to be left to some other time. However, what I have to say to-night will apply also to the women's auxiliary services in other departments.
I think it is significant that the position of women in the various countries of the world is indicative of their state of progress. We have looked upon countries such as prerevolutionary China, czarist Russia and India as backward countries, and they are countries where the position of women has been deplorable. We have noticed also that in the fascist countries, where formerly the people had some degree of democracy and of equality, the position of women has been pushed back.
On the other hand, in the very opposite direction, there is one country, the Soviet Union, where to-day the position of women is far superior to that of the women of any other nation, for women there are granted absolute equality, economic, social, political and cultural with the men. It will be agreed also that the equality granted to women in the Soviet Union has been responsible for their remarkable development, because not only have the women in that country made a very great contribution to its progress during the last twenty-five years, but recently the women of Russia have produced many heroines in the defence of their country, and this has well justified that equality which they have been given. With regard to Canada and the United1 States, women are supposed to have equality with men, but on an economic basis they have not yet achieved it.
I think it will be agreed that the emancipation of women is something for which we yet have to strive. We would not have had that political equality we have to-day had it not been for the suffragette movement in Britain. So far as I am concerned, I do not suffer from any discrimination in that respect. So far as the women members go, we do not receive two-thirds of the indemnity given to the men, but that is something of an accident. It is possible that the fathers of confederation, in their wildest dreams and flights of fancy, never thought for a moment that women would encroach upon their prerogative, so that, when women came to the House of Commons, they entered on a basis of equality with men. Had it been otherwise, I would have started a union of the women members of the house, and I am sure that with the support of the other woman member I would have striven for equality, not only on our own account but by reason of the principle involved, and on behalf of other women who will be sitting in this house some day in the future.
With regard to women in the auxiliary services, we as a nation have called on these young women to take up a great responsibility, and they are doing an excellent job. The minister himself has admitted it. They have gone into offices and various departments and have taken the places vacated by men, and they are doing the work as efficiently as the men did. On that basis I fail 'to see why it is that women in the auxiliary services receive only two-thirds of the basic pay. I fail to see how it is that we have arrived at that situation or why it has not been remedied during the period we have had women in the auxiliary services.
War Appropriation-Army

As regards the question of young women receiving dependents' allowances, I have reliable information about the women's services in Britain. There, if a young woman can prove that before joining up she had made a contribution to her parents, it is possible for her to have an allowance. I submit that we should very quickly see that the same applies to the young women here. We have overcome in the past fairly well the discrimination with regard to religion and race, though not altogether, but we still do suffer in this country from sex discrimination, and at the present time there is a great need for us to take stock of this question and eliminate the discrimination and give to the women of the country full equality when we ask them to do an equal job with the men in various directions, for the girls in the army are doing a wonderful job.
I have heard it said that men arrive at their decisions by reason and logic and that women more often rely on intuition and their emotions, but I fail to see what logic is behind the position where women receive only two-thirds of the basic pay which men receive, when the women do the same job. If the minister can explain the logic behind that, I shall be glad to know what it is, because I appreciate logic. I believe it is a hang-over, a relic of the past, of the dark ages, which has hung on to us, relegating women to a position of inferiority. The men have said, "We are glad to accept you, but we cannot pay you the same as we pay the men." Why? I say this to the minister honestly: When we women have discarded the old Victorian red flannel petticoat to do the job, it is time the men discarded the red flannel petticoats around their minds and gave us equality. Nothing would do more to encourage young women to take on the responsibility which they are asked to shoulder than to be given equality with the men, and I urge the minister not to waste time in discussing the matter. There is nothing to discuss; simply go ahead and grant them equality in basic pay and other privileges.


Mr. EDWARDS:: The thought that has been in my mind, which prompts me to speak on this subject, is rather the converse of what the hon. member who has just spoken has suggested. It is true that the criticism I have finds its origin probably in pre-Victorian days. An officer in his majesty's army was expected perforce to marry a lady of means who was able to provide for herself, because it seems a strange anomaly that not only in the army but in the air force an officer is not obliged by law or by the regulations to provide for

his wife. A private, corporal, sergeant, sergeant-major, a non-commissioned officer on entering the Canadian army-and I believe the same applies to Britain-is required by the regulations to assign so many days' pay to his wife and dependent children or dependents as the case may be. But perforce, when he becomes a commissioned officer, the same obligation does not obtain.
This has been brought forcibly to my attention in one particular instance I have in mind. That was some months ago, and in the interim seven or eight additional cases have been drawn to my attention. During my recent visit home I learned of five or six others, wherein, thanks to the new idea of promotions within the forces, men have risen from the ranks and are now commissioned officers. But the one instance of which I have intimate personal knowledge is that of a man who enlisted as a private, having a wife and two children; he became a commissioned officer and forthwith cancelled his assigned pay; or rather the assignment was no longer operative by reason of his promotion, and his wife and dependent children are worse off to the extent of between $40 and $50 a month. It is my understanding that in numerous cases commissioned officers in the Canadian army have stopped their assigned" pay and that all their wives and dependent children have to live on is what they receive from the dependents' allowance board; whereas these same men, or men equally valiant, if non-commissioned officers or private soldiers, would have to make assignments before the dependents' allowance was paid to their wives and children.
My observations apply not only to the army but equally to the air force, where the same rule applies. A married man with a family, upon being commissioned, is no longer ' required by rule, regulation or law to assign any portion of his pay to his wife. A number of Canadian wives of officers find themselves poorer by reason of their husbands' promotion to commissioned rank.
There is another phase of this matter of which I speak with some hesitation in this chamber, and only because I have made repeated representations to the authorities. We have in this country numbers of members of the Royal Air Force taking training. Some of these men, two or three of whom I know personally, upon completing their course were commissioned as officers of the Royal Air Force and retained in this country as instructors in that force. Facilities were provided whereby such of these men who are married were enabled to bring their wives to this

War Appropriation-Army
country. I believe these officers receive the same pay and allowances as similar ranks in the Royal Canadian Air Force. In two instances of which I have personal knowledge, when the wife arrived from the old land she was told that her husband no longer cared for her. The assigned pay was stopped; and two very charming English ladies found themselves five thousand miles from home, dependent entirely upon the dependents' allowance paid by the Canadian government. I say that the principle is wrong. I have contended and still contend that if there is a rule which is justified in equity and sound logic that a non-commissioned officer or man must assign a certain portion of his pay to his dependents, there is no rhyme or reason why, if that man becomes a commissioned officer, the same law should not apply; at least he should be obliged to assign a definite minimum of his monthly pay, and it is not good enough to allow any man to be so remiss in his duties as to refrain from providing for his wife and dependent children and to release him from the obligation of doing so. I protest against such a situation being allowed to continue.
We may be informed, perhaps, by some of the "higher-ups" in the air force and the army that "after all, this fellow is a good soldier; we are not concerned so much about his morals or his domestic troubles or problems; and anyway, there is no legal process whereby you can compel a man to recognize his obligations to his wife and children." That is something which should be remedied, and I hope it will be remedied by the Minister of National Defence and the other ministers associated with him in charge of our active fighting force. If it is not done, I should like to know on what basis or for what reason a commissioned officer is permitted to avoid making provision for his wife and dependents when a non-commissioned officer or a private is compelled or obliged to do so.


James Layton Ralston: First, with regard to the case made by the hon. member for North Battleford. I do not think there is anything to-night which I can add to what I have said in the passage which she quoted. As I said, the matter is under active consideration. I hesitate to guess why it is that the pay was different. I could make a couple of speculations about it, although I know the hon. member will not regard] either reason, as sufficient. One is, I think, that the similar 'body in England have the same gradations of pay, and that when the women's services were formed here they were modelled after the ATS and the same differential in pay was made. The only other point which
I can think of at the minute is that it is true, as the hon. member will realize, that women are not in combatant work; that is, that there is not every place in the army where they can serve, as men can. She may think that is a bit of red flannel petticoat wrapped round the masculine mind1, but at the same time those who drafted the regulations in the first place may have felt it formed some basis for making the rate of pay different. As I have said in my statement, active consideration is being given, regardless of whether there may be a difference in the basic rate of pay, to the point that trades pay for doing the same work should be the same for a woman as for a man; that is, that the differentiation should not be carried farther.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the whole question not one of equality of service?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. I assume that those who made the differentiation in the first place considered there was some difference in that women cannot serve in all types of soldiering. But I assure my hon. friend that what she has said to-night will have attention. I am tremendously sympathetic with anything which may promote esprit de corps, and which may indicate appreciation of the work which the women are doing. I spoke particularly of the CWAC, but it applies also to the women's division of the ah' force and of the navy as well. I greatly appreciate the work they are doing, and the way in which they are taking men's places in a great many jobs. I have no hesitation in repeating what I have said in other places, that in the jobs they are taking over they are doing as well as the men whom they are releasing, if not better.
With reference to what was said by the hon. member for Calgary West, I was not in on the making of the dependents' allowance regulations, and I cannot tell him why there is no requirement that an officer shall assign part of his pay before he is entitled to dependents' allowance for his wife. Nevertheless that is the regulation. There is this to be said, that the wife of a lieutenant gets $45 in separation allowance as compared wdth $35 for the wife of a man in the ranks, and I believe the rate for the wife of an officer of higher rank goes up to $60 a month. I have every sympathy with the case that has been made out by the hon. member, and I say to him, as I said to the hon. member for North Battleford with regard to her case, that the matter is under active consideration now, and that as a matter of fact an amendment has been drafted on that very point. I do not
War Appropriation-Army

know that it will go to the full extent my hon. friend wants, but I am satisfied1 that if and when it is approved it will be sufficient to take care of cases of the sort to which he has referred. I must say that I am rather reluctant to have the army interfere in the domestic or financial relations between husband and wife; it seems to me the rule should apply that the employer ought to keep out of it. However, we have done it in connection with the men, and it seems to me there may be justification for doing it in respect to officers as well, in necessary cases.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
about the case I mentioned this afternoon, of the man who has volunteered and gone overseas, leaving a wife and child in Canada? In the courts of Britain he is found guilty of a crime, and punished. The woman is automatically cut off; her whole source of revenue is gone. It seems to me that is a terrible hardship, and one which this country should seek to meet at least in part. I know of a particular case-


James Layton Ralston: Is that the case of a chap getting into trouble over there?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, and
there was an automatic cessation of pay and allowances to the wife and children. The family are living on charity.


James Layton Ralston: In that case the provision
is this. If it is a case of detention or imprisonment or penal servitude-I do not know whether that is the case-


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is it.


James Layton Ralston: -where the detention or imprisonment is for a period of six months or more, payments of dependents' allowance and assigned pay cease at the date of discharge of the soldier from the force or at the expiration of six months from the date of sentence, whichever is the earlier. Of course my hon. friend would not object to the allowance ceasing at the time of discharge from the forces; obviously you cannot keep on paying dependents' allowance after that. In the case of a soldier detained and still kept on the strength, however, the dependents' allowance does not Gease until the expiration of six months from the date of sentence. I am wondering if in that particular case the six months have elapsed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not the correspondence here.


James Layton Ralston: Would the hon. gentleman give me the name of the case?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will try to find it.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I wish to touch on the subject to which the hon. member for York-Sunbury has just referred and which was brought up last night by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, namely, the plight of women who have been receiving dependents' allowance and assigned pay, when their husbands go absent without leave or commit some other misdemeanour and get into trouble. I have a case that I have been taking up with the dependents' allowance board within the last few days. I am informed by the board that if the man is overseas, the dependents' allowance and assigned pay is continued for two months instead of twenty-one days.


James Layton Ralston: For three months on the first occasion he goes absent without leave. If he goes absent again, the allowance is continued for only two months.


Angus MacInnis: I imagine this was rather a bad case; the man had been imprisoned, and I think since July, 1942, he has been away without leave most of the time. I have a letter from the dependents' allowance board from which I should like to read some paragraphs in reference to the point I wish to make. On this occasion this man has been absent without leave since February 28, 1943, and I am told that the dependents' allowance was continued until April 28, 1943.


James Layton Ralston: That must have been the second time he was absent.


Angus MacInnis: I imagine that may be so.


James Layton Ralston: Apparently he does not like the army.


Angus MacInnis: There is a peculiar proviso, in this letter, considering the circumstances. The chairman of the board says:
We are sorry that we are unable to make further payments on this account until such time as he returns to his unit. The regulations provide that dependents' allowance is payable only until the 21st day of absence but in cases where the soldier is overseas it is continued for a _ longer period to provide for any possible mistake in information received.
Then comes the proviso to which I have referred:
It is necessary, however, to recover any payments made beyond the 21st day if it subsequently appears that the soldier was actually absent without leave.
In the case I brought to the attention of the board it would be quite impossible to recover anything that had been paid, unless it was held back from future allowances. This woman has two children, aged

War Appropriation-Army
three and four. She has tried every means to keep the family together. She went to work in a restaurant at $48 a month and boarded the children, for which she had to pay $24 a month. She found it impossible to carry on and had to give up her work. She would have carried on in that way but for the fact that the people boarding the children would not continue to do so for the amount she was paying.
It seems to me that to allow a situation of this kind to continue is really bad; I do not know whether you would say it was bad for morale; but it creates a bad atmosphere; it interferes with recruiting and all that sort of thing. Surely there cannot be so many cases of this kind that better provision could not be made for the wives and children. I wanted to bring this particular case to the attention of the minister, not because the hon. member for Cape Breton South did not present the matter very well last night but because this is such a useless way of dealing with the situation that I really think something should be done about it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to make a suggestion with respect to insurance, because this would seem to be the proper place to make it. The United States army has what I think is a very good provision, in that when the soldier passes through the induction centre he is offered the choice of taking either $5,000 or $10,000 insurance at a particularly low rate. I have not the figures as to rates before me, but one of the officers told me that he was taking $10,000 worth of insurance, and that his payments each month were only $5 or $6. That is a great deal lower rate than that offered by any commercial company.
It was emphasized that this insurance gave the individual soldier a great feeling of security. It made him feel that in the event' of his becoming a casualty this insurance money would become payable; that he would know the government or the state would look after his dependents, and that a fund would be available, without necessity of going to a pension board, or having any type of red tape. He would feel that he had life insurance on him which would be automatically payable. I was informed that this was one of the greatest morale-building provisos, and particularly as it applied to the newly inducted soldier. I would ask the minister to bring down the figures, if he can get them, with respect to the United States insurance plan, and some indication as to whether a similar plan could be introduced into the Canadian army.
I should like to make a further statement with regard to dependents' allowances with respect to men undergoing detention. I was informed, and I believe correctly, that the dependents of a soldier in the United Kingdom forces, irrespective of the length of his sentence, so long as he is still in the service, and is confined in a military prison, continue to receive the benefits. Those payments are carried on until he is discharged from the service. I was informed that that was considered to be a beneficial proviso in the regulations. It seems rather hard that a wife should be made to suffer, after a six months' period, in the event of her soldier husband being arrested for some serious crime, and sentenced to one or two years penal servitude. I suggest that the department give this matter careful consideration.
Then, a number of soldiers have been lost in England, and are now classified either as deserters or as being absent without leave. My own unit happened to be in Liverpool during a bad blitz on the Merseyside, which took place in 1940, and later in 1941, and naturally went out to help the fire-fighters and the air raid protection forces. After one or two of the raids several men from my unit were posted as missing. I was informed it was not known whether the men had been killed in the raid, and their bodies totally burned and therefore absolutely unrecognizable and unidentifiable, or whether they had gone absent without leave. I understand the regulation is that if a man does not present himself for duty after a certain period of time, he is classified as being absent without leave. It may be that there are a number-I do not know how great the number would be, but the department may have some estimate of it-of men who have been killed, really on active service, but who are now classified either as deserters or as being absent without leave.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: The hon. member for York-Sunbury and the hon. member for Vancouver South have referred to the striking off of dependents' allowances and assigned pay as they apply to wives whose husbands are deserters. I have in mind a case similar to that mentioned to-night by the hon. member for Vancouver South.
That is the case of a mother of two children, one of one and a half years of age and the other three years old. Her husband, after being in the army for some time, deserted. This lady was thrown on to the hospitality of the Red Cross in Calgary. That organization has taken the stand that it is not their responsibility. Under the circumstances she cannot get a job, because the
War Appropriation-Army

children are too small to leave. She cannot obtain a position which would bring her sufficient income to enable her boarding the children out. For these reasons her situation is an impossible one.
This lady is not responsible for her husband's desertion. The department takes the stand that on account of this desertion she cannot receive assigned pay, or any allowance from the dependents' allowance board. Apparently she did receive pay for twenty-one days. She is absolutely helpless, as a result of the position taken by the Red Cross. Surely some consideration should be given to her. There should be some means by which she can receive compensation. In a case of dire necessity, where a woman is helpless, is there not some chance of her receiving pay on compassionate grounds?


James Layton Ralston: There is section 119, but I cannot tell my hon. friend' how far it goes. It provides for a reference to the treasury board, in respect of special cases. That is the only section I know of, unless it came under the jurisdiction of the dependents' board of trustees. I shall make an inquiry.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I received a letter a few days ago from a soldier who has been in England for more than two years, inquiring about the increase in pay of twenty cents a day. How long must they be over there to receive that increase? I was' under the impression that it was a blanket regulation, covering every soldier serving overseas, no matter what length of time. I understood that they received $1.50 instead of $1.30.


James Layton Ralston: I dealt with that matter in reply to a question asked by another hon. member. I do not know whether the hon. member was in the chamber.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was here, yes.


James Layton Ralston: There are three qualifications, the first of which is four months service. The second is efficiency; that is to say, a certain degree of efficiency must be established. The original provision was that a man should have completed his basic training in accordance with the standard syllabus. That was found to be too much of a hardship in certain cases where men had not had the standard syllabus, and provision has been made to give them what I might call condensed1 courses in jorder that they may qualify. Even this has been modified in the case of older soldiers. Then the third thing is conduct; that is to say, entries on the conduct sheet which provide for deductions of pay exceeding a total of three days' pay. When the conduct sheet

shows such an entry it is not regarded as a clean conduct sheet. A man must serve for four months without an entry of that kind. Those are the three grounds.
The matter has been brought to the attention of the overseas authorities. The figures I gave the committee to-night were that about eighty to eighty-five per cent, according to a test taken of a certain number of units, have already been awarded the increased pay. I am particularly interested in having names that might come to the attention of hon. members, because there may be isolated instances where some unit or some formation has disregarded, perhaps unintentionally or perhaps through a misunderstanding of the regulations, following out what should be done. I took special pains to participate in the drafting of the telegram that went to Canadian military headquarters in regard to this matter when it seemed that there was some slowness in getting things through.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister state
whether any consideration has been given or will be given in the future to making the increase to $1.50 a day automatic throughout the ranks affected? It has been stated by the hon. member for Eraser Valley and others that it came as a surprise to learn that this increase was not automatic. Information given to me in reply to a question I asked on May 6 was to the effect that although the increase from $1.30 to $1.50 a day had certain conditions attached to it-'the minister has recited them two or three times to-night-nevertheless in the case of lance-corporals and lance-bombardiers the increase from $1.50 to $1.60 was automatic. This answer appears on page 2429 of Hansard. My contention is that that is good, but the same principle should be applied to the other ranks referred to, such as troopers, gunners, sappers and privates.


James Layton Ralston: The principle is altogether different. The lance-bombardier or the lance-corporal has already shown his efficiency by getting his stripe. The increase from $1.50 to $1.60 a day is made in order to maintain the differential. Otherwise there would be no inducement for a man to try to get corporal's stripes. His efficiency has been shown, or he would not have his stripes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I maintain that the
differential is established by the difference between $1.60 and $1.50. It seems to me that $1.50 is a low enough minimum to have applied throughout all ranks. I feel that penalizing a man in this way is unfair; that is, penalizing for infractions of one kind or another. I would hope the minister could

War Appropriation-Army
give some indication that consideration! will be given to making $1.50 a day the minimum in the Canadian army.


James Layton Ralston: There has been quite a
battle in connection with getting this $1.50. I do not want the idea to get abroad1 that men are being penalized. This rate has existed in the air force for some time. I was one of those who felt that soldiers required the same qualifications as airmen. It seemed to me that if they were proficient and efficient they should get this recognition. I wish to be quite frank and state that the airmen's regulation is not as specific as the army regulation with regard to qualifications, but it does indicate that there must be proficiency and worthiness. The worthiness idea has to do with conduct.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Is a man who has committed a minor crime debarred?


James Layton Ralston: No; but I understand that good conduct is one of the things to which the commanding officer looks. Air force administrative order No. D.44-2 reads:
16. Except in the case of direct enlistment under special authority and provided the reclassification is within the limit for the trade as shown in table "A", without higher authority a commanding officer may-
(a)	Reclassify	an	aircraftman	class	2	to
class 1, when he is satisfied that the airman is proficient in service duties, worthy of advancement and has completed a minimum of three months' service since enlistment.
In the army it is four months instead of three.
(b)	Reclassify	an	aircraftman	class	1	to
leading aircraftman when he is satisfied that the airman is proficient in service duties, worthy of advancement and has completed a minimum of three months' service since being reclassified to aircraftman class 1.
In order to indicate that there is no hard and fast rule and that we adopt the air force standard, namely, the opinion of the commanding officer as to a man's proficiency, we say in connection with the second increase in pay:
The soldier must have attained a degree of proficiency in training applicable to his arm or corps which ought to be reached two months after completion of basic training. The officer commanding must be satisfied as to degree of proficiency attained by the soldier before increase is authorized.
I suggest that they are along exactly the same lines. There is no suggestion of its being automatic in either case. It may be that there are more words in connection with the army or that it is a little stiffer; but the same objective is being sought, namely, that a man should receive some recognition for
having taken the time and pains to prepare himself as a soldier and to carry on as we would like a soldier to carry on.


James Lester Douglas: Would the
minister read the provisions with respect to good conduct?


James Layton Ralston: They are the same in
both cases and they read:
(a) Conduct. When during the preceding four-month period, entries on his field conduct sheet entailing penal deductions of pay as defined in section 138, subsections (1) and (2) of the Army Act do not in the aggregate exceed a total of three days' pay or in the case of fines do not exceed an amount equal to three days' pay or the sum total of entries do not exceed an amount equal to three days' pay.
That is to say, if he has not been penalized to the extent of losing more than three days' pay in the four month period he would be eligible. The same applies with regard to conduct in connection with the second increase. This reads:
The soldier will be eligible provided he fulfils the conditions as defined in paragraph 2(a) above during the two-month period following the first increase.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He would be penalized already under the terms of the regulations the minister has just read, and this in fact would be a further penalty through the man being debarred from the increase.


James Layton Ralston: I did not quite catch what my hon. friend said, and I should like to understand him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The point is that the soldier who has been guilty of something for which he has lost a few days pay, not only pays for his misconduct in that way but pays a further penalty through being debarred from an increase.


James Layton Ralston: That is a doctrine which is promulgated in the department quite often, more particularly in connection with officers rather than men. I am told-I am speaking quite frankly to the committee-that an officer who has been court-martialled and reprimanded severely should be sent right back to his job just the same as before. They say that he is being penalized if he is not allowed to go back to his same job. I say that that man may suffer another penalty on account of the fact that when he has been convicted and has had to be reprimanded he cannot do the job he did before. I am saying the same about the soldier. If he happens to have a lapse involving three days pay he has to wait a little longer. I do not regard it as a double penalty at all. He must qualify for the increased pay; that is all.
War Appropriation-Army


Mr. GREEN:: Once he has qualified, will he be deprived of the pay if he commits another crime?


James Layton Ralston: No.


Howard Charles Green: He does not revert again?


James Layton Ralston: No, not at all'.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is hardly
correct in saying there is not a double penalty. But in his opinion the double penalty is deserved.


James Layton Ralston: I do not say that it is a double penalty. I say that if he fails to qualify he does not get the increase in pay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: From the percentage the minister gave, I take it that there would be a considerable number of men overseas who have not qualified for the increase even though they have been overseas for a considerable time.


James Layton Ralston: I gave the percentages just as I got them, from 80 to 85 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, from 15 to 20 per cent of the men overseas who have been there for a considerable time have not qualified. Can the minister tell us on which ground they failed to qualify? Was it lack of good conduct or inefficiency?


James Layton Ralston: My	hon. friend has
brought something else to my memory. There were, in addition, about six per cent in each class who were qualified for the increased pay but who had not yet actually received it. The paymaster had1 not got around to it, I understand. That brings the percentage up to around 90 per cent in the units in which the test was made, which were regarded as average units. But, meeting my hon. friend's question, that still leaves about ten per cent in those test units who have not qualified. I cannot give my hon. friend the reason, but I hope to have that information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was it lack of good conduct or inefficiency?


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry I cannot tell my hon. friend. This was the information we got from Canadian military headquarters in a four-line paragraph giving the result of the test check.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would be well to make the percentage 100.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Can the minister tell us if there is any appreciable

number of men overseas who are absent without leave? I have heard rather disquieting reports that the number was substantial. Perhaps the minister would let us have that information to-morrow. It is quite apparent that we cannot finish this part of the discussion to-night. I understand the minister wants to put the regulations on Hansard, so that hon. members who have not read them may do so.


James Layton Ralston: It would perhaps meet the convenience of hon. members and save much discussion if I put them on Hansard now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just before the minister does that, I have three other questions, in addition to the question I asked which the minister said he would take as a notice to produce.
First, how many men have been discharged or struck off strength from the Canadian active army from the beginning of the war to the end of the present fiscal year, March 31?
Second, how many men have been discharged or struck off strength from the home defence force? I understand that is the draftees.


James Layton Ralston: We are compiling that now, but it is not yet complete. The records were kept in a separate branch of the records office. I have questioned myself why we did not know exactly how many men had been discharged. But that information will be available later.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My third question is this: How many home defence men are there serving in the Canadian army; that is, men who are not available for service anywhere outside Canada?


Mr. FAIR:: I wish to ask a question with respect to the dependents' allowance. I would direct the minister's attention to the case of a married man who deserts his wife and family, enlists, then takes unto himself another wife and after a time becomes the father of another family. In this case I understand he is at liberty-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not much liberty there.


Robert Fair: I understand he is at liberty to sign over a certain portion of his pay and the dependents' allowance to the common-law wife and leave to the mercy of the world his legal wife and children. I am wondering whether this is a square deal and what can be done about it.

War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: I will make a note of it and bring it to the notice of the dependents' allowance board.


Frederick Davis Shaw: May I make one observation with respect to that matter? It always seems to me, on the basis of such cases as are brought forward by the member for Rattle River, that the fight we have to make is on behalf of the legal wife. Apparently the authorities are willing to recognize the common-law wife and the children of that relationship, if there are any. Perhaps all these cases should be reviewed. I am certainly of the opinion that the legal wife should be given all possible protection. After all, the common-law wife, the adulteress, knows that she is not deserving of any great amount of consideration. I certainly think she should not have any until the legal wife is properly taken care of first.


James Layton Ralston: May I now put on record the regulations regarding increases of pay as requested by the hon. member for York-Sunbury, and added to that should be the statement that special provision has been made for qualification through condensed courses by which men may qualify for basic training. That is provided in connection with the first four months of service. The regulations are as follows:
C.A.R.O. No. 2772 sets forth governing conditions as follows:
First increase after four months' continuous service-
(a)	Conduct
When during preceding four-month period entries on his field conduct sheet entailing penal deductions of pay as defined in section 138 subsections (1) and (2) of the Army Act do not in the aggregate exceed a total of three days' pay or in the ease of fines do not exceed an amount equal to three days' pay or the sum total of entries do not exceed an amount equal to three days' pay.
(b)	Efficiency
The soldier must have completed basic training in accordance with "The Standard Syllabus for Basic Training" and have qualified in all tests as laid down in M.F.M. 105 (X).
Second increase after six months' continuous service-
(a)	Conduct
The soldier will be eligible provided he fulfils the conditions as defined in para. 2 (a) above during the two-month period following the first increase.
(b)	Proficiency
The soldier must have attained a degree of proficiency in training applicable to his arm or
corps, which ought to be reached two months after completion of basic training. The officer commanding must be satisfied as to degree of proficiency attained by the soldier before increase is authorized.
The other question asked by my hon. friend was in regard to increase of personnel by military districts for the fiscal year 1942-43. Is that right?


Richard Burpee Hanson: For the
fiscal year.


James Layton Ralston: These include not only the enlistments-


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is voluntary enlistments?


James Layton Ralston: It includes both.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are they shown separately?


James Layton Ralston: In separate columns. The enlistments from "R" recruits number 14,226. We were not able to give a breakdown of the districts in which the men enlisted, but the enlistments appear in two separate columns.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We will take a look at it.


James Layton Ralston: I will now put that table on Hansard:
1.	The intake of new personnel into the army for the fiscal year 1942-43 by military districts, based on telegraphic reports from the districts, is as follow's:
Military	"R" recruits	Volunteersdistrict	accepted	enlistedi 	
5,642	9,3252 	
10,908	35,560Borden 	173 	
3,618	8,109Petawawa	4114 	
15,886	12,6305 	
5,499	3,6476 	
5,788	11,8207 	
3,618	5,81510 	
6,031	10,47611 	
5,322	10,71512 	
6,916	9,41113 	
4,976	9,29574,204	127,231
2. The enlistments of 127,231 for this period includes 14,226 enlistments of men formerly enrolled as "R" recruits. A district breakdown of this figure of 14,226 would serve no useful purpose since enlistments from "R" recruits by districts is affected largely by the units containing "HD" personnel posted to the various districts.
War Appropriation-Army


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It might be interesting if the minister would put on record the schedule of pay and allowances as they are at present.


James Layton Ralston: That would mean putting on a book.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is there a book printed on it?


James Layton Ralston: Yes; this book I have here.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 26, 1943