[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. On Friday last the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) made a speech which was rather difficult to follow. However upon looking at the report I find that at page 4045 of Hansard he is reported to have made this statement:
Je comprends que l'honorable ministre de la Justice, bien qu'il soit un grand avocat, avoeat de la Banque de Montreal, du Pacifique Cana-*djen, de tous les monopoles et de tous les trusts, n'a pas beaucoup d'experience parlementaire.
This is -translated in the annex to Hansard as follows:
I realize that the hon. the Minister of Justice, while he is an outstanding barrister, acting as he does as solicitor for the Bank of Montreal, the Canadian Pacific, and every monopoly and trust, has not much parliamentary experience.
I am not quarrelling with the last part of the hon. -member's statement. To the best [Mr. Maclnnia.l
of my recollection I never, during my thirty-seven years of practice, had the advantage of a single retainer from the Canadian Pacific Railway. I did at times act for the Bank of Montreal, and I did have other clients who were engaged in business affairs of some magnitude, but none of them were -monopolies or trusts. During those years I devoted the whole of my time and attention to the practice of my profession. When I accepted the invitation of the right hon. the Prime Minister to become Minister of Justice I similarly felt that I should give my whole time and attention to the performance of the duties of that office. I severed1 all my connections with each and every one of those who had been my clients theretofore, and I resigned from every board of directors of which I had previously been a member. I have -more than once stated that in public; and I repeat here that the assertion of the hon. -member that I am acting as solicitor for the Bank of Montreal, the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other client, -is absolutely contrary to the facts.
There are other assertions appearing in- the report of the speech of the hon. member which may have to be dealt with, but which might more properly be considered when the horn, member is in his seat.
[Later:]	.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago my colleague the Minister of Justice drew my attention to a statement made by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains which is of a very serious character. I had not up to that time observed the remarks to which my colleague referred as well as others and I was not in the house at the time they were made, but I find them in Hansard in the official report of the English translation of speeches delivered in French on the date indicated. The hon. member is not in his seat at the moment, but one statement which he made is so serious that I feel no time should be lost in drawing Your Honour's attention to it and asking that it be dealt with in accordance with the means taken to protect the privileges of this house. The statement to which I refer is as follows:
We have here in the cabinet three new millionaires who have made their money since the war's outbreak. We shall denounce -them at the proper time and place. Fortunes are being built up.
The proper time and place to make a statement of that kind is in this House of Commons with the hon. member simultaneously undertaking to prove the charge, or, if he is unable to do so, to resign his seat in this

Fourth Victory Loan
house. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member should be obliged either to withdraw the statement completely or else to convert it into a specific charge to be investigated in the usual manner, and the consequences of the investigation also to be followed up in the usual manner.



FOURTH VICTORY LOAN


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I should like to make a statement with regard to the final results of the fourth victory loan campaign.
Total sales of bonds amounted to $1,308,985,500. This represented 2,669,111 subscriptions. These sales were made for payment in cash. The fourth victory loan, like the third victory loan, did not involve the issue of any new bonds against the surrender of maturing securities.
It will be recalled that the total objective for the fourth victory loan was set at $1,100,000,000, and that this objective was split, $500,000,000 for individuals covered by the general canvass and payroll canvass, and $600,000,000 for large investors, mostly business firms and corporations, covered by the special names canvass. Each of these objectives was exceeded.
Combined sales by the general canvass and payroll canvass amounted to $529,641,800, representing 2,661,759 subscriptions. In the special names canvass, 7,352 subscriptions were received for $779,343,700 par value of bonds.
The fourth victory loan was the largest public bond issue in the history of Canada. The outstanding feature of the loan was the tremendous increase in the number and amount of sales to individuals in the general and payroll canvasses.
By way of comparison, I wish to submit the following figures showing the results of each of the four victory loans:
Cash sales alone
Final results	Of which
Victory	of campaign Par value of No. of sub-	Par value of	General and payroll	Special namesloan	bonds sold	scriptions	bonds sold	canvass	canvassFirst	
$ 836,820,250<1>	968,259	$ 730,376,250	$279,500,000	$450,876,250Second	
996,706,900<2)	1,681,267	843,127,900	335,638,200	507,489,700Third	
991,389,050	2,032,154	991,389,050	374,828,200	616,560,850Fourth	
1,308,985,500	2,669,111	1,308,985,500	529,641,800	779,343,700
a>
Includes $106,444,000 par value of conversion sales. <2>
Includes $153,579,000 par value of conversion sales.
This record of voluntary bond purchases by the public of Canada is tangible and convincing evidence of the united determination of Canadians to win the war-it is a declaration of faith in the future of our country. The impressive record of these loans is also a reflection of the valuable and vital work being done for Canada by the national war finance committee, the organization entrusted by the government with the responsibility of carrying out our wartime public borrowing operations. The tens of thousands of men and women throughout Canada who are associated with this committee may well be proud of their contribution to the steady progress of Canada's wartime savings program.
In the budget speech delivered on March 2, 1943, I referred to the fact that some subscribers to victory loans dispose of their bonds over the period following the termination of the public campaign. I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate the statements I made at that time with regard to this practice.
Victory loan bonds are the property of their individual owners who have the right to sell them at any time they may desire. This right has always existed. No restrictions om the sale of bonds have been considered by the government at any time. When a person buys a victory bond, that person is making it possible for Canada to get the men and materials needed for war use, and, in addition, is helping
Fourth Victory Loan

to fight the home-front battle against inflation. When people sell their bonds, they are withdrawing this help. I recognize the fact that emergency needs for cash are perfectly legitimate reasons for selling bonds or presenting war savings certificates for redemption provided the person has no other form of savings which can be used, or provided the person cannot obtain a temporary loan, to be repaid out of future income, to meet the immediate need for cash. But sales of bonds to get dollars to buy things that are not essential are not justifiable. Unless it is absolutely necessary to sell victory bonds, it is every person's patriotic duty, and in his own best interests, to hold on to his bonds for the duration of the war at least. Buying bonds is important; holding on to them is equally important.
On February 9, 1943, I tabled a statistical compilation showing a classification of the sources of subscriptions, at time of issue, to the first, second and third victory loans. For the information of the house, I am tabling a statement in similar form showing the estimated derivation of subscriptions, at time of issue, to the fourth victory loan, together with comparable figures for the three previous victory loans.
All figures in regard to the fourth victory loan are subject to final verification on the receipt of reports of actual deliveries by banks, trust and loan companies. The figures which I have used and which appear in the statement I have tabled reflect the final reports received in Ottawa from the field organization of the national war finance committee.
National War Finance Committee Canada
First, Second, Third, and Fourth Victory Loans Estimated Derivation of subscriptions at time of Issue
The attached memorandum contains the estimated derivation of subscriptions, at time of issue, to the first, second, third, and fourth victory loans. Figures in regard' to the fourth victory loan are preliminary, as the final results of this loan are not compiled.
The subscriptions to each loan are divided into two broad classes, designated "individuals" and "non-individuals".
The class designated individuals includes two sub-divisions, described as "special names" and "all others". The amounts shown for special names represent subscriptions received in the special names canvass from individuals believed to be capable of 'buying $25,000 or more par value of bonds at the time of each issue. The amounts shown for all others represents the combined total of subscriptions received in the general and employee canvasses. General canvass subscriptions include sales to small commercial and small non-profit bodies, the aggregate subscriptions from which would be relatively small in proportion to the total amount shown opposite the designation "all others".
The non-individuals class has been subdivided to show subscriptions from banks for their own account; government accounts; insurance companies, pension funds, etc., and savings banks; and miscellaneous, this latter group reflecting, with minor exception, subscriptions from business firms and corporations.
These data have been compiled by the national war finance committee from information obtained at the time of public offering of the loans, and from other sources. The data should be regarded as estimates, and the results of the fourth victory loan should be regarded as subject to revision when final figures with respect to this loan become available.
June 19, 1943.
fMr. Ilgley.J



NATIONAL WAR FINANCE COMMITTEE CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Victory Loans-Estimated Derivation of Subscriptions at Time of Issue (Dollar figures in millions)
Item	First Victory Loan	Second Victory Loan	Third Victory Loan	(Preliminary) Fourth Victory LoanCash	Conversion	T otal	Cash	Conversion	Total	Cash	Cash$ 730-4	106-4	$ 836-8	$ 843-1	153-6	996-7	991-4	1,309-03160	35-3	351-3	364-6	1-0	365-6	401-1	566-8414-4	71-1	485-5	478-5	152-6	631-1	590-3	742-2Individuals	36-5	0-8	37-3	29-0	1-0	30-0	26-3	37-2279-5	34-5	314-0	335-6	335-6	374-8	529-6Non-Individuals	6-7	42-5	49-2	117-5	117-5	0-5	0-570	70	1-7	1-7	6-7	35-5	42-2	115-8	115-8	0-5	0-531-6	31-6	47-1	47-1	54-5	85-29-9	9-9	19-6	19-6	22-7	30-821-7	21-7	27-5	27-5 /	18-6	34-1(iii) Municipal and School	/	\	13-2	20-3(c) Insurance Companies, Pension Funds, etc., and	95-5	22-2	117-7	125-6	23-9	149-5	179-1	203-288-9	20-4	109-3	114-7	23-4	138-1	155-2	167-06-6	1-8	8-4	10-9	0-5	11-4	12-4	15-5(iii) Associations, Unions, Pension and Benevolent	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	9-0	16-1(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	2-5	4-6280-6	6-4	287-0	305-8	11-2	317-0	356-2	453-339-1	39-1	29-4	8-5	37-9	43-6	54-7(ii) Trust Companies, Investment Trusts, Mortgage and Loan Companies, and Real Estate	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	11-3	17-5(iii) Colleges, Churches, Hospitals, and Charitable	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	3-3	3-3(iv) All Others, being practically all subscriptions from Business Firms and Corporations...	241-5	6-4	247-9	276-4	2-7	279-1	298-0	377-8
(1) Includes small commercial and small non-profit bodies, the aggregate subscriptions from which would be relatively small part of total. <2) Not separately calculated, included under Sub-section (d) (iv).
Fourth Victory Loan
Questions

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to table copies in English and French of the inter-American radio agreement signed at Santiago on January 26, 1940, and adhered to by Canada on May 8 last. This agreement supersedes the inter-iAmerican radio arrangement signed at Havana on December 13, 1937, which Canada later approved on December 22, 1938. The agreement is an undertaking, of a technical nature, relating to frequency allocation for the different services on the American continent, frequency tolerances, international police radio and amateur third party messages.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Does the right hon. gentleman recall whether or not this agreement deals with the short-wave systems?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not recall at the moment.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the national film board?
2.	What is the organizational set-up of the board; how many are employed, and in what position?
3.	How many films have been released to, (a) motion picture theatres; (b) for other use?
4.	How many films in the Canada Carries On series have been released up to the 31st May,
5.	What remuneration has been received from motion picture theatres for use of films up to May 31, 1943?
6.	What was the total cost of the national film board, and its work for each year of its operation?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Mr. Speaker, in asking that this question be made an order for a return, there is a reservation in regard to part 5 of the question, which has been explained to the hon. member for Macleod.


Gordon Graydon: An explanation may have been given to the hon. member for Macleod, but this is a question in which the whole house is interested. I would ask the minister to indicate the special reasons for the reservation.
Mr. LaFLECHE: The point is that the national film board advise me that it would not be in the public interest to give figures of rentals received from motion picture 	.1
theatres for the use of the board's films, because, they say, it would be of assistance to the board's competitors.


Gordon Graydon: I protest and raise an objection. I am going to ask the minister to remove his reservation with respect to part 5 of the question, because it asks for information which the house is entitled to have. Certainly "in the public interest" is being stretched to cover matters which this house should not allow.
Mr. LaFLECHE: The remarks made by the leader of the opposition raise an interesting point. This is not the first time that this has been done since I have been in the house-The point is that the national film board is in some respects in competition with commercial companies; it is in the national interest that they have full right to make as good a bargain as they can, and they should not be put in a disadvantageous position by reason of information being made public. -I shall be glad to give the hon. member privately the reasons for the reservation, as I have done to the hon. member for Macleod. It is the position taken by the national firm board that makes necessary the reservation. I think it is the traditional position taken by them.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: That explanation is not good enough. This is a government board. These figures refer to national revenue and' national expenditure; surely we are not going to vacate our position in matters of that kind. Who set up the national film board to say what is and what is not in the public interest? Parliament should decide that.


Mr. HANSELL:: As this question stands in my name and I happen to be in my seat, perhaps I may have a word. One of the officials approached me with respect to part 5 of the question and explained what the minister has already explained to the house. I can see that the point is not one of public expenditure but rather the question whether the amounts received by the film board) from motion picture companies, as a result of its films being shown, should be made public. I readily understood that perhaps it might not be in the public interest to reveal these figures to the board's competitors who are in the motion picture business. Having been advised that I would receive the information for my personal use, I assumed the same thing would apply to every member, so that the information would not necessarily become public property. Under these conditions I agreed that there should be a reservation with respect to part 5 of the question.

Questions


Gordon Graydon: I am going to ask the h'on. member and the minister to allow this question to stand. I think there should be opportunity for consideration of the matter. The minister is going entirely too far when he suggests that the national film board shall determine for the House of Commons and the Canadian people what information it is in the public interest to produce. Largely upon that principle I am going to ask the minister to allow the question to stand, so that further consideration can be given to it. I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that we must not lightly create any precedent on a principle of this kind).


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I did not understand that the minister was doing more than giving an expression of the view of the film board as conveyed to him. He did not take the responsibility of saying whether the board was right or wrong. I think my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is quite right in raising the point he does and in asking that the question should stand; later the minister might answer it on his own responsibility.
Question stands.


ST. HILAIRE, QUE., SUGAR REFINERY- PRIORITIES ON MACHINERY
Mr. DORION:: 1.	Did the Minister of Munitions and Supply go to Washington to assist in obtaining priorities on machinery to be used in the installation of a sugar refinery at St. Hilaire, Quebec?
2.	If so, (a) on what date; (b) who paid the travelling expenses?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Whilst in Washington on business connected with the war production programme the minister assisted in the matter of obtaining priorities on the machinery to be used in the installation of the sugar refinery at St. Hilaire, Quebec.
2.	(a) March 13 or 14; (b) the government of Canada.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BO.ARD- OTTAWA TEMPORARY BUILDING
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	On what date was construction commenced on a new temporary building for the wartime prices and trade board in the city of Ottawa?
2.	On what date is it anticipated that construction will be completed?
3.	What is the anticipated number of manhours that will be used on the construction of the building?
4.	What is the estimated number of feet of lumber that will be used in the whole construction ?
5.	What is the estimated weight of the nails that will be used in the whole construction?
6.	What is the total amount of cement that will be used in the whole construction?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	May 18, 1943.
2.	July 28, 1943.
3.	95.500 man-hours.
4.	773,000 feet B.M.
5.	8,810 pounds.
6.	2,500 barrels.


SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS AND NURSES- CLOSING OF HOSPITALS
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	Have any hospitals in Canada been closed since the outbreak of ivar as a result of, (a) shortage of doctors; (b) shortage of nurses; (c) for other reasons?
2.	If so, how many?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	(a) No official information; (b) no official information; (c) yes.
2.	Zeballos, B.C., 9 beds, closed 1942 (Red Cross); War Memorial Hospital, Williams Lake, B.C., 23 beds, closed 1942; Red Cross Outpost Hospital, Armstrong, Ont., 5 beds, closed 1942; Hotel-Dieu de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Que., 44 beds, closed 1941 (privately owned); St. Roch's Hospital, St. Boniface, Man. (contagious diseases); Fort Rae, N.W.T., 87 beds, closed 1942; Vanguard Union Hospital, Vanguard, Sask., 14 beds, closed 1941; Canmore Hospital, Canmore, Alta., 12 beds, closed 1941; Gloucester Hospital, Bathurst, N.B., destroyed by fire, 1941; re-opened as Hotel-Dieu of St. Joseph, 1942.


INTERNMENTS-CAMILLIEN HOUDE
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Is Mr. Camillien Houde detained under section 21 of the defence of Canada regulations?
2.	If not, under what statute or regulation?
3.	Has Mr. Camillien Houde been officially informed of the reasons for his detention?
4.	If so, where and w'hen?
5.	Before his arrest, was a charge laid against Mr. Houde?
6.	If so, when, and what is the nature of such charge?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	Yes.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	In the office of the officer commanding the R.C.M.P. at Montreal, August 3, 1940,
Questions

and in writing forwarded to him at Fredericton, May 22, 1943, immediately after he made a request for a hearing.
5.	No information.
6.	Answered by No. 5.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-EMPLOYEES RECEIVING OVER $3,000 A YEAR ,
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Who are the employees who receive over $3,000 a year in the employ of the wartime prices and trade board, and where are they located?
2.	What honorarium, living or other allowance, and travelling expenses, have been paid to each of the said employees since appointment?
3.	Which of said employees are permanent civil servants? Which were appointed under the Civil Service Act?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The government ,has scored an almost perfect record in answering questions to-day. I think four out of 43 have been answered. I want to know why the first question on to-day's order paper, which has been standing for six weeks, is not answered. It could have been answered long ago, if proper records are kept at the head office of the wartime prices and trade board.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My parliamentary assistant could answer that better than I, but I suspect that the answer is that the work of compiling and segregating and copying such items as travelling expenses is very onerous. Answering many of these questions takes a good deal of time and is very expensive. I may say that never since I have been in the House of Commons have I seen so many questions requiring long answers asked by an opposition. It is the opposition's right.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sumbury):: And duty.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -but when the government asks, as it did to-day,, that a number of questions stand, it is because of the enormous mass of work which is cast on the government and the overworked staffs of the government in compiling difficult and* long answers to questions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hope the inference is not that we should not ask questions.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not make any such inference at all.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I cannot understand this explanation from the minister in regard to the failure to answer this question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not the explanation for the failure of the government to answer it. I object very strongly to the minister suggesting that any question I ask is not being answered because of the amount of clerical help which it will require. There is another explanation, and I think the minister in fairness to me had better explain that it is the government that is holding up the answer-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -and that the reason is not that it is going to take much time to prepare the answer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If there is another answer I am not aware of it. But I was asked by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) on a day when my parliamentary assistant was not present, and I said that he could give the answer better than I, but I suspected the answer was the one which I gave.


John George Diefenbaker: The suspicion is not correct.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know about that.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	W hat is the total financial assistance given to each of the following companies since the outbreak of war by the government of Canada and/or the British government, (a) Babcock-Wilson and Goldie-MeCullough Limited; (b) Shirley-Dietrich-Atkins Company Limited; (c) Canadian Machinery Corporation; (d) Whitehall Machinery and Tools Limited; (e) Galt Brass Company Limited; (f) J. A. M. Taylor Tool Company Limited; (g) R. Mc-Dougall Company Limited; (h) Galt Malleable Iron Company Limited; (i) Galt Metal Industries Limited, all of Galt, Ontario?
2.	What is the total value of Canadian and/or British government machinery or tools of any kind installed in each of the above-named companies' plants since the outbreak of war?
3.	What is the amount of depreciation (accelerated or other) allowed each of the above companies per year since the .outbreak of war by arrangements of the depreciation board?
4.	What percentage of each company's capital outlay for extension and equipment of its plant is permitted each year by the depreciation board, and over how many years do these arrangements apply?

Questions as Orders for Returns



DISALLOWANCE OF PROVINCIAL ACT

Mr. GREEN:: 1.	What provincial acts have been disallowed since the year 1920?
2.	What were the respective reasons for the disallowance of such acts?
3.	Upon what dates were such acts disallowed?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Although this is something to be dealt with entirely by the Justice [DOT]department, I hope the hon. member will agree that the question should be made an order for a return. The reasons asked for would extend over several pages.


Mr. GREEN:: That is quite satisfactory.



MOBILIZATION ACT-FAILURE TO REPORT

Mr. SHAW:: 1.	By divisions, what was the actual number of persons called for military service under the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act?
2.	What percentage of those who were called in each division failed to report voluntarily?
3.	What percentage of those called for military service from each division still remain unaccounted for?
4.	Of those who did appear following call, how many applied for exemption on the grounds that they were conscientious objectors?
5.	What percentage, in each division, of those who applied for exemption as conscientious objectors were actually exempted from military service?
6.	By administrative divisions, what percentage of those who were apprehended following failure to report for military service or alternate work service were, (a) jailed or jailed and also fined; (b) given the option of fine or jail sentence?
7.	What was, (a) the average fine imposed in each administrative division; (b) the average jail sentence imposed?
8.	By administrative divisions, what percentage of those who were fined were assessed, (a) more than one hundred dollars; (b) less tljan twenty-five dollars?
9.	Of those who were jailed in each division, what percentage received sentences of, (a) one year or more; (b) less than thirty days?



FUEL SHORTAGE

Mr. McGIBBON:: 1.	How much money has been paid by the government in fuel wood subsidies to date?
2. (a) What is the estimated quantity of fuel wood cut to date in the year 1943; (ib) what was the estimated quantity cut in the corresponding period of 1942?
3. (a) What is the estimate of the total supply of fuel wood that will be available on December 1, 1943; (b) what are the estimated total requirements of fuel wood for the winter season of 1943-44?
4.	Are fuel wood reserves in excess of local needs being accumulated for distribution to large centres such as Montreal, Toronto, etc.?
5.	(a) What quantity of coal was available June 15, 1942; (ib) what quantity was available June 15, 1943?
6.	What steps have been taken by the government, other than fuel wood subsidy, to alleviate any possible fuel shortage in the coming winter?



POTATO SUPPLY


Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	How many tons of coal were, mined, (a) in 1941; (b) in 1942, by each of the following companies: Dominion Coal Company, Acadia Coal Company, Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, Cumberland Railway and Coal Company ?
2.	Were any subsidies paid by the government to any of the above-noted companies in 1941? If so, what were the total amounts, on what basis were they paid, and at -what rates?
3.	Were any subsidies paid by the government to any of the above-noted companies in 1942? If so, what were the total amounts, on what basis were they paid, and at what rates?
4.	Were any special depreciation allowances made to the above-noted companies in 1941? If so, what ivere the amounts?
5.	Were any special depreciation allowances made to the above-noted companies in 1942? If so, what were the amounts?
6.	What were the net profits of each of the above-noted companies in 1941 and 1942?
7.	What taxes were paid by each of the above-noted companies in 1941 and 1942?


R.C.A.F.-OSTEOPATHS
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	Has the Royal Canadian Air Force considered at any time since the outbreak of war the enlistment of osteopaths?
2.	Was a bulletin issued at any time inviting osteopaths to enlist in the Royal Canadian Air Force? If so, upon what date was such bulletin issued?

Motions for Papers

3.	What were the stipulated qualifications required of osteopaths Who were invited to enlist in the R.C.A.F.?
4.	Was a bulletin issued at any time indicating the duties which enlisted osteopaths would be obliged to perform? If so, what were the said duties?
5.	How many osteopaths have been enlisted as such into the Royal Canadian Air Force since the outbreak of war?
6.	What rank was granted to each osteopath who enlisted?
7.	Were any of the enlisted osteopaths officially advised that they would be granted promotion as they showed their ability in their profession?
8.	Have any of the osteopaths who enlisted as such in the Royal Canadian Air Force been permitted to give osteopathic treatment to personnel of the Royal Canadian Air Force?
9.	Have any of the osteopaths who enlisted as such in the Royal Canadian Air Force been given the opportunity to remuster or secure discharges?
10.	Of the osteopaths who enlisted as such in the Royal Canadian Air Force, how many have been granted commissions?


VULCAN AIR TRAINING SCHOOL
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What are the names of companies or individuals having done contract work or subcontract work on the Yulcan air training school?
2.	What amount did each receive for work done?
3.	What companies or individuals have done or are doing work on the water pipeline for this school; how much has each been paid, and what is the estimated total cost?


DEPARTMENTAL NEWS RELEASE SERVICES
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	How many departments of the government have special news releases of their own?
2.	What are the names of such departments, and how many such releases are sent out by each department per month?
3.	What coordination is there in the dissemination of the news contained in such releases with that released by the wartime information hoard?


OTTAWA GIRLS' HOSTEL
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MacIN'NIS:
1.	What was the total cost of, (a) the building; (b) the furnishings and equipment of the girls' hostel, Laurentian Terrace?
2.	What number of persons will the building accommodate?
3.	How many are in residence there now?
4.	(a) What are the rates charged; (b) on what basis are the rates determined?
5.	Has the Ottawa housing registry committee approved of these rates?
6.	What are the regulations regarding hours and supervision?
7.	What is the total number of staff employed?
8.	How was the staff appointed?

Mr. QUELCH:: For a copy of reports and recommendations of the Canadian representatives who attended the conference at Washington dealing with the stabilization of international currencies, sum-mitted to the Canadian government, any department thereof, or Bank of Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: One of these days I shall be making a statement to the house with regard to this matter, and in the meantime I should like this question to stand. There are no recommendations or reports-at least, if I understand the sense of the question.
Motion stands.


WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED-WINNIPEG
Mr. KNOWLES:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between Wartime Housing Limited, or any official thereof and the city of Winnipeg or any official thereof, dated since April 1,1941; also for a copy of all letters, telegrams, documents and memoranda exchanged between the Department of Munitions and Supply, or any official thereof, and the city of Winnipeg, or any official thereof, relating to housing in the city of Winnipeg, dated since April 1, 1941.



Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all correspondence, dated since January 1, 1942, received by Wartime Housing Limited, the Department of Munitions and Supply, and/or by any other department or official of the government, from any individuals or organizations, relating to the proposal of Wartime Housing Limited, to erect permanent houses in the city of Winnipeg.


R.C.A.F.-OSTEOPATHS
Mr. SHAW:: For a copy of air force recruiting bulletin No. 271; also for a copy of all correspondence, including letters and telegrams, passing between the Department of National Defence (air services) and any official thereof, and any person or persons respecting the enlistment of osteopaths into the Royal Canadian Air Force.


POST-WAR CIVIL AVIATION PROPOSED ANGLO-AMERICAN CONFERENCE- CANADIAN REPRESENTATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Prime Minister

Legations
if he is in a position yet to make any announcement as to when the proposed Anglo-American civil aviation conference will be held? Press dispatches from Washington indicate that this meeting was originally set for June, but now may be delayed' until September. Also I should like to have the Prime Minister assure the house that Canada will be represented at the conference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no comment to offer in answer to my hon. friend's question. It is based on a press dispatch from Washington which appears, I understand, in the Montreal Gazette of to-day. It may be a trial balloon intended to draw information from the comment it may provoke here, which might be used in London and possibly in Washington itself. In the circumstances I do not think I should make further comment at the moment.


Gordon Graydon: In other words, the
Prime Minister is not going to be a trial balloonist.


LEGATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Prime Minister if the government has received any request from the Mexican government asking that a Canadian minister to Mexico be appointed? If so, has the Mexican government indicated that it desires to appoint a minister to this country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Conversations or exchanges of views between governments looking toward the exchange of diplomatic representatives between countries are from the nature of the case necessarily confidential. I am not therefore in a position to answer my hon. friend's question. I would say however that the government is fully aware of the importance of developing closer and more direct relations between Canada and other friendly countries. I hope to be able to make announcements in the house from time to time of the advantage the government has taken of opportunities to that end as they may arise.


Gordon Graydon: Consideration is given, in other words?
72537-258}


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To wider
diplomatic representation, yes, with several countries.


CIVIL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Minister of Finance, in view of local newspaper reports which point to an early dissolution of the advisory committee on civil service matters, whether or not the Coon committee is being discontinued, and if so, what are the government plans with respect to the constitution of a new committee to carry on its work?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This Coon committee has not been discontinued, and-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I do not wish to interrupt the Minister of Finance, and I desire to give as much latitude as possible to the leader of the opposition, but I think that in this case the rule of the house to which I have called attention must be complied with.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister is willing to answer.


HALIFAX HOTEL PROPERTY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: Will the Minister of Justice confirm or supplement the replies he made to a question which was passed as an order for return on May 13, with regard to purchase of the Halifax Hotel, Halifax, Nova Scotia? The replies brought down at that time were not accepted by a great many people in Nova Scotia, and there has been a recent report with respect to this transaction.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I am very sorry if anyone was unable to accept the answer which was made. The answer was in accordance with the facts at that time. There have been subsequent facts with respect to which I shall be glad to supply an additional answer if the hon. member wishes it.


Percy Chapman Black: I should like the minister to supply the house with that information.
War Appropriation-Labour


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): May I ask the Minister of Labour if he has anything further to say with respect to the settlement of the strikes at the shipyards in Quebec, apart from what has appeared in the newspapers?
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: No. I have not had forwarded to me yet the terms of settlement, but I think my hon. friend will agree that we are glad to see the men back at work.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 25, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Tlsley-Mr. Donnelly in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Vocational training of discharged members of Canada's armed forces, $525,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I was not here during the latter part of the session on Friday evening. Am I to understand that the general discussion on this resolution, so far as it lelates to the Department of Labour, has been completed?


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Donnelly) :: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And therefore it would not be in order to discuss a particular item until it is called?


James J. Donnelly: That is right. '


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I will sit down.


Gordon Graydon: Before this item carries, the question of vocational training of discharged members of Canada's armed forces requires something more than simply the passing of an item. It has to do with a subject in which there is more than usual interest throughout the dominion, and one which forms a vital part of the whole rehabilitation programme and the plan for settling and rehabilitating out men when the war is over.

The vocational training of discharged members of Canada's armed forces, and the plans which have been made in connection therewith, may I think properly form the subject of some consideration by this committee at this time, because on many occasions complaints have been made by the public with regard to the manner in which men who have been discharged from the armed forces are being treated in Canada. I realize that perhaps in many instances these reports are without foundation, but it is most important that the government should see to it that, of all classes of our people to whom attention is paid at this time, consideration is given to discharged members of the armed forces, because of the fact that they constitute the major section of the population and, further, because of the sacrifices they are prepared to make on behalf of the country. I should like the minister to indicate to the committee what the plans are with respect to this vocational training. If the minister will give me his attention'-


Humphrey Mitchell: I am giving it. Don't worry.


Gordon Graydon: I would ask the minister to give the committee the benefit of his information with regard to the number of discharged soldiers who have either begun or have been offered or have completed training under this particular item. What plans are contemplated for the future? Will the minister also give some information as to the type of vocational training which the government has in mind for men who have been discharged from the armed forces?


Humphrey Mitchell: As my hon. friend is probably aware, the Labour department merely takes care of training through the instrumentality of the training section of the department. Up to date 1.200 returned men have been trained or are being trained. The course of training is similar to that undertaken- under the general training scheme. There is a choice on the part of the -men for the kind of training they wish to undertake, and I need hardly tell my hon. friend that it is simply a matter of training them and putting them to work, because there is n,o dearth of employment, as there was following the last war, after training is completed. The real problem will come when the war is over, but plans are laid under the act passed last year to set in motion policies that will have for their purpose the training of men discharged from the armed forces at the conclusion of the war.

War Appropriation-Labour


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am sorry the Minister of Mines an.d Resources is not in his place, because I had a communication this morning from a returned veteran in British Columbia who applied in November last for an allotment under the land settlement scheme. He has never heard a word about it since. Is that the kind of attention the Department of Labour will give returned veterans?


Humphrey Mitchell: If any member of this house has knowledge of delay in connection with the training of any veteran who has returned from this war, I shall be glad to hear about it.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: I have made an inquiry of the department in regard to a mam who desired to go on, the land, and I have been informed that the department is being organized by provinces and that all the provinces are not yet organized, so that men who are applying from some provinces may not yet have received word.


Mr. HOMUTH:: What are you-an apologist for the department?


William Ross Macdonald: The member for \rork-Sunbury has told of his experience with the department, and I have just as much right to tell of my experience.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On a question of privilege, I did not refer to my own experience but to the experience of a veteran. I have taken the matter up in a courteous way with the associate director and I have no doubt I shall get a satisfactory explanation.


William Ross Macdonald: May I continue to tell of my experience with the department? I have inquired with reference to men who are now serving in the imperial army. In fact, some of them have been taken prisoner, and it is my information from officials of the department that they will evolve a plan under which men who are now serving in the imperial forces and also in the Canadian forces will be given an opportunity when they return to go on the land. In all my dealings with the department I have had nothing but prompt replies.


Mr. PERLEY:: I have had one or two inquiries with regard to this-


Humphrey Mitchell: On a point of order, I
have nothing whatever to do with, the farm settlement scheme, and there is nothing in these estimates of mine dealing with it. I
suggest that if members have questions with reference to that scheme, they wait until the Minister of Mines and Resources is here.


Ernest Edward Perley: What I have to say does
not happen to refer to farming. It is another matter. These men who have returned are anxious to know how to proceed in order to take advantage of this opportunity, and I think a great deal of publicity should be given to the regulations. I was going to ask the minister what publicity they are being given, and what percentage of the men already discharged have made application for training. I believe a very small percentage of those who would like to take advantage of it have made application.


Humphrey Mitchell: I meant to point out in replying to the leader of the opposition that the returned men in question are referred to us by the Department of Pensions and National Health. If my memory serves me correctly, about 93,000 men have been discharged from the armed forces, and as I indicated a moment ago, 1,200 are receiving training under the auspices of the Department of Labour. In view of the comparative ease with which a job can be obtained at the present time it appears to us that most of the men who have been discharged from the armed forces do not bother much about training, because they can get a job without it. I suppose it is the natural thing to do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are the men given any choice? Is it not up to the department to see that they have the opportunity to take advantage of this training?


Ernest Edward Perley: I understand, then, that
in the mines and resources estimates there will be an item similar to this; or will they work on part of this vote?


Humphrey Mitchell: What I meant was
that I have no jurisdiction over the soldier settlement plan.


Ernest Edward Perley: No portion of this money
is used for that plan?


Humphrey Mitchell: No, none at all.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has mentioned a fact that is well known to all of us-that most of these discharged men are able to find work. But suppose a man does not wish to stay at that work for the rest of his life; suppose he wants to get training for some other type of
War Appropriation-Labour

work. Can he get any assistance as long as he is employed? I have received complaints to the effect that if a discharged soldier is working he is not eligible for assistance. For example, could he get help to enable him to go to night school, or to take a correspondence course, or to get training in some other way for an occupation different from that in which he happens to be engaged at the present time?


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course there are what are called vocational advisers attached to the major offices under the unemployment insurance commission, and when a returned man' wants training, his case is investigated by one of these vocational guidance officers. I do not know why he would be refused that assistance, because we are only too anxious to get people to train.


Howard Charles Green: If a discharged man has a job and is working, can he get help in order to train for some other job?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, he could attend evening classes; there is no objection to that.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister sure that man would get financial help in order to attend classes in the evening, for example?


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course my hon. friend understands that it would have to be an approved course. If the man took these evening classes in his spare time, as many civilians do, I should not think he would expect to get paid twice.


Howard Charles Green: But will the department pay for his tuition at that evening class?


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely.


Howard Charles Green: And will the department pay for a correspondence course?


Humphrey Mitchell: It has to be an approved course. At the moment I could not go as far as to include a correspondence course.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where are these training classes held?


Humphrey Mitchell: At vocational and technical schools all over the country.


Mr. SENN:: I do not suppose agriculture is included in these trades and occupations?


Humphrey Mitchell: As yet we have not established any classes in agriculture for returned soldiers.


Mark Cecil Senn: Reference was made a few 'moments ago to the Veterans' Land Act. I understood from what took place in the committee that certain training would be given

to soldiers when they came home if they wanted to go on the land. Would that be included under this item?


Humphrey Mitchell: While at the moment we are not following the suggestion of my hon. friend, I am sure if there should be a need for classes of the kind mentioned we would be prepared to develop them.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Is any of this money to be used to enable university students whose courses have been interrupted by the war to go on with their training?


Humphrey Mitchell: That comes under the next item.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I thought the next item was for assistance to the universities in meeting extra costs in accelerating courses.


Mr. MARTIN:: And in providing loans to certain students.


Major James William Coldwell: That covers the sort of thing I have in mind, then?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Mr. GILLIS:: Personally I am not quite satisfied with the explanation given by the minister in regard to the vocational training provided for men discharged1 from the army. I believe the machinery provided for that purpose is anything but satisfactory. There is a great deal of delay, and' many factors militate against the man who returns from the armed forces. As I understand the machinery now provided, it is strictly of an emergency nature; the training given to-day is for the purpose of fitting a man to go immediately into industry. In other words a man is given a short course which will enable him to take his place in war industry. I do not visualize that as a satisfactory vocational training programme for the future, though it may be all right now, to meet a temporary need. The machinery provided to enable the man to get in touch with a vocational training officer is also unsatisfactory. Let me take my own province as an example. There is one welfare officer for the whole province, who sits in with the unemployment insurance officers in Halifax. It is necessary to get through to him in order to make application to take advantage of the regulations as they now exist, and many of the boys coming out of the service have no knowledge of this officer. Men who have been out of the army for three or four months have written me to find out how to go about getting this training, and there is a great deal of delay in getting in touch with this one welfare

War Appropriation-Labour
officer. Most of the men coming out of the army are forced to take whatever employment is offered, in order to live.
If a discharged soldier desires to take advantage of these arrangements for vocational training, he is informed that he must present himself at a certain centre. This may mean that he will have to go three, four or five hundred miles from where his family lives. During the time he is taking that course he receives $14.40 a week if he is a married man. That is not sufficient to pay his board while taking the course and at the same time maintain his family in another part of the country. This situation is peculiar to Nova Scotia. I do not know what the arrangement is in the other provinces, but many more men would take advantage of vocational training if some provision were made for subsistence allowances while they were taking their courses. Many men who have been discharged from the army are in industry only temporarily, and later on the job of reestablishment will have to be done all over again.
I have a suggestion to offer to the minister which may be worthy of consideration. To-day, particularly in central Canada, there are some plants which are going out of war production; I would direct attention particularly to Research Enterprises Limited in Toronto, a technical plant which has been making certain instruments. Parts of these plants are going out of production. Employees are being taken' completely out of them and placed in other essential lines. These plants are equipped1 to do certain jobs. They could easily be converted back into training machinery so that the plant might be utilized following the war. People could be trained to do a job which would be of permanent benefit to them.
I suggest the minister will have to give consideration to the matter of remuneration, especially if he expects returned soldiers to take vocational training. Provision will have to be made for the families of these men while they are living away from home. In Nova Scotia they are trained in New Glasgow, or in New Brunswick in Moncton, and they have to travel four or five hundred miles from their homes, maintaining themselves and their families at the same time. It is all right in an emergency to have men enter a war industry, but a permanent arrangement must be made for the time after the war.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course, as I said before, the Department of Pensions and National Health merely turn the returned soldiers over to us for training. No doubt the minister of that department will take note of the hon. member's observations. With respect to
using the buildings now used by Research Enterprises Limited, may I point out that at this very moment conversations are going on between officials of my department and those of the Department of Munitions and Supply with that end in view.
Mr. MoCANN: Where discharged members of the Canadian armed forces take advantage of facilities offered by vocational and technical schools which are maintained by the various municipalities, does the assistance go to the individual or to the institution? If it goes to the individual, on what ground; and what are his prospective expenses in connection with it? I ask these questions in view of the fact that these institutions are maintained by local communities.


Humphrey Mitchell: The payments go to the individual. We pay any additional cost in the community. For instance, a municipality may give us a school. In some instances we share the costs, and in others we pay all the costs. We may pay the salaries of extra teachers.


Mr. WRIGHT:: What is the position of a man who gets his discharge now and takes a job in a war industry which, after he has worked there a year or year and a half, closes down? Will he then be able to get vocational training for another job?


Humphrey Mitchell: We have not yet been faced with that situation, but the hon. member may rest assured that at least while I am minister we shall try to do the sensible thing.
Mr. MacNIC'OL: I should like to ask one or two questions with respect to vocational training. I refer to the returned men who are sent to factories or schools for such training. For instance, does anyone from the minister's department with authority to inspect make any follow-up to ascertain how these people are taught?


Humphrey Mitchell: We have regional directors in each province. They in turn have inspectors who look over the work that is being done.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I am particularly concerned with the large increase in accidents in factories, particularly in Ontario. I refer to that province, because it is a report from Ontario which I hold in my hand. Are the men who have been called to these factories receiving adequate protection? If they are not used to working in plants they are much more likely to have accidents than if they had been trained in industrial .plants. The statements with respect to accidents are alarming. For instance, the Toronto Evening
War Appropriation-Labour

Telegram of June 25, 1943, contains a report in which figures issued by the Industrial Accident Prevention Association are given. The report shows that there has been an increase in accidents to the extent of five per cent, and that the number of accidents in May reached the alarming figure of 10,320, of which 26 were fatalities. Then, $937,649 was paid out by the workmen's compensation board in May of this year. These are figures for the province of Ontario alone, I believe, and they are very bad indeed. If they apply in equal proportion throughout Canada the total would be a matter of serious concern.
It must be remembered that many of the young men who went overseas and were there for two or three years had not done a day's work in industry before their enlistment, because many of them had not had employment during the depression period. What training are those men to be given? Unless they are taught how to prevent the loss of fingers, or to avoid being struck on the head or having a foot smashed, they may be the victims of accidents. If precautions are not taken, many Canadians will be handicapped, not only by injuries sustained in the war, but by those sustained subsequently as the result of industrial accidents.
The workmen's compensation board will not carry them on indefinitely. If the department has established means of training these inexperienced men in factories, it should see to it that they are protected against themselves. I have had a long experience in industry, and I have learned that accidents take place very easily. I know that various governments have inspectors who endeavour to surround machinery and other industrial hazards with every possible protection. Perhaps the time has arrived when the federal department of labour should step in and see to it that men sent to factories for training purposes are safeguarded against accidents.


Humphrey Mitchell: I too have noticed the increase in the number of industrial accidents. I suppose that is the natural result of the tremendous expansion in industry. Many are entering industry for the first time. As to these trainees of ours, so far as I know we have not had a serious accident in the last year. My hon. friend is aware of course that workmen's compensation is under provincial jurisdiction, and operates in all the provinces. In most of the provinces, if not indeed all of them, there are accident prevention associations, or organizations of a similar type, financed by industry on an assessment basis. We have indicated to the provincial workmen's compensation boards this alarming increase in the number of accidents. fMr. MacNicol.]


John Ritchie MacNicol: Your department has, do you say?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, our department has. But I think the hon. member will agree with me that the matter of factory supervision and legislation pertaining thereto comes within the four corners of property and civil rights, and that it is far better to use the instrument already built up than to have the federal Department of Labour enter the field of its own accord. In Ontario they have a most efficient accident prevention association. Naturally the worker is conscious of any loss of earning power, and that possible loss is an incentive to him to take some interest in accident prevention. The employer is interested, too, because his assessment with respect to workmen's compensation goes up and down according to the accident rate.
Under our training plan, in some centres we conduct classes in first aid. I believe that is at least a contribution, possiblj' not to the actual prevention of accidents, but to the lessening of the results of accidents. We know that sometimes workmen do not take that degree of care in respect to the possibility of minor accidents that they should. A workman may cut his finger and let it go without the necessary attention, and this may result in something serious, such as blood poisoning. For a great many years I took a keen interest in workmen's compensation in Ontario, and I have served on many committees set up by the labour movement which waited upon the Ontario government to ask for amendments to the workmen's compensation act of that province. While I have not the figures before me, I think it can be said that within the period of a generation there has been almost a transformation in the approach to the prevention of industrial accidents and disease. There has-been a tremendous improvement over what existed twenty-five years ago. While I regret along with my hon. friend the increase which has taken place, I think it is one of those things that you cannot control, especially when you consider the tremendous expansion in industry which has taken place and the fact that so many people have entered industry for the first time.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: How long does a man have to be in the service before he is eligible for this grant?


Humphrey Mitchell: If he has an honourable discharge I think he could get it at any time.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is there any stated time?


Humphrey Mitchell: Not to my knowledge.

War Appropriation-Labour


Charles Edward Johnston: If he is in only one day, he would get it?


Humphrey Mitchell: As I pointed out, these men are sent to me by the Department of Pensions and National Health. If a man had never been in the army or the navy or the air force we should be glad to train him for industry.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have had a little trouble in getting a case settled with the Department of Pensions and National Health. The particulars of this case have a direct bearing upon the item before the committee. The Department of Pensions and National Health refused to make a rehabilitation grant to this man because he had not been in the service the required six months, and the whole case turned upon whether his length of service would date from the day he was sworn in or from the day he was first on full pay in the service. This point should be definitely settled, because I have no doubt the minister will have to deal with similar cases. I should like to read a paragraph from a memorandum of the Department of Pensions and National Health under date of June 24, 1943, with reference to this man. It reads:
This man, after less than six months actual active service, was discharged from the forces whilst in Deer Lodge hospital, Winnipeg, on February 17, 1942, following treatment for rheumatic fever. As he had less than 183 days active service, he is not eligible for the rehabilitation grant of thirty days' pay.
The Minister of National Defence for Air stated definitely in the house that the man was actually in the service from the day he was sworn in, but when this case comes up before the Department of Pensions and National Health the question arises whether his service would date from the day he was attested or from the day he began to draw full pay in the service. This point is not clear from what has been said by the Minister of National Defence for Air and the Minister of Pensions and National Health.


Humphrey Mitchell: I thought I made it clear that the handling of men after they are discharged is not a function of the Department of Labour, that it comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Pensions and National Health. If my hon. friend will give me the correspondence I shall be glad to get in touch with that department and try to get an answer for him.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is it not the minister's department that makes these grants?


Humphrey Mitchell: The Department of
Pensions and National Health send the men to us and we train them.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister would have to refer back to the Department of Pensions and National Health to find out whether a man was eligible?


Humphrey Mitchell: We do not come into the picture until it is decided that a man is to be trained.


Charles Edward Johnston: I suppose this question would properly come up under Department of Pensions and National Health?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is right.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is
where we are having the difficulty.


Mr. NOSE WORTHY:: I am not clear, and there are many discharged men who are not clear as to the procedure which should be followed in order for a discharged man to be considered eligible for this training. First, will the minister tell the committee what the procedure is? Second, will the minister make clear the nature of the assistance which is being given to these returned men? That should be done for the benefit of the men themselves. Third, how many men are now receiving vocational training, and where are they receiving it? I realize that there may be considerable difficulty at the present time when a few men are being trained here and a few more in another part of the country, but I should like to know just what classes are being' set up and where this training is available. Next, what is the nature of the vocational training classes that are available for returned men? Next, have the government given any consideration to studying the future industrial needs of the country? Our technical schools spend a lot of money on training pupils for jobs which do not exist when the training is completed, for vocations which have become more or less obsolete. Considering the technological changes that are occurring I assume the government are making sure that they know what the needs of industry will be when this training is completed.


Humphrey Mitchell: First, my hon. friend
asked how a returned soldier should go about getting this training. He would get in touch with the rehabilitation officer in his locality. In the larger centres this man is to be found in the unemployment insurance offices. Next, my hon. friend asked what allowances are being given. They vary from $7 to $18 a week according to the circumstances. He

War Appropriation-Labour

asked how many are being trained. At present there are twelve hundred. He asked where they are being trained and what training they are receiving. I have not that information in front of me, but I shall endeavour to get it before these estimates have been completed. Next, he asked if these people are being trained so that they will fit into the post-war picture. That is a pretty hard question to answer.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: What steps is the government taking to ascertain what will be the means?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend will appreciate that it is the function of the James committee to advise the government in that direction. Then there is the Macintosh committee and a committee of this house on rehabilitation and ipost-war problems. It is a difficult question to answer. A mam may learn a trade to-day,, and with a shift in styles or in the wants of the (people, that trade may be obliterated almost overnight. It is difficult to indicate the industrial structure of the post-war period. A committee of the House of Commons is at this very moment giving study to the question my hon. friend raises.


Joseph William Noseworthy: How is information given to the discharged soldier, a man out in a small village, for instance, as to the officer to whom he should apply, the location of his office, and so forth, if the soldier wants to take vocational training?


Humphrey Mitchell: He is told that upon discharge. I do not think the average soldier passes much up. That was my experience in the last war, and I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South will agree with me. We had a pretty good idea of what we were entitled to and where we were going.
Mr. GILL.IS: That has been the theory, but the fact is that the soldiers are not getting the information.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a very important subject, and there is a suggestion I should like to make to the minister and to the committee in connection with vocational training. When hostilities end, under the present plans of the united nations there will be occupation of friendly countries now overrun by the axis, as well as the occupation of enemy countries. I am going to make a plea for a system of vocational training to meet the needs of the period immediately after the war and until the signing of the peace treaty. I think I ought to get considerable support for the suggestion from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, 
who has given many years to the study of international affairs and who is the distinguished vice-president for Canada of the Institute of Foreign Affairs.
During the past several months in the United States, as in Great Britain, consideration is being given to the post-war period when there will be occupancy of various countries from the cessation of hostilities to the signing of the peace treaty. The experience after the last war in the matter of occupation of countries was not everything it should have been. Only recently I was reading an article on this subject which quoted Colonel Hunt, who was the United States officer in charge of the occupation of Germany in 1919 and 1920. He states in,, "American Military Government of Occupied Germany, 1918-20":
All of the energy of the American army had been centered1 on an early decision in the field, and there had been no opportunity to study the civil problems involved in an occupation of German territory. The American army therefore began its duties in occupied territory with only the scantiest information both of the particular situation confronting it and even of a broader nature, such as would permit it to intelligently frame an organization commensurate with its wride governmental powers. From the beginning there was a crying need for personnel trained in civil administration and possessing knowledge of the German nation.
The United States has already seen the necessity of doing something in. this regard and has started schools for the training of civilian administrators and other officers who will be in charge of civil affairs in the occupied territories.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is referring to the school in Virginia, for instance?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, that is one.
Two types of government will be set up, one a military government and the other a civil government. The United States in consultation with the other united nations has practically concluded that as soon as possible after occupancy takes place of an area in friendly countries now occupied by the axis, the military government should give way to a civil government, and that there should be placed in charge of those areas men from the various united nations who have been trained in civil administration. A number of articles have been written on the subject.
When occupation takes place a wide range of social and rehabilitation activities will be required. Civilian administrators will be needed who have training and experience in such matters as public health and housing, and a knowledge of the territory occupied. Furthermore, under the present scheme, educational institutions will be set up in the

War Appropriation-Labour
occupied areas and a system of re-education will be set up in Germany and the other axis nations in order to indicate to these people the falsity of the teachings they have followed during the last thirty or forty years. The united nations will show them through education that men in all the countries of the earth can live in amity one with another. The falsity of the doctrine of blood and iron and aggression which has resulted in two wars in our lifetime will be terminated by such a system of education. But to that end trained men will be necessary. As the minister's parliamentary assistant mentioned a little while ago, schools have been opened in Virginia, and in other states of the United States schools are to be established to train men for this work. They will have to be carefully trained and will require a comprehensive course of study. These men will be selected according to their ability, their character, and their maturity and powers of leadership.
Some time ago Mr. Sumner Welles in the United States said that for a period of some years after hostilities ceased - possibly five years-there would be no peace treaty signed until a settlement had been arrived at and peaceful relations restored among the nations of the world. I make this suggestion to the minister, who I know will do everything he can to train our men for a vocation when they retu-n from overseas, to give them an opportunity to take their place in the post-war world, when it may be anticipated that some of the economic difficulties that arose after the last war will again rear their heads in our midst and employment for our service men will again be a problem to be solved. We do not want to have men returning after this war to conditions such as those to which the last generation returned. Now is the time to set'up in Canada a school of civil administration complementary to the school which is operating in the United States. It would mean that several thousand service men-I would say, at the beginning, five or six thousand of them- would receive training in civil administration. They will have served their country in time of war, and possibly many of them will be prevented by war disabilities from doing physical wrork. By setting up a school of this kind Canada will be enabled to take her place in the sphere of international affairs and exercise her influence in a larger way than she did before the war. The first proceeding will be the setting up of a training school; then, later, will come the training of these men, which will assure them of employment for several years after the close of hostilities, and
will supply them with training which will stand them in exceptionally good stead when they return to civilian life.
I realize that what I suggest is an innovation, but since the outbreak of this war there have been many breaks with tradition. After the last war it would not have occurred to anyone to establish schools of this kind. The United States is finding that the system is working out, and a skeleton organization should be set up in Canada at once. The necessary personnel for training is available. We have in the armed forces men who are informed on public health, social service, eduestion and the like: suitable educational staffs exist in the army. I feel that if this suggestion were implemented, many thousands of our men who might otherwise be debarred from post-war employment because of disabilities will be assured of occupation for several years in work which will be necessary for the preservation of the peace of the world. Canada must take a larger (place than ever before in international affairs after the war, and the adoption of this plan will train men to take their part in the new world.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has referred to a matter which the department from one point of view has seriously been considering. The question of training men of the armed services and others at the end of the war or during the wTar to take assignments in what we hope will be the occupied areas of Europe and Asia is not entirely, in fact it is only very remotely, a matter in which this department from an initial point of view can be said to be interested. In this country the question of training men and women for service in Europe and Asia at the end of the war is itself dependent upon policy of a higher order. In the first instance there will be the question of the proportion of appointments as between the various members of the victorious powers. There will be the question of the wisdom of having, let us say, Canadians or Englishmen or Americans serving in an administrative capacity in some of the European states and one will have to consider the psychological factor in relation to that sort of thing. However, as the hon. member has mentioned, in the United States considerable attention is being paid to this subject. There are schools in Virginia, at the university of Michigan at Ann Arbor, at Portland, Oregon, and in Washington. These at the moment are largely under the department of war or such military departments as have to do with the conduct of the war. The course of training presupposes qualifications which are
72537-259^
War Appropriation-Labour

not those of the average person, and it is doubtful, in view of the training which most members of the armed forces now have, whether any considerable number could take advantage of the course.
However, the hon. member has, I think, done a great service in bringing the matter to public attention, I believe for the first time in this country. A committee of the Department of Labour is considering these matters; and, to the extent that this may be regarded in any sense as a problem of the department-and primarily it cannot be said to be such-the hon. member can be assured, knowing the interest of the minister and myself in these matters, that it will be given not only the best possible consideration, but the closest attention.


Ernest George Hansell: I want to refer back to the discussion which was pursued a few minutes ago about the allowance provided for men who are discharged and are taking training while they are away from home. I notice that order in council P.C. 2/3241, passed on April 20, provides, in the first paragraph of section 11, as follows:
The minister may pay to a person pursuing a course under the provisions of paragraph (6) hereof and who is (1) a married person or (2) a person in respect of whom an additional allowance for dependents is being paid under this order, a living allowance of five dollars per week for any week whilst he is necessarily living away from his usual place of residence in pursuing such course and is thereby, in the opinion of the minister, obliged to incur extra living expenses.
It does seem to me that these government regulations, whether relating to this or any other type of allowance, are never framed with a view of giving the men every possible advantage. Perhaps the minister's department is not to blame. The treasury department sit above or behind them and they whittle away, whittle away, until the rules have been written up with such meticulous care that not one penny more is given than will provide anything beyond bare necessities. I fail to see how $5 a week is adequate for a man living away from home. Let me ask the minister two questions. First, does he think that $5 a week is really sufficient for a man living away from home?


Charles Edward Johnston: Some get $25 a day.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, but they are not discharged veterans. I do not know whether any of these men are taking training in Ottawa. I do not think that Ottawa is any different from any other city when it comes to housing congestion and the cost of living.
{Mr Martin.]
That being so, can the minister tell us where we can get board and room in Ottawa for $5 a week? If he can, that information will be very useful even to members of parliament, who have no exemptions for expenses, and I am quite certain it will be very useful to civil servants who get just enough salary to get by on, provided they can obtain room and board at the cheapest possible place. Will the minister answer those two questions?


Humphrey Mitchell: In the first place I have no jurisdiction over allowances to soldiers; it does not come under my department. All that my department does is to train people. That question would come under the estimates of the department of pensions.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not blame the minister for evading that question.


Ernest George Hansell: That is getting to be the regular answer now, and it does seem to me that the coordination of the various departments is such that when you ask one minister a question he can easily say that it comes under another minister, and when you ask that other minister the same question he says that it comes under the items dealt with by another department. It is a case of playing tag with the various ministers and passing the buck. Perhaps the question does not come under this department, but does the minister think that $5 a week is a sufficient allowance? Perhaps he does not, but has he brought influence to bear upon his colleague the minister of pensions to have a little more given to these men?-who, remember, enlisted in the army. They volunteered to sacrifice everything and are now discharged, some of them perhaps because of ill health. Not being in receipt of pension, thgse brave lads are asked to take some course of training, and we think we are doing wonders for them w-hen we give them $5 a week to live on.


Mr. JAQUES:: Ask the humanitarians.


Howard Charles Green: A few moments ago we were discussing the question whether discharged men could take correspondence courses. It so happens that this morning I had a file sent to me from Vancouver. I did not have it in my hands at the time of the discussion, but I have it now. This man had served three and a half years in Canada, eventually becoming company quartermaster sergeant. On his discharge, category E, he obtained a position with the dominion civil service as a grade 4 clerk in the Dominion of Canada assay office in Vancouver, but it was pointed out to him at the time that the job was only a temporary one because

War Appropriation-Labour
the man who held it had enlisted for work which would not result in his becoming a casualty; in other words he would come back upon the conclusion of the war; so that my informant has known all the time that he had only a temporary job. That being the fact, he applied to the veterans' welfare officer for assistance in taking a correspondence course in the International Accountants Society Incorporated. His plan was eventually to write an examination which would give him a degree from the Canadian General Accountants association. The cost of the course was $140.25. He was advised by the welfare officer to write to Lieutenant-Colonel F. T. Fairey, a provincial government employee in Victoria, but also regional director of the war emergency training programme. I have here a letter from Colonel Fairey in reply, one paragraph of which reads:
I must say, however, that under the present regulations I have no authority to pay fees for correspondence courses of any kind, either as an official of the provincial government or as regional director of the war emergency training programme. If, as you know, you were taking vocational training under post-discharge order P.C. 7633, I then would be responsible for the cost of your training during the time you were drawing subsistence allowances, but no provision is made for the type of instruction you suggest.
In other words, the man would have to be out of work and be a charge on the government for subsistence allowance before anything could be done for him. Only by being out of work could he get assistance in taking that course. That is directly opposite to what the minister told the committee when the subject was discussed a few minutes ago. It is true that this letter is dated March 17, and perhaps there has been another order in council since that time. However, this discharged veteran again saw the veterans' welfare officer and wrote to what is known as the district rehabilitation board in Vancouver. I have here a letter from them dated May 6 of this year, from which I quote the following:
The local rehabilitation board has considered your request for a correspondence course in accountancy under order in council P.C. 7633. However, the writer regrets to inform you that the board does not consider it advisable to make a grant for this purpose owing to the fact that you have had considerable experience, that you are now employed in a relatively good position and that this course is not therefore necessary for your rehabilitation.
This letter shows that, regardless of what the Department of Labour here may think, this rehabilitation board in Vancouver is not in favour of granting assistance for courses of this type, and I suggest that the last-mentioned ground is a most unreasonable one, namely, that it is not ncessary for this man's rehabilitation.
Here is a man in a temporary job-and there must be thousands of others in the same position, for example men who work in war industries but are obviously there only temporarily. Perhaps they would like to have some training that would fit them for permanent work, but the point of view of this board is that help cannot be given in a case of this kind. I would ask the minister not only to assure the committee that this rehabilitation board is wrong and that correspondence courses can be given, but to go further and indicate that decision to the various boards across Canada. When men receive treatment of this kind, in most cases they are knocked out; they are through; they do not keep coming back, because they believe it is hopeless and that they cannot get help; they are-dissatisfied and it makes for discontent throughout the country.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Can the hon. member give me the details privately ?


Howard Charles Green: Yes. I will give the minister the file. This is a matter that should be made absolutely clear. A discharged veteran, in order to get help, should not necessarily be out of work but should be able to get help so that he may become permanently established.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am sorry if I misinformed my hon. friend; I did not intend to. The labour department has not yet established the principle of paying for correspondence courses with private organizations im connection with the training programme. I want to make that clear. I am not trying to* evade the issue, as has been suggested, bufc this matter does not come under the jurisdiction of my department. It comes under the minister of pensions. My department has to do with training for trades and callings, more than the sort of thing mentioned by my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: Suppose a man is working in the day time on a war job and wants to take training in some trade in the evenings. Can he get that or can he not?


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course we have part time evening courses, which are free, but there is no allowance paid in connection with those. Men and women work during the day and. go to those classes in the evening.


Howard Charles Green: They are employed during the day.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Then the department will pay for their tuition in the evening?


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, absolutely.
War Appropriation-Labour


Howard Charles Green: There is no doubt about that?


Humphrey Mitchell: No doubt at all.


Joseph William Noseworthy: There is another
point regarding discharged members of the armed forces. I do not see anything here which would enable a soldier to continue his education which was interrupted because of the war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may interrupt the hon. gentleman, education comes under my department entirely and can be thoroughly discussed either on the war appropriation or the departmental estimates. I can assure my hon. friend that most comprehensive arrangements have been made both for ordinary education and for post-graduate courses for soldiers when they are discharged. I do not want to hold up the estimates of my colleague at the moment; later I shall be very glad to give my hon. friend all information on that point.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I just wanted to ask whether education came under the Department of Labour or the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Although the actual work of vocational training is being carried out at the present time under the Department of Labour there is in addition a most comprehensive programme of vocational training being arranged in my department. A director of vocational training has been appointed, and I shall be glad to explain fully to my hon. friend what is being done in regard to both vocational training and education under my department.


Major James William Coldwell: Then the next item does not cover the sort of thing I had in mind in connection with university education; that will come under the Department of Pensions and National Health?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The selection of those qualified for vocational ' training will come under the Department of Pensions and National Health. At the present time we are making a national survey of the whole field of education for discharged soldiers, and that survey will be completed in two or three months.


Major James William Coldwell: Including university
education?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The regulations in regard to university education are now complete, but the survey is being made in regard to the physical, educational and vocational facilities available in every part of Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: Then I shall wait until the minister reaches his estimates.


Clarence Gillis: In view of the fact that the administration of the rehabilitation regulations, including vocational training, comes under the Department of Pensions and National Health, what function is performed by the Department of Labour in connection with the expenditure of this money?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are doing the actual work at the present time.


Major James William Coldwell: Do I understand that this is before discharge?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not see where the work of one department ends and that of the other begins. Perhaps the minister will make that clear.


Humphrey Mitchell: I can tell my hon,. friend how it happened. We have been conducting these classes for several years now, since they were introduced by the late Mr. Rogers in 1936. When the present situation developed the Department of Labour had the machinery and the experience, and we took over this obligation from pensions and national health, but the setting of the scale of remuneration and the regulations in connection with education are matters for that department. The training in industry and in the technical and vocational schools is undertaken by the Department of Labour.


Charles Edward Johnston: A short time ago the minister indicated that determination of the date on which actual service began was a matter for the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is in the case of a discharged soldier.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then what about a discharged member of the air force?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The same thing applies.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is not decided by the Department of National Defence?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 1-is decided by the regulations of the service branch in which the man has served, and the Department of Pensions and National Health must take the regulations of that branch.


Charles Edward Johnston: But pensions and national health have no control over that at. all; it is up to the defence department?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

War Appropriation-Labour
Assistance in meeting extra costs of the universities in accelerating certain courses and to provide loans to certain students, $440,000.
Ernest George Hansell: What types of students are given this assistance? Is it given to any young man who finds that he cannot afford to go through university; and if so what procedure should be followed by one desiring to apply for assistance?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is in medicine, dentistry, science and engineering; those are the four courses; first year engineering and science, and I think they must be over five years in medicine.


Charles Edward Johnston: And will these amounts be in addition to what the act actually calls for?


Humphrey Mitchell: These students are
chosen by a committee in each university,, and an allowance of approximately $275 is given the student towards the cost of his education at that particular university. The number of students who have been assisted in this way to date is just over two thousand.


Mr. BENCE:: What arrangements are made in connection with the loans, with regard to repayment?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is undertaken at each university. Some universities give the money, while others lend it. It is all arranged between the federal government, the provincial government and the university.


Alfred Henry Bence: If it is the money of the federal government, why should the university have the right to say whether it shall be given or lent?


Humphrey Mitchell: Where it is the money of the federal government it is purely a loan, but this is usually a joint arrangement between the provincial and federal governments. There is nothing new about it.


Major James William Coldwell: It is a federal loan to the students, is it?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Lent by whom?


Humphrey Mitchell: In some cases a federal loan and in some cases a joint loan.


Major James William Coldwell: But a loan in every
case?


Humphrey Mitchell: Not in every case; where the province puts it up it may be a gift, at the discretion of the province and the university.


Major James William Coldwell: How many provinces are making this a gift, and how many make it a loan, does the minister know?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know. I can say that one good Scotch university, Queen's, makes it a loan.


Major James William Coldwell: Some of us would be interested in knowing what is being done in our own provinces. What about Saskatchewan?


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall get the information for my hon. friend; it is best to be sure about it.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Is the boy given more than a one-year course? My understanding is that if a boy gets this loan he has to sign up for enlistment at the end of the first year of his course. The boy may go on if his standing is high enough and he can finance himself; as long as he remains in the good graces of the universities he may continue his education, but if he gets this loan from the government it is because of the fact that he agrees to go into the army at the end of one year. He can only get a one-year education.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, he is allowed to
complete his course, but he does not get the loan except under certain stipulations; that is, he either goes into the fighting forces or into some industry, at the direction of the Minister of Labour.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: I wish the minister
would look into that more carefully, because I am definite on the point. I could give the names of boys who were given this opportunity definitely on the basis that they could get only a one-year course.


Humphrey Mitchell: It may be that in the
judgment of the university a young fellow's academic standing was not sufficiently high to permit him to continue his course, but in all these courses they are permitted to complete their education. I wish the hon. member would give me the particulars of the case he has mentioned.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: I shall do so.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Is it not true that some of the universities are giving a special one-year course to officer material? Perhaps that is what the hon. member has in mind.


Humphrey Mitchell: But not under the jurisdiction of my department.


Alfred Henry Bence: Will the minister obtain the information, and let us have the picture in connection with the various universities?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
War Appropriation-Labour
[Stage Direction]
National war labour board, $468,445.
Alfred Henry Bence: As I understand it, the national war labour board was reconstituted by order in council P.C. 1141 on February 11 of this year. At the time it was reconstituted three members were appointed to it, namely the Hon. Mr. Justice C. P. McTague, the Hon. J. J. Bench and Mr. J, L. Cohen. First, before the board was set up, Mr. Bench was appointed to the senate, and when I read in the press that he had been appointed to this board I was favourably impressed, because I thought it was an instance of giving to a man in public life a position in which he could do a good piece of work. I was disappointed, however, to find two and a half months later that another order in council was passed providing for the revocation of the appointment of the Hon. Senator J. J. Bench, and the appointment in his place of Mr. Lalande, at a salary of 310,000 a year.
In the second order in council, P.C. 3512, passed on April 29, 1943, we find the following statement:
Whereas the Minister of Labour reports with reference to the war-time wages control order (P.C. 5963 dated July 10, 1942), that the Honourable Senator J. J. Bench, K.C., in accordance with an understanding at the time of his appointment has submitted his resignation as a member of the national war labour board. . . .
What was the understanding at the time of the appointment, and what was the reason for placing on the board a man who would go into the various matters coming before the board, and who would become acquainted with the problems with which the board was confronted, only to have his appointment revoked within two and a half months?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know whether the hon. member knows Senator Bench very well.


Alfred Henry Bence: I do not know him at all.


Humphrey Mitchell: He is not strong physically.


Alfred Henry Bence: He is under forty years of age.


Humphrey Mitchell: That may be true; but I am sure if my hon. friend knew Senator Bench and the nature of his disability, he would not have made the observations he has made.


Alfred Henry Bence: What I have said was not said with the intention of casting any reflection at all. I wished only to have an explanation.


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, that is the explanation. It was understood and discussed. I discussed this matter with Senator Bench, and it 
was understood he would not stay very long. The reason why he left as soon as he did was that he could not stand the strain of the work of the board. He had to go south to recuperate. - Senator Bench felt that, in view of the pressing nature of the cases before the board, it was his duty to resign. That is what he did, and the other gentleman was appointed in his place.


Alfred Henry Bence: That was in accordance with the understanding; but it was not the understanding that he would quit within two and a half months.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Senator Bench is a close friend of mine. I know the hon. member did not intend to cast any reflection, but since he has made the observations he did make may I say that Senator Bench had been in the armed services, serving as a commissioned officer. He was discharged for reasons of health.


Alfred Henry Bence: I assure the committee I did not intend any reflection whatsoever.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses in connection with general labour transference in war industries and agriculture, $500,000.
Major James William Coldwell: I should like to raise a point on this item. To-day we approach the end of June, when schools are closing. On Saturday evening I had a long-distance telephone conversation with the secretary of the teachers' alliance in Alberta. It was drawn to my attention that a large number of teachers are anxious to find war work in the summer. It was pointed out that they had made applications to the selective service branch in Edmonton for wrork suitable to their particular experience, physical conditions and aptitude, but that they were being told in practically all cases that the work available to them would be work on the farms.
Probably some of the younger men and women in the teaching profession are quite able to transfer from the schools to farm work. But a large number of teachers, both male and female, on account of the sedentary type of work they have been doing for ten or fifteen or more years are not physically fit for farm work.
I have a letter confirming the telephone conversation, but shall not take the time of the committee to read it. The point in question is that in Edmonton, or at points just outside Edmonton, there is a good deal of clerical work, such as checking and the like, for which applications are being invited. These teachers, who are probably best fitted

War Appropriation-Labour
in many respects for that kind of work, are told that they cannot have it, often because the employing firm is a United States organization. And yet, as many of us know, numbers of men are being brought in from the United States to do various types of work in northern Alberta. These men are brought in long distances, and at great expense. If people are available locally who, by experience and physical condition, are fitted to do that type of wbrk, it seems to me that they should not be directed to work they cannot do, and that they should be given an opportunity of doing the work for which they are fitted.
This is something to which the department might give its attention. In the next week or ten days, approaching the end of June, a number of teachers will be released from schools all across Canada. I believe the school terms do not resume in some of the provinces until about October 15. That is the position in Alberta; and I believe some of the other western provinces and the province of Ontario are extending the vacation period in the same way. This is being done so that teachers and pupils alike may undertake other types of work.
It is true that the work on the farm must be done and that labour is short. Where people are fitted physically or by experience for that kind 'of work I agree they should be directed to do it. I am not criticizing that at all. But if they are not fitted, then I say they should not be debarred from doing the kind of work for which they are fitted.
Mr. John Barnett, who has written me, tells me that he makes no criticism of the officials of selective service in Edmonton. He points out that in every instance the treatment received by those who made inquiries at the Edmonton office was exceedingly courteous, and that there was no complaint to make in that respect. I mention that only because it might be inferred that there had been some trouble when, in fact, there has been none at all.
I was surprised to hear the minister's announcement in the house that farm labour was to be transferred from Saskatchewan to Ontario at this season of the year. I cannot understand where that source of labour is available; and if it is available I do not understand why it cannot be used in districts in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta where there has been a shortage of labour. Both in eastern and western Canada, particularly in the east, I think it is more a maldistribution of farm labour. No thorough survey has been made
to ensure that farm labour is directed to those places where it can be utilized most economically and efficiently.
In my opinion the question of labour on our farms will become more acute as the days go by. The demand for food will become greater. Indeed, we are witnessing to-day one of the most surprising shortages of food in the United States. Yesterday I was reading some articles in the New York Times regarding shortages in the United States which are rather alarming. We have a little rationing in our own country, but we are not short of anything particularly. The people overseas are on fairly short rations because the food we are getting to them is not enough. If we open up any part of Europe food will be required in very large quantities. So that it seems to me it is essential that we should keep up our food supply. I had this in mind when I was discussing the whole man-power situation last Friday.
Perhaps there could be a transfer by persuasion of labour from farms where it is not vitally needed to other farms in the same area. I have heard of cases in both this and the neighbouring province where a number of people, old and young, are employed on farms who might be more efficiently employed on different farms or on different types of farms in the same locality. But even if we do this there will still be an insufficient supply of agricultural labour. I wish the minister would take up with his colleagues, particularly the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the question of providing more machinery for the farms. I am thinking not only of the western farms where mechanization has become fairly universal on the larger units, but also of the eastern dairy farms. I know of cases where four or five people with a milking machine are able to handle sixty, seventy or even more head of milch cattle.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The romance is being
taken out of it.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister might take up with his colleagues the question of providing more machinery for the farm. This should be possible if some branches of our war industry have reached their peaks and are now slowing down, especially if they were previously engaged in the manufacture of farm equipment. I ask the minister to give particular consideration to my first question, that teachers who are not particularly equipped to go on the land be permitted to take positions which their physical condition will permit them to fill more efficiently and more in the interests of the country.
War Appropriation-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: I think it is fair to say that a large proportion of the teachers in western Canada are children of farmers, and that is where they should go in the holidays.


Major James William Coldwell: If they are physically fit.


Humphrey Mitchell: If they are physically fit. I want to make that very definite because many hon. members have been talking about the shortage of farm labour. These people will have to go where they can be best used. While I cannot give the number of men that will be required on the Alaska highway, I may say that some months ago I discussed this matter with the United States authorities, and the number of men that will be engaged during the summer on this project staggers the imagination. We just have not a man-power pool in western Canada even to attempt to meet this need. Under these conditions our good friends to the south have arranged for a labour supply themselves. We could not disrupt the labour pool in western Canada in order to do this work. My hon. friend can rest assured that the selective service officers will be judicious in their decisions in connection with teachers being sent into agriculture this summer.
My hon. friend referred to the question of a labour supply for the west. My mind goes back to last fall when, on account of weather conditions, we were faced with a difficult situation in western Canada. University students and some farmers were sent to the west. I think it is only in the nature of one good turn deserving another that any men in western Canada who are able to give assistance to farmers in the east between the planting season and threshing should do so. This is required particularly in connection with the hay crop which is heavy this year. We are taking the advice of our organizations in Saskatchewan and other parts of the west as to what men are available.
On the question of organization, I may say that in Saskatchewan we have a "win the war committee" in every municipality. The driving force between these committees is to have labour available where it is most needed, not only in connection with planting the crops but in converting them into food and generally supplying the needs of all year round agriculture. Committees have been established in every parish in Quebec and in every county in Ontario. That is the way we are organizing in order to make the best possible use of the labour supply available.
We must not forget that there are about
770,000	farms in Canada. I think it is fair to say that there is at least one man and woman on every farm. We are apt to be a little confused in our thinking and compare

labour conditions in agriculture prior to 1941 with what they are to-day. I do not think that is a fair comparison to make because in those depression years there were many people on our farms who were living there rather than working. There was no employment for them in the industrial areas. I have seen the figures, and there has never been much more than
60.000	hired men engaged in the farming industry of this country. When these comparisons are made I think due allowance should be made for the point I have raised.
In connection with agricultural machinery I can tell my hon. friend that a committee of the Department of Agriculture is working with the priority committee of my department in connection with the supply of agricultural machinery for the farmers of this dominion. No doubt by the time we get around to the agricultural estimates the Minister of Agriculture will have something to say on this matter.


Major James William Coldwell: The point I was making was that no matter what their physical condition might be, the only rvork that has been offered to male teachers in Edmonton has been that of labourer and farm worker, and to the women teachers, that of waitress and laundress. That is what I want the minister to look into, to see if these could not be extended.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend will
appreciate that there is a tight situation in Edmonton.


Mr. FAIR:: I do not belong to the teaching profession, but during the. past three or four weeks I have had several communications from teachers in my province and I have taken up some of these cases with the Minister of Labour. So far as teachers being sent to the farm is concerned, I support the argument of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. He must have a copy of the notes I have before me because he has discussed the points I intended to raise. When the minister is preparing to send these teachers to the farm he should consider the wages that are to be paid. A farmer cannot pay wages that will be attractive to a teacher and I am afraid it will be found that many of them will be trying to get into other lines of work. I agree with the minister that a number of the teachers have come from the farm, but I suggest that a number of them are not in shape to stand the hard work that must be done on the farm. In regard to the lady teachers, I would like the minister to make it clear whether those who have matrimonial engagements will be compelled to have a stay of proceedings on such engagements until the war is over, or whether

War Appropriation-Labour
they can go ahead, because I know a number who have engagements for next month or immediately after school is out. Would the minister let us know the Liberal policy or definition of these teachers being frozen?


Humphrey Mitchell: All matters relating to the affections I shall refer to my assistant.


Robert Fair: I hope they will be as well taken care of as he has taken care of his own along that line.
The minister in his statement on Wednesday last gave great prominence to the agricultural profession, if I may call it that; I only wish it was elevated to that happy position. As reported at pagff3934 of Hansard, the minister gave agriculture quite a boost. It was a real Liberal boost; it consisted of words only and said nothing about financial compensation. The minister said:
What our farmers have done is to produce more and more with fewer people. This record of achievement by our farmers, their wives, their children, and their hired men and women will be read some day as one of the glorious chapters in our history. I should like as Minister of Labour to pay special tribute to the hired men and women on the farms. They are too often forgotten in plans for social betterment. Their lot is not an easy one or an exciting one. They are doing a grand war job to-day for this nation.
I want to join most heartily with the Minister of Labour in that statement, because he is quite correct in saying that fewer of our people are producing more food than ever before. The one drawback is that they are still not paid for their labours. I do not think that statement can be successfully challenged if we take agriculture as a whole. We have been told time and again that prices of agricultural products cannot be figured out and that for that reason we cannot get parity prices or the cost of production. I would advise the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture, and even the Minister of Finance, that if they have not sufficient statisticians here in Ottawa, I can get a number of farmers to' work these things out for them if they on their part will then agree to pay the cost of production. We have on the farm a number of accountants, and while they may not be regarded in Ottawa as having very much ability because they are on a farm, nevertheless they can do accounting efficiently. So that if the government cannot find statisticians here in Ottawa, I can give them the names of some people who can work these things out for them.
Farm production, I am afraid, will be a little disappointing to the government this year, even though the Minister of Agriculture told a Liberal convention only a couple of
days ago that everything would be all right unless some hoarding was done. I hope that his predictions will be realized in the interests of agriculture and of our allies.
The shortage of farm machinery has been spoken of by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I have worried quite a little about this shortage, because I know of dozens of fanners in my part of the country who have put in applications for machinery and have not been able to purchase it. The shortage of good farm machinery will be reflected in farm production this summer and harvest because, if you have a poor binder or some such machine, time will be wasted needlessly, and when I say wasted I mean just that, because with fewer good operators our machinery should be kept up to a very high standard.
Coming now to the extra hours of labour,
I want to say that farmers have worked extra hours ever since I came to Canada, at Least some twenty-nine years ago. Other lines of industry have an eight-hour day with half a day off a week, but twelve to sixteen hours a day is the average day's labour for the .farmer in Canada. If you go on the farm and watch the farmer-I do not care whether it is in eastern Canada or western Canada or the central provinces-you will find that twelve to sixteen hours is the average working day, and with poor compensation for these hours of labour I think the farmers are not being justly treated. Perhaps we farmers will have to do the same as the industrialists did in August, 1939. They said: If we do not get the cost of production plus, we are not going to manufacture. The farmers have not yet come to that point, and I hope it will never be necessary for them to do so, but in case it is, I do not think the country could blame 'the farmer for taking that step to get the cost of production if he cannot get it in any other way. We have a system of just prices for other products, and there is no reason in the world why the farmer should not be treated the same as any other industry.
The call-up of men from the farms is a matter that is particularly under the jurisdiction- of the Minister of Labour. During recent days figures have been given showing the trend away from the farms. I think the time has come and our agriculture production has reached the stage when we must not allow any more of our farmers to be called up. Otherwise the supply of food for the united nations may be drastically reduced, and our armies cannot fight unless we supply them with the food they need.
409S
War Appropriation-Labour

In 'connection with farm help for the coming harvest, I hope the minister will see to it that we are provided with all the help that will be required for this harvest season. While a lot of benefit was derived from the help that was sent from eastern Canada to western Canada last fall, I do not think the picking of those men was just what it might have been, so that I suggest to the minister that care be taken this year and that preparations be made early to make a better choice of help to send out west for the harvest. I realize that last year it was done in a hurry, and without exception the men who were sent out did the very best they could so far as I know, but a man who comes out of a university and goes straight on the farm to stook or pitch bundles for twelve hours a day is up against a pretty stiff job.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Under this heading I wish to ask the minister for some clarification of the recent order with respect to students of sixteen, seventeen and eighteen years of age, with particular reference to forestry students. I have written a letter to the director about this matter but have not as yet had any reply.
I would point out that in New Brunswick there is one of the few forestry schools in the Dominion of Canada. It has been the practice for the students to take their theory in the academic term; and the pulp and paper companies, and other large timber limits holders, as opportunity permits, make it possible for them to apply the principles and the theories which they learn in the academic course. This year, in accordance with the usual practice, a number of these students of the university of New Brunswick made application to the paper companies in my province for employment, and I may say to the minister that of course the pecuniary reward is a great inducement to these students. Arrangements were made for several-not a great many-to go into the forestry departments of the paper companies and to report for duty on a certain date. Then intervenes the recent order with respect to students, and they are told that before they can be permitted to go they must present a permit from the national selective service local office. On applying for that permit they are refused on the ground of the broad-perhaps I should say, the limited, or not very liberal-interpretation of the regulation. I am not finding any fault with the selective service offices at Fredericton, but these students are told they cannot enter the service of the companies because they must go on farms. These men are not a large class. If it is necessary in New Brunswick that they do so they will

comply with that rigid enforcement of the order, but I suggest to the minister that the regulation be interpreted liberally. These young men are pursuing their studies; at the same time they are earning money by going into these forestry camps and doing the work of forestry students, and I would hope that the minister and his director of national selective service would interpret the rules liberally and allow these young men, who do not want to go on farms and feel they will not receive the pecuniary reward they would obtain in the forestry camps, to proceed as has been the custom in years gone by. These young men in due course will be required to answer the call .for national selective service, and I believe they are patriotic and will be prepared to do so. But they are still under age, and I think that in justice to them they should be allowed to pursue their vocation, preparing themselves in a financial way for the next term's work, and follow the practice of their chosen profession, rather than have to go on farms. I should like the minister to elucidate that position.


Humphrey Mitchell: The extension of the permit system to take in persons from sixteen to eighteen years of age inclusive is merely an extension of the other system, so that we can have some control over the movements, particularly during the summer months, of people in these age groups. I thank my hon. friend for bringing this question to my attention. As a matter of fact, we have already sent out instructions in conformity with his suggestion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thank you.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think it is sound and logical. The university of New Brunswick has, I suppose, one of the finest forestry courses in North America. I look upon these young men very much as one would regard science students. We make provision for science students to go into industry where they can get experience during the summer vacations, and I think it is logical for young men in this forestry course to go into the lumber industry during the vacations! period of their course. My hon. friend can rest assured that as far as my department is concerned that will be done.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is most satisfactory.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I should like to refer for a moment to the employment of teachers during the summer holidays. Can the minister tell us what if any provision has been made by his national selective service officers for absorbing some 80,000 teachers who

War Appropriation-Labour
have been released from schools to-day or will be released to-morrow. I know that until last year no provision whatever was made for the absorption of these people into the labour market, and the selective service was absolutely helpless last spring when teachers in any numbers came for guidance. In the Toronto offices the interviewers in the selective service bureaux were given every morning for weeks, by the man in charge, a notice at the beginning of the day saying, "No employment for teachers", in order that the number of teachers coming in and applying for work would not occupy the time of the people in the offices. The same applied to Ottawa and every large centre across the dominion. No assistance was given to these people who desired to procure two or three months' employment. I know that last September, when the classes opened, most of the teachers' federations across the country wrote to selective service officers asking that they begin now, early in the year, to lay some plans whereby that force of help could be used during the summer months. I am surprised to hear that the same complaint has been raised this year as in former years. Can the minister tell us what decision has been made?


Humphrey Mitchell: A month ago a directive was sent out to the 216 officers of selective service advising them to encourage teachers to register at the offices. In addition to that, a letter went forward to all the provincial departments of education along the same lines, and they in turn, I am informed, wrote to all the school boards in the respective jurisdictions. I am prepared to admit that this time last year our machinery was not as good as it is at the moment, and I am prepared to predict that six months from now it will be a great deal better than it is at the present moment. I am not making apologies to anybody for the work of the officials of selective service. As I said the other evening, this is a new organization; they are working in a virgin field as far as this country is concerned, and I think it can be safely stated without any fear of successful contradiction that as the days go by,' notwithstanding criticisms by people who should know better-and in saying this I am not referring to any hon. member-they have acquitted themselves very well. My hon. friend can rest assured that as far as the teachers are concerned everything that can be done will be done to see that they are channeled into useful occupations in the province of Ontario.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The only answer the minister has given is that some time ago
certain selective service directives were sent out. Has any specific provision been made for absorbing 80,000 teachers whose services will be available for the next three months?


Humphrey Mitchell: I can only say to my hon. friend that the mechanics are there to take about 80,000 teachers. We apply a policy, wre send out the directives, and then the organization of course undertakes the carrying out of those directives. It is a physical impossibility for me to know, for instance, all the vacancies that occur from day to day in my hon. friend's own community in the city of Toronto; but from what I see in this community I do not think anybody will have a great deal of difficulty in getting employment for three months this summer. I believe that, with the assistance of our selective service organization, and subject of course to the exceptions which occasionally occur to every rule, any schoolteacher who wants a job this summer will be able to get it.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister said something about laying down a policy.


Humphrey Mitchell: The employment officers were told to get a list of vacancies and to direct teachers into them when school broke up.


Joseph William Noseworthy: When was that
information sent out?


Humphrey Mitchell: A month ago. In connection with farming, there is, I submit, evidence that we have done some planning in the Department of Labour, when one considers the progressive steps that we have taken during the last six or eight months. I am not looking for credit for the Department of Labour, but it indicates that last winter we were alive to the situation that would develop this spring, and plans have already been made for the harvest this fall, at least to face up to the harvest in the west.


Major James William Coldwell: Is it the understanding, then, that the directions sent out give a broader interpretation than is given at Edmonton?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. But do not try to get me in a corner on this. I want to have some leeway for my people in the country.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what I am trying to do.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know you are trying to do it, but you are not going to. Getting back to Alberta, apart from the Alcan-	*


John Ritchie MacNicol: Alaska, not Alcan. That is a hideous name.
War Appropriation-Labour
Commons


Humphrey Mitchell: Apart from the Alaska highway, then-I know why people want to work on the highway; it is to make money- the priority list that exists in the Ottawa office of the selective service must be the yardstick for the guidance of the officials in charge there in the placement of teachers.


Charles Edward Johnston: We have had some experience in the past in putting people to work on farms. Last year, when the harvest was on, a great many people from eastern Canada went to the farms and the arrangement was not satisfactory. Now we are trying to do the same thing with teachers. Last fall we had evidence to show that the people who went out there from eastern Canada, though they were enthusiastic and tried to do their best, did not come up to the required standard for farm labour. They failed for two reasons: first, they were not experienced, and, second, they were not in a physical condition to carry on. I do not care whether a teacher has been raised on a farm, if he has been teaching for a number of years he is not in a condition to go and work on a farm. There is another aspect to this matter. I believe that the majority of teachers, with their education and the extra knowledge they have as compared with ordinary labourers, could be used more beneficially in some other line of industry than on farms. It might be possible to put teachers in clerical positions in offices where such work is necessary and better results would be obtained than by some teachers being put on farms, because they would not be in a position to carry on.
We have a wrong idea about farm work. Those who think anyone can go and work on a farm are definitely wrong. It takes four weeks at least for one to get hardened if one is to carry on even then. In my opinion, the government would simply waste a lot of time by putting teachers on farms. Apparently the Minister of Labour has taken the attitude that they will go on the farms or not work at all. There are many teachers who will not work on the farm, and if they are forced to go on the farm they will not work at all. Whether that is patriotic or not, that is what will happen in many instances.
Another question to be considered is that of salary. A teacher who is used to a good salary and is forced to go on the farm will be dissatisfied, because a large number of people have left farms on account of the inadequacy of the remuneration paid, and the government is goisg to replace those people with teachers who will receive a low income. The farmers cannot afford to pay more than they are paying; but on the other hand this will prevent
TMr. MacNicol.]
teachers from taking up any other type of work in which they would receive a higher income.
These difficulties are all before us, and the minister would do well to look into the matter thoroughly before attempting to force teachers into occupations which they may not care for or for which they are not fitted. I join in the other remarks that have been made with regard to teachers.


Mr. BOUCHER:: A great deal has been said about getting workers for the farms, but another aspect that must be kept in mind, is that of retaining men on the farms. I believe the selective service should go farther than they have gone in that direction. Anyone acquainted with agricultural conditions knows that the farmers very often hire men during the temporarily slack season in order to have them during the busy season, and under present selective service regulations farm help must give seven days' notice before leaving, and that at a busy time. That is a serious element in the agricultural farm labour requirements. I believe the government would be well advised to take the matter up on a cooperative basis with the provincial legislature with a view to having a little more compulsion on the farm hand, compelling him to remain with the farmer during the busy season, instead of being lured to some other farmer or some other industry or occupation by virtue of higher wages and other inducements such as easier hours and so on. If you look at our provincial statutes dealing with wages, failure to pay wages and so on, you will find that a heavy penalty is imposed upon the employer who does not pay his employee the wages contracted for. Selective service could assist agriculture quite well if they would specialize and pay more attention to compelling the farm labourer to render the services for which he has contracted. In that regard it will be necessary to take the matter up with the provincial legislature from the point of view of jurisdiction.
I have heard complaints over this very question, where farmers, having hired men, lose them. True, there is a law that the man must give seven days' notice but there is not enough sting to compel compliance with the regulations, nor is there enough power exercised by the selective service to keep a man at his job, to which he is so essential.


Ernest Edward Perley: It is wonderful how the discussion develops. I have been sitting here for quite a while, and I have heard many different matters discussed under this item. Together with the other hon. members I was certainly glad to hear the minister, as reported at

War Appropriation-Labour
page 4019 of Hansard for June 23, pay a compliment to the farmers for what they have done, and I certainly agree with what he said.
I am interested in the transfer of men from western Canada to the east to help out the farmers in this part of the country, and I am anxious that those men will get back to the west in time to do the work there. I think they will do a much better job in the east than was done in the west by some of the young fellows who went from our universities to help -with the harvest last fall, and I am anxious to see that they all get back to where they will be needed at harvest time. It has been suggested already that the department should make plans well in advance to see that adequate help is provided for the coming harvest, and I think it is important that these things be organized in plenty of time.
With respect to these selective service offices to which the minister has referred so often, while out of the city on Saturday I had a little chat with a gentleman who has something to do with employing men for a certain organization which has a number of offices across Canada. He told me some of the difficulties they' are meeting in securing men through these selective service offices; he mentioned the bottlenecks, the difficulties that arise through the red tape and routine that must be followed. He told me that it took from four to five days to get anyone after his firm made application to one of these offices. He mentioned the number of applications and forms that had to be filled out, and I think the whole thing could be made very much simpler if proper men were placed in charge, for I believe many people are being placed in the selective service offices who do not know their business.
Coming back to the teachers, I believe many of them in western Canada will be ready to take employment during the vacation, and I think they should, be allowed to accept employment in the districts in which they have been teaching. I believe they will do good work. I venture to suggest that many of them will be able to give better service than many members of this house will be able to give if we are kept here much longer. In conclusion, I repeat that I hope these men coming from the west to work on the farms of eastern Canada will be sent back when their work here is over, and will not be frozen to jobs in the east.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Is there a shortage of labour in Saskatchewan at the present time, as the records of the department would indicate? The minister mentioned that he had
victory committees operating in all districts. What do their reports show as to whether there is a shortage of labour?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend will
appreciate that we have no reports from individual committees, but we have a general report and the condition is much better than they expected it to be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But there is still a shortage?


Humphrey Mitchell: No, we expect to move a thousand farm labourers east from Saskatchewan.


Thomas Miller Bell: There will be a shortage? Mr. MITCHELL: For harvest?


George Hugh Castleden: How many men have you taken off the farms, through selective service, say up to the end of June?


Humphrey Mitchell: You mean to come to eastern Canada?


George Hugh Castleden: No; through selective service; men called into the army.


Humphrey Mitchell: None.


George Hugh Castleden: Well, there are calls going throughout Saskatchewan for men to report. -


Humphrey Mitchell: That is merely to report for medical examination; that is not a call for the army.


George Hugh Castleden: No men are being taken off the farms at the present time?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


George Hugh Castleden: What wages are being paid the men who are being brought east from Saskatchewan?


Humphrey Mitchell: They are getting the
going rate in the district, whatever it is.


George Hugh Castleden: What is it at the
present time?


Humphrey Mitchell: It varies, I suppose from $40 a month to $75 a month, and we pay the return fare.


George Hugh Castleden: You are paying everything?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, everything except $5. I think the return fare comes to $120, and we pay it all but S5 in order to make sure that they go back again.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
Private Bills

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 11, for the relief of Sheila Joan Milligan Hodgson.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 12, for the relief of John Elliott Cockerline.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 13, for the relief of James William McDonald.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 14, for the relief of William James Chafe.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 15, for the relief of Nettye Steinberg Litner.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of Mollie Jaslow Mitnick.-Mr. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas).
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Eleanore Jeanne Lonn Yanofsky.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Ada Lahn Corber.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Bessie McKenzie Balfour Whiteley Willard.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Marion Catherine Bremner.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Feodor Karpenko.-Mr. Fulford.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Dorothy Platt Vaz.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Marion Ellen Topp Dore.-Mr. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas).
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Celia Lazaro-witz Cohen.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Frederick Hubert Fairbanks.-Hr. Hill.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Maude May Frances Adlam Clare.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Gladys Mae Bond Jarvis.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Max Shulman.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Walter Pestun, otherwise known as Walter Preston.-Mr. Tomlinson.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Sonia Litvack Shalinsky.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Evelyn Margaret Cooke Phippard.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Muriel Anna Chapman Longmore.-Mr. Maclnnis.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Joseph Fernand St. Louis.-Mr. Maclnnis.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Alexander Morgan.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 35 for the relief of Norma Mady Albert Chamandy.-Mr. Macdonald (Brants ford City).

Bill No. 36, for the relief of Gerald Clarkin. -Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Edith Rose Smith Gendron.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Alice Bernadette Choiniere Horner.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Eva Pearl Gilbert.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Emma Cowsill Hill.-Mr. Fulford.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of David Joseph Kennedy.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Leopold Boucher.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Beatrice Ashwell Dyson.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No, 44, for the relief of Freda Sybil Nisbet Baldwin.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Sam Hadis.- Mr. Fulford.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Carmen Hilda Olesker Gold.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Leo Rene Dore. -Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Mary Sophia Viora St. Pierre Malhoit, otherwise known as Mary Sophia Viora St. Pierre Mayotte.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Violet Victoria Green Auclair.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Laurette Jobin Lalumiere.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Elizabeth Gunn Sparling.-Mr. Claxton.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Bella Lemer Efros.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 53, an act to incorporate Montreal Shriners' Hospital Foundation.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 54, an act to incorporate Canadian Alliance Insurance Company.-Mr. Chevrier.
Bill	No.	56,	an	act	to	incorporate The
Felician Sisters of Winnipeg.-Mr. Howden.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Kathleen Ena Ball Royer.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill	No.	62,	for	the	relief of Margaret
Heddrick Lieth Gauld.-Mr. Claxton.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Elizabeth Alexandra Ida Robb Lewis.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Joseph Aloysius Lavigueur.-Mr. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas). '
Bill	No.	68,	an	act	to	incorporate theUkrainian Fraternal	Society	of Canada.-Mr. Hlynka.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Helen Alissamon Wheeler Baker Macoun.-Mr. Claxton.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Adele Le Roy Fuller Hardy.-Mr. Hill.

War Appropriation-Labour
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Constance Maxine Keating Noseworthy.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Alvina Antoinette Bouchard Winterson.-Mr. Mc-Ilraith.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Bernice Evelyn Berman Sholomenko.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Marjorie Florence Gray Lever.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Robert Gordon Shaw.-Mr. Macmillan.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of William Taffert. -Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Uuno Ojalammi. -Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Leo Guay.- Mr. Tomlinson.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Marie Beatrice Arsenault Theriault.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Margaret Varga Csabi.-Mr. Maclnnis.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Frances Helen Shand Howell.-Mr. Maclnnis.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Charles Cardin. -Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Gladys Irene Harison Mathers.-Mr. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas).
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Eileen Grace Shearer Taylor.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 67, an Act respecting The Canada North-West Land Company Limited.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Maitland Richardson Silvester.-Mr. Claxton.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Agnes May Jack Jackson.-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Marie Fernande Broca Taisne.-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Samuel William Simon.-Mr. Fulford.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Vera Venning Prestt.-Mr. Maclnnis.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Katherine Scott Thacher.-Mr. Diefenbaker.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Elias Shapiro. -Mr. Maclnnis.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Fannie Rubin Segal.-Mr. Maclnnis.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Doris Mae Sangster Webster.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Charles Joseph Wilfrid Rousseau.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 109, an Act to incorporate Bethel Full Gospel Assembly.-Mr. Reid.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Usley-Mr. Donnelly in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
National selective service programme, $8,680,225.
Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, on
account of a misunderstanding of the statistical tables on mobilization as appearing in Hansard at page 3954, I should like to make a statement for the information of the committee. At this time the regulations apply to men born in any of the years 1902 to 1916 inclusive, who on July 15, 1940, were unmarried or widowers without child or children, or who have since that date been divorced or become judicially separated, or widowers without child or children, and to all men born in any of the years 1917 to 1924 inclusive, except that men born in the year 1924 are not ordered out for medical examination until they have reached the age of nineteen years. Within fourteen days of the date appearing on the order for medical examination, a man may apply in writing to his registrar for postponement of his military training.
Applications for postponement will come under three main headings: (1) men essential in agricultural operations; (2) men essential in war industry and essential industry, public utilities and so on, and (3) men whose departure for military training would cause extreme hardships to their dependents.
Mobilization boards hear applications for postponements, and decisions of boards are final. Boards may, however, of their own motion, reconsider applications for postponement. Representatives of agriculture and representatives of national selective service, civilian section, as well as representatives of the Department of National Defence may attend and make representations at meetings of mobilization boards.
Under national selective service mobilization regulations bona fide students of colleges and universities taking certain specified courses are allowed to pursue their course of studies undisturbed, provided that, if medically fit, they take the military training prescribed, and also pass their scholastic examinations.
War Appropriation-Labour

Non-declarant enemy aliens as well as neutral aliens who forgo naturalization fights are accepted under these regulations. Men who have been granted a postponement are ordered out for military training immediately following expiration of the postponement, unless further application is made and granted.
Men ordered to report for training are supplied with transportation, lodging and subsistence warrants as required. Upon reporting at district depots or military training centres of the Department of National Defence (army), men are again medically examined by medical officers of the Department of National Defence, and, if found fit, are taken on strefigth and enrolled. As of that time they cease to be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour.
That is my point. Many hon. members come to me and speak with respect to men who are already in the army. Of course, once they are in the army they cease to be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour, and come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence.
Men rejected upon reporting at district depots of training centres for medical reasons are returned home and are provided with transportation, subsistence and lodging warrants. A medical officer is attached to each of the thirteen districts or divisions. His duties are to scrutinize carefully all medical examinations and certificate forms completed by examining physicians and to advise the registrar on matters of a medical character. Certificates of medical examination have been issued to men who, on account of their physical condition, are not required to report for the time being.
Medical revision boards have been set up at a number of points in Canada under the Department of National Defence where men who are placed in medical categories other than those at present acceptable by the military authorities are being medically reexamined. As I have told the committee, men subject to national selective service mobilization regulations whose conscientious objection to bearing arms is recognized by national selective service are called out for alternative service work of a civilian character for the duration of the war. Steps are being taken to mobilize these conscientious objectors for work in agriculture and in other private essential industry. I went into this more at length when I made my initial presentation to the committee the other day.
Under part II of the regulations, men who are not fit for .military training but who are

otherwise fit for special duty with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may be ordered out for special duty at the request of the Minister of Justice. These men may apply for postponement on the same grounds and in the same manner as men ordered out for *military training. Divisional registrars have been hampered in their work because so. many have failed to report changed addresses. Sometimes we are critical of the man on the street for not complying with the regulations with respect to change of address, but may I suggest to hon. members that they look at their own registration cards and see if they have complied with the regulations. After having done that, perhaps they will be a little more charitable.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Is a member supposed to change his address?


Humphrey Mitchell: A member of the House of Commons comes within the law just the same as the man on the street.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He does not have to give Ottawa as his new address.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is a member supposed to change his address from that of his riding?


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, no, that is elementary. During the year ended March 31, 1943, the number of address changes notified to national registration authorities was 779,278, or over 60,000 a month. Hon. members will appreciate the amount of detailed organization work that that entails in itself, without the other ramifications of administration which are encountered in the national selective service organization. The problem of tracing these men has been partly solved by the compulsory re-registration of men who have not received their order-medical examination. Preferred attention is being given to the prosecution of delinquents. The reexamination by the army medical boards of 150,000 men, being done on the recommendation of the medical advisers, is nearly completed. Approximately thirty-five per cent of the men reexamined have been found to be in acceptable categories to be ordered out for military training. Transportation, subsistence and lodging warrants are being issued to these men.
While most designated age classes are being ordered to have their medical examinations, the volume of work of the mobilization section of the national selective service will nevertheless continue in view of the fact that mobilization is at the mopping-up stage, so

War Appropriation-Labour
to speak, which must be carried out for the purpose of bringing into the armed forces all the men liable to compulsory mobilization.
As to the method of call-up, may I say that in making requisitions, the Department of National Defence state the total number required and allot them to districts in accordance with their training facilities. This determines where the men report, but does not determine where they come from. These allotments are sent on to the registrar as a matter of convenience. If any division were able to mobilize more men than the Department of National Defence could train at that point, they -would be sent to other training centres. That is somewhat of a change from the previous procedure. The number of men called out in a district or division is determined by the application of the mobilization regulations. Every man in a designated class, fit for military service, who is subject to the regulations is selected for the armed forces unless he receives postponement on any of the grounds set out in the regulations, such as essential industry, farming, national interest, compassionate grounds or conscientious objection. It may be interesting to the committee to know what is done in New Zealand, and I quote from a statement made by the minister of man-power of that country in connection with the man-power regulations. He said:
They are to be administered with temperateness and discretion, and will not unduly affect the good -worker or the good employer. The penalties are designed for the malingerer and the defaulter. It is my intention that such a person should be dealt with firmly-
That is the exact position taken by my department.
-on the other hand, where any individual shows .a genuine desire to meet his difficulties squarely these regulations will be so administered as to give him every possible assistance and cooperation. Although regulations are necessary to secure uniformity of practice and in order to harness and coordinate the war effort, it is to cooperation that we must look for good results.
The directions to our Canadian registrars are to deal with every man in the designated class as rapidly as possible. The divisions vary in size. Some have greater difficulty in getting accommodation and staff, and therefore the speed of selection varies, but, in the end, the same result is sought for; that is, all men fit for service in the designated class who are not given postponement and have not volunteered for service in the armed forces, are selected.
The staff concerned with compulsory mobilisation has been increased since the 1st of August, 1942, by 1,575 new employees. These new employees have been engaged for the local divisions, and the total strength of the
staff throughout Canada, including headquarters at Ottawa, is, at the present time, 1,843. This will give some indication to the committee of what I might term the resoluteness of the Department of Labour, and previously the Department of National War Services, in moving in the direction of mobilization of men for the armed forces since last August.
Since December 1, when administrative responsibility with respect to mobilization was transferred to the Minister of Labour, the following procedures have been adopted to enforce the regulations. Compulsory mobilization under the regulations had been enforced against the great majority of those men in the designated classes. Therefore, before proceeding with the compulsory mobilization of men married before July 15, 1940, it was decided to make every effort to complete enforcement against those men who had failed to register in national registration, 1940, or to advise appropriate authorities as to subsequent change of address and other necessary facts.
Accordingly, the mobilization regulations were amended to require the re-registration of men in the then designated age classes who had not been served with notice or order-medical examination. Mobilization registrars were provided with copies of. each re-registration, and instructions were given for the registrars to proceed immediately with the compulsory mobilization of these re-registered men. The registrars were told that it was their primary duty to see to the prompt mobilization of these men. At the present time, the great majority of these re-registered men have been dealt with.
Shortly after December 1, 1942, administrative action was taken for the issuance of certificates to men in designated age classes to indicate compliance with mobilization regulations.
This action constituted the issuance in all appropriate cases of postponement order certificates, medical unfitness certificates, and other certificates indicating compliance with the mobilization regulations. The issuance of these certificates of compliance is practically up to date at present in all of the thirteen offices of the mobilization registrars.
After inspection of the offices of the thirteen mobilization registrars, it was found that registrars were not in possession of a complete up-to-date set of national registration records pertaining to all men in the then designated classes who were residing in the respective administrative divisions of the registrars concerned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When was that discovered? After December 1 last?
War Appropriation-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: I think that is probably right. I must be fair to the previous administration. It must be remembered that for the first two years of the war we had an unemployment problem and we found the recruiting and mobilization of men comparatively easy. I will put it in this way: In those days we were going with the stream, but at the moment we are digging in the cement, which is a much more difficult administrative problem than recruiting men when there was a surplus of man-power. I think some hon. members may have been forgetting the background of this war. In the early days of the war it was a war of position and blockade. We thought we could defeat the enemy through the instrumentality of the Maginot line and the British navy. Personally I always felt that was the wrong approach. But with the fall of France an entirely different problem confronted this dominion. I have some knowledge as all hon. members have of those desperate days when in North America we had hardly enough equipment-I am giving my personal opinion-to defend New York city, let alone the North American continent; and after Dunkirk we had little more left than our bare fists to fight with. I know something of the trials and tribulations of the government in those days. I know it is the easiest thing in the world to back the winning horse after the race has been won. But looking back upon those days I recall some of the sleepless nights I myself spent as an adviser. The people of this country and this government, I think, measured up in a big way to that very difficult situation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What does the minister mean by digging in the cement? Does he mean that all the volunteers are gone?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would not say that
altogether.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Pretty
nearly.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would not say that
altogether. When I speak of digging in the cement I mean we have pretty nearly reached the bottom of the keg.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not by
the minister's own figures.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will come to that
in a minute.


An hon. MEMBER:: Bottom of the barrel.


Humphrey Mitchell: I like the "bottom of
the keg" myself. I was in the British navy and we used to think more of the keg.

This situation arose because many men had enlisted or changed their address without notifying either the national registration bureau or the mobilization registrar.
However, immediate increased coordination was effected between the national registration bureau and the thirteen offices of the mobilization registrars. The result was that registrars commenced immediately to use the facilities of the national registration bureau in Ottawa for further information in connection with the tracing of men.
It was found that considerable time was required to effect compulsory mobilization of those re-registered in the designated classes. Also time was required to complete the issuance of certificates as to compliance. Therefore, it was not until the middle of April last that an order was issued under the national selective service civilian regulations requiring selective service officers to check as to-non-contravention of the mobilization regulations in all cases of men seeking permits for employment.
Provision was also made under the national selective service civilian regulations affecting men designated for compulsory mobilization, whereby these men are ordered to report at the national selective service local offices when occupied in work of low labour priority, to the end that such men may be transferred to work of high labour priority.
When such men report for compulsory transfer, the selective service authorities check in cooperation with the mobilization registrars to determine as to compliance or non-compliance with the mobilization regulations.
There is in the Department of Labour a branch known as the mobilization survey division. The officials of this branch are responsible for surveying industry, so that designated physically fit men may be withdrawn for the armed forces in an orderly manner.
That is the way in which it is done in Great Britain. They do not merely take the employer's word for it or the employee's, but they have a corps of what they call industrial engineers who go through the various industries.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The department has?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. Since my return
from Great Britain last fall we have adopted a similar policy here. We do not simply take the employer's word for it or the statement of the mobilization board or the employee's word. We have a number of people

War Appropriation-Labour
at the present moment going through the various industries in Canada to squeeze out the men who are suitable for military service.


Mr. REID:: Are they all practical men?


Humphrey Mitchell: So far as possible, yes. But when you talk of practical men, that is a matter of opinion.


Thomas Reid: I mean practical men who know what they see, not office men.


Humphrey Mitchell: This means that in a specific industry the man-power is graded from skilled to unskilled and, at the same time, a record is made of the physical fitness of the men concerned.
It is the intention by means of these surveys to place the mobilization boards in possession of information respecting the supply of labour available, the importance of the industry to the national economy and the prosecution of the war, and also the importance of the employee's position in the industry.
It is expected that by enforcing the compulsory transfer of unfit men through the facilities in the national selective service local offices an adequate stream of replacements will be provided for those workers withdrawn to meet the needs of the armed forces. To date it has been found that these surveys have revealed already the whereabouts of certain men not in good standing under the regulations.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What does the department do to make sure that men of the proper type are sent to the factories to replace those taken out?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is done through selective service. You draw men out at one end and push them in at the other. My hon. friend laughs at that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was laughing at the
minister's expression.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think it is a pretty good expression. Men are pushed from the non-essential into the essential industries, and men are drawn out to go into the army.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Suppose a company asks selective service to send them ten boilermakers or ten machinists or ten fitters; how does selective service go about picking the right men?


Humphrey Mitchell: Selective service offices have information on all the people in the community as to their various skills and training.


Ernest Edward Perley: Do they insist on a medical examination?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would not say so. We have bumped into that in connection with coal mining to a limited degree. I think there is some argument for the coal miners in that regard. There may be many coal miners-I do not know that there are-who have left the industry on account of their health; and where men claim that they are not physically able to return to the industry, we are not taking their word for it but are making provision for their medical examination.
At the outset the mobilization regulations provided that upon conviction of a man for non-compliance with order-medical examination or order-military training, it was permissible for the person acting on behalf of the crown to recommend that the court order the convicted person to be escorted in police custody to an appropriate place, for compliance with order-medical examination, or order-military training.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In how many cases did that happen?


Humphrey Mitchell: I will look up that figure. I would not care to give the number offhand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not many yet.


Humphrey Mitchell: It has begun to show itself. May I mention why I am following my notes closely? I spent all day yesterday with my people on this question, because I thought by this means I could get the explanation over in twenty or twenty-five minutes, whereas it might take much longer if I were to speak extemporaneously or hon. members asked questions across the floor.
It was soon realized that this measure was a desirable one for facilitating enforcement and, therefore, the regulations were further amended to provide that in connection with two other offences, the convicted person could be escorted in police custody to an appropriate place for military training. These offences are: noncompliance with regulations which required reregistration before March 15, 1943, of certain designated men not served with notice or order-medical examination, and non-compliance with the provisions in the regulations as to giving notice of change of address and particulars as to where mail will reach a designated man.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police report that these more stringent enforcement measures are of great assistance in enforcing mobilization regulations.
War Appropriation-Labour

It is the policy of the administration to reduce as much as possible the work performed by the police authorities in tracing men in cases of mobilization orders undelivered or in cases of non-compliance for other reasons. Registrars have been instructed to take the following steps in the order indicated:
Dispatch of a postcard attached to each mobilization order in question for completion by the delivering postal employee to obtain a report explaining non-delivery or non-compliance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When did that start?


Humphrey Mitchell: It started since December 1.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes, the other day, long after December 1.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think my hon. friend will agree with me on this, that as you find these problems you set in motion machinery to meet them. I tell the committee frankly that the labour department is not all-wise; we have not-


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the
minister wants to be frank he will give us the date when that was put into operation.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to do so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Last week, I think, likely.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will get the date for my hon. friend.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will the minister give us an estimate of by what number the staff of the selective service offices will have to be increased to provide for all these regulations and see that everything is working?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am informed that it was in effect before I took over the mobilization.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not heard of it before.


Humphrey Mitchell: Then, the dispatch of an inquiry to the assistant chief registrar in Ottawa to obtain all available particulars shown on the master card in the national registration bureau or on the records of the three armed forces in Ottawa as of the date of the inquiry; also dispatch of a request for investigation and report to the appropriate police authorities.
On the basis of the facts disclosed by the foregoing procedure, prosecutions are instituted by instructions from registrars to appropriate authorities.

And now let me give the committee some figures to clarify the present position: As at May 15, 1943, the inventory of men in the designated classes is as follows:
Men in designated classes as at 1940: Registration total 1,043,163 less those in course of being called (54,688), net	 988,475
That is the man-power pool.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In the
designated classes.


Humphrey Mitchell: In the pool.
Men now in armed forces who came out
of foregoing pool	 550,692
Men now on postponement	 100,973
Men unfit	 257,103
Men in C.O.T.C. and	auxiliary units... 5,776
Statutory exceptions (firemen, policemen, clergymen, judges, enemy aliens) 6,257 Residue of original man-power pool unclassified	 67,674
988,475
The last category of which I spoke consists-of men in institutional care and custody, merchant seamen, men in remote areas, duplications and errors in the 1940 registration, men dead, not located on account of unnotified change of address, and delinquents.
The total number unaccounted for, namely 67,674, constitutes 6^ per cent of the manpower pool, and in my opinion this is a credit to the men of Canada.
Hon. members will realize in connection with the statement which I have just made, that in the early days of the mobilization offices-the registrars were not instructed that specific figures would be required at various times, and this fact, together with the tremendous volume of work they had to undertake, created a situation wherein steps had to be taken to obtain an accurate accounting.
The national war services department realized this situation, and arrangements were made to have an actual man-power accounting undertaken which would show the exact classification of every man in the designated classes. This work was commenced last autumn and is not yet completed, but it is anticipated that it will be completed in the course of the next month or so.
I want to thank hon. members for their forbearance in respect of this lengthy detailed explanation, which I thought was necessary so that they could approach this item on the agenda with that critical sense of duty which I know they will apply to it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister tonight, in the early part of his statement,, gave an analysis of the regulations and the modus operandi under which his department-

War Appropriation-Labour *
operates. I assume that when he took over on the 1st of December he found a more or less chaotic condition; in fact, I am quite sure that he did. Some of the admissions which he has made here would indicate that. I think it is fair to say that, ever since the mobilization act was introduced in the early summer of 1940, the man-power problem qua the army-and that is the only phase of this problem with whirfi I propose to deal, and to deal very briefly, this evening-has been one of trial and error, hit or miss, and mostly miss.
The first thing we had was the national registration; and I think it must be apparent to everybody that thousands upon thousands of people in this country-young men in the military ages-did not register. I think we have had a tacit admission from the department that that was the situation, because they had a re-registration and an amnesty against those who did not obey the law. I have forgotten how many the minister said-


Humphrey Mitchell: One hundred and forty
thousand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I thought it was around
150,000	who had failed to register. That was an astonishing state of affairs, an astonishing lack of obedience to the law on the part of a substantial number of our citizenship, at a time when Canada was at war, and at a time when the war was in its darkest phases; that is, the year succeeding Dunkirk. I think everyone will agree with ' that. But because of a policy of appeasement, because of the lack of a realistic man-power policy on the part of the administration, that sort of thing was tolerated in this country for months and months and months. And if we have a man-power policy to-day, I suggest to the minister and to the membership of this house that it is a policy which has been improvised from day to day and from month to month as time has gone on. I think that is a fairly correct way of stating the evolution, if I may use that term to describe the man-power policy with regard not only to supplying man-power for the armed forces but to supplying man-power for agriculture and other industry.
I want to be reasonably fair about this. There is, I think, some excuse for improvisation in the early part of the war, because it is a well-known fact that Canada did not set herself manfully to this war for nine months after the declaration of war. We were having what people called a phony war, and did not approach the situation realistically. The cause for that is not far to trace. The
cause for that lies at the door of the administration, which was to have only a reasonable participation in the war. If you want any evidence in substantiation of that assertion, let me page the speeches of the former Minister of Public Works; let me call to mind the speeches of hon. members from the province of Quebec, who have told this house and the country what responsible ministers of the crown told the electors prior to the last election.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe).


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would
not page the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains. I would rather have a higher authority than him.


An hon. MEMBER:: The late Minister of Justice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will come closer home to my hon. friends on the left. I am not unmindful of the declaration made in this house on September 9 by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in which he laid down four statements, the third of which was that under no consideration should there be an expeditionary force. I pause here to say that never at any time has that third proposition laid down by the socialist party in this country been repudiated by them, either in this house or out of it. So far as I am concerned, they shall never be allowed to get away from that proposition, and they ought never to be allowed to get away from it.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member will not
have much to do with it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Maybe I
will not. I shall be one single voice, but in so far as I have power and authority to raise my voice I intend to tell the people of Canada what was the position of hon. gentlemen to my left at the beginning of this war, a position that has never been repudiated by them.


Clarence Gillis: They will not listen to him anyway.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There will be some people who will listen to me. I am satisfied that there will be many who will listen to me as they are listening to me in this house today. There are members of this house who know that I state, generally speaking, the exact truth, and it will not do for the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, with a group of by-elections in sight, to come out now as he
War Appropriation-Labour

did on Friday afternoon last, to try to put his party right with the loyal, patriotic people of Canada.
With respect to one feature of the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, I am in hearty agreement. He said that when the testing time comes; when the casualty lists begin to roll in; when there is brought home to the people of Canada the necessity for reinforcement upon reinforcement, and when the government to whom Providence has been, shall I say, unduly kind during the past three years, is obliged to bring in, as it will be obliged to bring in, the full implementation of the mobilization act as amended' at the last session of parliament, then the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is going to come to this house and ask for a vote of confidence in a policy which he refused to put into effect at the time when it ought to have been put into effect so that we would have trained reinforcements for our armed forces overseas.
If that is to be a blanket vote of confidence in the administration, they will not get my vote.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why have you voted for it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not voted for it. I voted for a half-measure because I knew I could not get anything better from this government, and I voted to relieve the government of its pledge to the people. My friends did not vote for that. Why? It is as plain as the nose on your face. They voted as they did because they thought they might curry favour with some sections of the country who did not want total war. I do not think there is the slightest doubt about it. But I did not rise to say that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You said it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Hon.
gentlemen seem to take umbrage at what I have been saying. Well, let their guilty consciences answer them. That is the best thing I can say to them. Let them search their hearts and minds and consciences as to their course with regard to this gigantic, global struggle and Canada's participation in it. The people will judge if the people know.
Coming back to this question of the mobilization of man-power for the army, I listened with the greatest care to the minister's presentation on Wednesday last, a presentation which I suggest took him and his whole staff three long weeks to make, a studied piece of special pleading to make the worse appear the better cause. That is what the minister's

statement was, an attempt to make the people of Canada believe that all was well. That has been the studied policy of this government in every phase of its war effort since we entered the war in September, 1939-that all was well ; that all is now well, with the mobilization plans of this government. I am going to pay this minister the compliment of saying that until he got into office as the head of the department charged with responsibility for the direction of national service there never was anything but chaos under the former Minister of National War Services and his deputy minister, who now sits in this house as a minister. There never was any real policy of selective service for the army or anybody else. It was catch as catch can with the three armed services, and agriculture took, the hindmost, while industry protected itself as far as it could.
Equality of service! Why, the minister knows in his heart, and it is indicated by the figures he has given here and the figures that have been placed on record as a result of the research of hon. members on this side, chiefly the hon. member for Lake Centre, that some parts of Canada have done twice what other parts have done in regard to national service qua the army. I have a question on the order paper now in regard to the air force, which I believe the minister will answer very shortly. I already have the information, which the minister was good enough to give me privately, but because I do not feel that I should use the figures until they become official I am not going to quote them to-night. I have them right here, however, and I can tell hon. gentlemen that having regard to population in the nine provinces of this dominion there has been no equality of voluntary sacrifice as far as the air force is concerned. When hon. members get the figures for Ontario with reference to voluntary enlistments in the air force and compare them with the figures for the province of Quebec they will be shocked, having regard to the population. That is all I am going to say about that. I shall not give the figures which were given to me by the minister until he answers the question which I placed upon the order paper to-day. The minister will give the figures, and hon. gentlemen then may judge whether or not the statements I have made to-night are correct.


Charles Edward Johnston: When will the figures be brought down?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is up to the minister. I have asked the question, as it was suggested I should do, and I have no doubt he will bring down the information. Perhaps it will be brought down to-morrow;

War Appropriation-Labour
at any rate I hope it will be brought down before this debate is over. The minister indicated that if I asked the question he would bring down the information promptly, and I am taking him at his word, but until he does bring down that information I am not going to use the figures he has given me.
In the closing part of his remarks this evening the minister made a statement which greatly intrigued me, because in the analysis he gave he attempted to indicate how the man-power pool has been used up. He did not give us that information last Wednesday; and I want to tell the minister that the figures he gave on Wednesday last indicate that there are half a million men unaccounted for. If those figures are true, it is a national disgrace to Canada. I cannot assert that to-night because I have not been able to follow the figures the minister gave us, I suppose in anticipation of this debate and perhaps an effort to forestall criticism and what may result from it. Therefore I shall reserve some of the things I have to say until I have had an opportunity to analyse the figures the minister gave to-night.
I should like to impress upon the membership of this house the anxiety I feel to-night, and which I have felt through the years since the mobilization act was put into effect, with respect to the number of reinforcements for our troops overseas. We have a volunteer army overseas, composed of so many army corps, so many ancillary forces-I am not so much concerned about that-army headquarters and so on, all going to make up the large number of men indicated by the minister to-night. In that group of men overseas we are supposed to have a number of reinforcement units. How many of those units we have is a dark secret of the military authorities. They absolutely refuse to say. I asked ten pertinent questions of the Minister of National Defence last February. The vital questions remain unanswered to-day, and the minister refuses to answer them; that is, questions having to do with the ratio of reinforcements for our armed forces overseas. The non-essential questions were answered; the vital ones were not, I challenge anyone on the government benches to say that to-day we have that ratio of reinforcements we ought to have if the Canadian army is to go into action soon, as everyone believes it will. I challenge anyone to say that we have a ratio of 100 per cent of reinforcements for the men who are likely to become casualties. I doubt if we have half that; yet I tell the minister and the membership of the government that anything less than 100 per cent of reinforcements, trained men on the ground, ready to
go into their units when the testing time comes, will not be good enough to sustain the position of the Canadian army. That is the anxiety I have, and it has never been allayed by any authoritative figures from the ministry of national defence. They absolutely refuse to divulge this information, though not on the ground that it would be of aid and comfort to the enemy. Not at all; that has never been urged as the reason. They refuse to divulge these figures, and I have the right to form my own opinion as to the reason. My interpretation is that they have not enough and they are ashamed to say so, because if they have not enough I think it is their bounden duty, as the government of this country in a time of war, to get the men, and they have full authority to do so. That is the position.
What did the figures given by the minister the other day indicate? I want to analyse them briefly, and then I am done. The minister revealed that the call-up notices sent out had numbered 988,475; I believe that is his exact figure. At the same time the minister indicated that as a result of these call-up notices some 60S.642 men reported for medical examination. So that at that time there remained unaccounted for some 379,833 men, and there was no explanation given on Wednesday such as has been conjured up here to-night. I am going to help out the minister. Owing to faulty bookkeeping; owing to a lack of liaison between the recruiting offices and the office of national war services, as it was then, undoubtedly a substantial number of men who received these calls volunteered for service, were included in the active army, and became unaccounted for in so far as these figures go. Undoubtedly the reports which should have been made by the recruiting division of the national defence department were not made to the national war services department, or, if they were made, they lagged dreadfully. How many were included in that category I cannot say; I assume perhaps there were
50.000	or more, but that is a long way from 379,833.
There was a method by which each of these men could have been accounted for. There is an official in the Department of National Defence called the director of records, and I do not suppose there is any harder worked officer in the department than this same official. Exact records are kept of every man who has enlisted. When a man enlists voluntarily his papers go to the district office of the director. I happen to know the official in charge of that duty in New Brunswick, and he is as thorough and as exact as would be a chartered accountant. It takes a little time.

War Appropriation-Labour

Then those figures are passed along to the head office in Ottawa. They are all collated, and every man is given a ledger, or a dossier, or whatever one would call it. And there was available at all times to the national war services department the good offices of the director of records here in Ottawa, or of the district recorders-for want of a better term- in the military districts.
I am told there was an absolute lack of liaison on the part of the army, the recruiting division of the army, the recording division of the army and the Department of National War Services. Then, undoubtedly there have been some deaths. Yes, undoubtedly there are some deaths, and the minister is entitled to the benefit of that number. How many? Nobody knows. There is no record of it.
In connection with notices, I think if the minister would be candid with us, and if he would tell us what has actually happened, as revealed in a survey which his department ought to have made, if indeed it has not made it, he would admit that there is case after case after case where certain officials of the government of Canada have deliberately not delivered the notices, or have reported that the men had gone away. I have heard of a case where a postmaster had reported a man was deceased or a man had gone away. That is one reason why some of these notices were not delivered. I wonder how much of a check-up was ever made.


Humphrey Mitchell: If the hon. member has knowledge of a case of that kind I should like to know about it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have heard of it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should like to know about it. I have heard of it, too, but I do not know about it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then it is the minister's duty to find out. If a report like that is given to the minister, it is his duty to have it checked. It is not my duty.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would ask my hon. friend-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am pointing out the possibility of such things. But the fact remains that according to the minister's own figures there was a huge discrepancy of 379,833. I have tried to help the minister out by giving some explanations. I want to say further on that point that because there was a lack of liaison between the recruiting officers of the Department of National Defence and of the naval-well, I am not sure about the naval department-and of the air department,

there have been heart-rending cases in Canada. There have been some very sad cases in this country.
I have in mind a case of a noble young man of my city, who was in the proper age category. When the time came, that young man enlisted immediately in the air force. He was sent to the manning pool at Toronto. He earned his commission, went overseas, and will never come back. But his father has been receiving calls for him to report, or else the mounted police will come and take him. That boy lies over yonder. That is the sort of thing which should never be allowed to happen. There are many men in that category.
Then, there are many more men in the category of those who have enlisted voluntarily, who have reported and gone into active service, but for whom calls are still coming. I know of the case of a young man, a>nd I shall be glad to give the minister his name privately; I do not wish to place it on the record. In this instance one could scarcely believe that what happened could be possible. This young man was called for service, and had enlisted weeks ago. He was actually working in the same building that housed the administrative offices of the department from which were being sent calls and threats addressed to him. One would scarcely believe that could be possible, but I know it is so.
Of course I believe that is an isolated case, and it might happen even in the best of regulated families. But I do suggest it is indicative at least of a failure of the recruiting authorities, in the early stages. Recruiting officers were out to get their men. When they got them, and had them sworn in, their duties were over, so far as they were concerned. Of course, that sort of thing should not happen.
I should like now to deal with a further part of this picture. That great total of 379,833 is not the whole story. The department got 608,642 replies from the 988,475 notices sent out. Then it proceeded to call the men for training. In the period covered by the minister's statement they called up 289,544. But 289,544 did not report for training.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: They were medically' examined, too.


Richard Burpee Hanson: _ Those were men called up after the preliminary medical examination. Out of 289,544 there reported only 160,162, and there are unaccounted for in that category 128,882.- So

War Appropriation-Labour
that you have that missing army, that potential army, according to the minister's own figures, of 379,833 plus 128,882, or a total of 508,715 missing men.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Subject to the minister's
statement to-night.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Which I
propose to analyse. If last Wednesday the minister had given the authority of his position to those figures, there might be a different story. But I am reviewing what was supposed to be a complete statement of affairs made by the minister when he introduced these estimates. Since then there has been some tall thinking, because if you are to believe what the minister said last Wednesday, then the figures are nothing less than astonishing. They tell a story which is a disgrace to the Canadian people, and a disgrace to the government which is conducting the war effort. I leave that part of it with the minister, who may answer it if he will.
However, the fact remains that according to the minister's statement of last Wednesday there were 508,000 missing men. We got out of the total of 988,475 to whom notices were sent, how many? How many did the army actually get? The army actually got 126,963, who were accepted for training, or just over twelve per cent. What a situation that is!
And mind you, these men are not for active service overseas. They are for a perpetuation of two armies in this country, one at home, and an active army-a home army that ought never to have been, a home army, now that danger is receding, and has been receding month after month, and when danger of invasion is long past, a home army that will never see any fighting. And we are going to' keep those men in uniform, and in expensive military camps at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars every day to the taxpayers of Canada. What a farce is there, my countrymen! If the government had any realistic idea, of the situation, those men ought to be available for service where they can do: something-after we spend thousands of dollars upon them.
I should like to know how much it costs this country to enlist a man, call him up for active service, examine him physically, put him into the army, give him elementary training and secondary training, and send him off to some camp like that at Debert. In a year's time, how much has he cost Canada?
72537-260J
It would be interesting to have somebody give those figures. I suggest that it cost not less than $2,500 for every man.


An hon. MEMBER:: 


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps $3,500. That is a mere guess on my part because I do not know. In any event the amount is huge, and to what end have we made this expenditure? In the expectation of invasion? That is all poppycock. Everybody knows that. To the end that these men shall fight Canada's battle in the theatres of war where battles will rage? Not so long as hon. gentlemen opposite follow the policy that has characterized their actions for three and a half years. That is the situation to-day.
We would never have had this home army if the government had been a responsible government, if the government assuming to run the war and realizing that it was a global war had said, as they ought to have said, "The Canadian army is for service anywhere." No; the government did not say that, and the government have not said that yet. If the Canadian army is not called up to fight, and it will not be necessary, Canada will have played an inglorious part in this great struggle. That is not the future which I would have for the Canadian army. I would not want to see the Canadian army shed blood unnecessarily, as was done at Dieppe, but I want to see our army bear itself gallantly as representatives of Canadian patriotism in this great war, just as our friends from New Zealand, our friends from Australia, our friends from South Africa, our friends from the United Kingdom and our American cousins are doing.
We will analyse the statement which 'the minister has given to-night. In the meantime I have given figures which I have based upon the minister's previous statement. What becomes of the basis of the theory that this is the best system of national selective service that could possibly be devised? I say to the minister that the policy is an improvisation from day to day. It never has been a basically national policy. It is like Tqpsy; it grew up overnight. I can see that by the end of the war in the natural course of evolution we may have a full-fledged national selective service policy-three years too late. That is all I have to say.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, since this debate has been under way there has been general acknowledgment from all sides of the house that we were dealing with the most difficult problem that any democratic government at any time in the history of the world
War Appropriation-Labour

has had to deal with. On former occasions when this matter was being discussed hon. gentlemen pointed out to whatever minister was then in. charge of the problem of Canadian man-power in relation to war that the government had no man-power policy at all. Some hon,. gentlemen still .persist in that view. Almost without exception, every speaker on the opposite side has begun his remarks by congratulating the present minister. Without wanting to show needless discrimination, the most thorough critic of the government on the opposite side was the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). When com gratulating the minister he prefaced his remarks-I think he was most fair in so. doing -by saying that the minister was dealing with the most difficult problem that any nation had to face at this time. It is in the light of this difficulty that the whole problem must be considered.
One could transpose the Hansard of this house into the congressional record of the United States, into the debates of the British House of Commons, into the debates of the Australian parliament, or into the debates of the South African parliament; one could read the debates of any of these parliaments, and one would almost think he was reading a discussion of the man-power policy of Canada. In considering this tremendously difficult problem we are dealing, not with milk bottles but with human beings who have family affiliations, who have financial interests, who have love of community, who have in their veins, as we all have, the persistent quality of love of freedom. That is why we realize that this problem is a tremendously difficult one. We find it difficult, and perhaps there may be, not justification but some extenuating circumstance in the fact that in those countries where the democratic process does not prevail, particularly Germany, where the individual is an ordinary commodity that can be shifted about and dealt with as though men and women were not human, they have had and have a manpower problem, although long before the war they were moving their men and women about in the fashion that total war envisaged. The fact is that in Germany to-day there is a bottleneck of man-power, even though they are able to call for assistance upon those countries which have been occupied by Hitler and his associates. If this is a problem in the totalitarian countries where there is as full a regimentation as possible, is it any wonder ' that we in this country should find it difficult? It is difficult, extremely difficult. The minister in his statement in chief indicated that

this was why he suggested to hon. members that they should offer criticisms of the present policy such as it is.


An hon. MEMBER:: Constructive.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone suggests, constructive. I think on the whole that suggestions by hon. gentlemen opposite have been constructive, although they have consistently pursued the view that the government's manpower policy, which they now accept to be a fact, is nevertheless conceived on terms that suggest a day-to-day policy. If the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) had one theme running through his speech, it was that we had a day-to-day policy, a policy that was evolutionary; that we did not have a master scheme, that we simply day by day devised ways and means of dealing with the inevitable competition for men by the armed services, industry and agriculture. Of course it is a day-to-day policy. Of course it is evolutionary. Is there any hon. member who can think of a policy being otherwise conceived? Is there any country in the world, apart from the totalitarian powers, that has anything but a day-to-day policy? Can anyone envisage in a democratic! country the full utilization of manpower by the three branches .in terms of the ultimate sequence of the war? Of course not.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) quoted Eric H. Biddle who, in the opinion of Mr. Ernest Bevin, has written some of the most serious studies of England's man-power policy. Let us see what Mr. Eric H. Biddle had to say only a short time ago about the character of Britain's man-power policy. I quote from a pamphlet entitled, "Man-power" a summary of the British experience, as follows:
A second type of assumption implicit in the British man-power programme was that the powers of compulsion should in practice be extended gradually, and should not be applied faster than an organization could be constructed to administer them efficiently. Thus the powers of compulsion have been used more to consolidate the positions won by persuasion than to initiate new methods for the assignment of skills. The government did not seek statutory powers to apply compulsion in civilian employment at the earliest stage. When it did seek these powers and got them, it proceeded to perfect its administrative organization, which was based to the greatest degree possible on voluntary cooperation and persuasion. And finally, it has applied its compulsory powers only to the extent necessary to channel the requisite skills to the place of greatest need. Only incidentally were these powers necessary to prevent the negligible minority from escaping their proper share of the national service obligation.
That was Britain's method; that is Britain's method. That is the day-to-day method, the

War Appropriation-Labour
evolutionary method, and that, as the hon. member for York-Sunbury has said, is exactly our method too. Yet Mr. Corson, whom the hon. member for Lake Centre will recall as perhaps the man in the United States who has the best knowledge of the man-power policy and the selective service system of the United States and Britain, has said that in terms of success Britain's policy of selective service Eomes first. In the same book, "Victory for Man-power", he says in speaking of bottlenecks and the muddles of the United States selective service system that both the United Kingdom and Canada serve generally as models for man-power mobilization in terms of war service. Therefore our policy, while not perfect, while day to day, is nevertheless not deserving of the carping criticism which sometimes one hears in this house and more particularly outside in these days.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury, referring to table No. 1 presented by the minister on Wednesday last, made his speech entirely on the basis of certain differences that he saw in that table. One cannot quarrel with him for that. It might have been better-it could have been done because the material was available-for the minister to make then the speech that he did tonight by way of explanation. But it would have been a long speech, and it was thought that in the general debate that would follow some of these things could be demonstrated.
What do these figures indicate? And they deserve to be repeated.
As at May 15, 1943, the inventory of men in the designated classes was as follows:
Men in designated classes as at 1940
registration total	 1,043,163
Less those in course of being called
(54,688) net	 988,475
That is the total figure, and it is the figure to which hon. gentlemen should address themselves.
Men now in armed forces who came
out of foregoing pool	 550.692
Men now on postponement	 100,973
Men unfit	 257,103
Men in C.O.T.C. and auxiliary units..	5,776
Statutory exceptions (firemen, policemen, clergymen, judges, enemy
aliens)	 6,257
Men being traced	 67,674
988,475
Compare those figures with those of any other country in the world, and you will find that balance does not deserve the heavy denunciation which it has received. I suggest to the hon. member for York-Sunbury that instead of going on the basis of the minister's presentation of Wednesday night, without the explanation he gave in his speech to-night, he
Should to-night have relied on the minister's explanation of the figures previously given rather than allow to go out to the country the kind of limited understanding his speech will needlessly provoke.
The hon. member referred to the fact that we had a registration in 1940. He referred to the fact that there were imperfections in that registration. I believe there were im-fections which, if we had known of them then as we know of them now, would have been avoided, but hindsight is always better than foresight. The thing to remember is that since the national registration of 1940 there have been continuing subsequent registrations, and they deserve to be mentioned.
There have been special registrations of persons in insurable employment as of April, 1942; of unemployed males as of June, 1942; of women aged twenty to twenty-four as of September, 1942; employer's reports, January, 1943; registration of nurses, March, 1943; registration of men in designated age classes who had not received "order-medical examination", March, 1943; men employed in certain less essential industries and occupations, May, 1943. Third, there has been a continuing registration of the unemployed at local employment offices, September, 1942.
So that when one talks of the failure of the registration of 1940 as it is sometimes referred to, these other registrations should be borne in mind. While I have not and do not pretend to have the knowledge of this problem that the minister and his officials and many other hon. members have, because my contact with it has been of recent date, I want to say this, and perhaps I am sufficiently removed from the administration of the department to be able to say, that there is no group of civil servants in this country, first of all those located in Ottawa, who are devoting more of their time day and night in trying to perfect this system than the officials of the Department of Labour and of national selective service. The same thing applies to the outside personnel and the increased number of offices. The latter have been more than doubled and their staffs have been increased throughout the country. They have had imposed upon them a tremendous task, a task which they are gradually and more effectively falling into with greater efficiency and greater ease. As the minister said, and the hon. member for York-Sunbury concurred, these gentlemen would take second place to none in affirming that the men and women who serve in the selective service offices throughout the country are doing their utmost in this difficult problem to deal with the various orders and directives that come to them centrally from Ottawa.
War Appropriation-Labour

I think the best way to analyse the difficulty of this problem is to examine the speech that has just been delivered. The hon. member for York-Sunbury was frank to say, and I admire his frankness, as he has said in practically every speech he has made in this house since the beginning of the war-I have analysed them all during the past two weeks- that his primary concern is to get men for the army. One can well understand that as being his concern. What he is concerned about is getting reinforcements. He is not so much concerned now with fitting round pegs into square holes. His primary interest in the problem of selective service and of man-power is to see that there is a constantly increasing flow of men into our armed services. With that I do not quarrel. But relate that to the general criticism that is levelled. We are told that we have three groups that are competing for men in this country-the armed services, industry and agriculture. You cannot have the sort of plan the hon. member for York-Sunbury was talking about if you think solely in terms of one of these competing groups.
The best way to illustrate that, I think, is to remind the committee of a speech made by the hon. member on April 20, 1942. His speech will be found at page 1752 of Hansard. The hon. gentleman had gone on in eloquent terms to urge the government to make sure, as we all want to do, that there would be an adequate flow of reinforcements, that Canada would be able to have in her armed forces a number of men commensurate with our strength, with our dignity, with our convictions. Pie urged us not to pursue in our attempt at patriotism a policy of expediency with individual cases. Then he cited a case, and here are the words:
Last week a woman, whose husband was ill, came to see me. She had a son eighteen years of age, who was the only support of her family, and he was being refused employment in New Brunswick under the provisions of the government's man-power policy.
I am not going to argue for one moment that that case was not deserving. I am not going to suggest that it did not merit the very attention which the hon. member for York-Sunbury wanted. But what I do wish to point out is this. Hon. gentlemen cannot urge in this house and in the country a man-power policy which will be rigid, which will be non-discriminatory, and at the same time rise in their places and make pleas for special cases.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Why not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will tell the hon. member why not. I think it is perfectly obvious, but evidently I have not made myself clear, and I will do so for the hon. member, who usually does not require such elucidation.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not think the hon. gentleman has made himself clear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well,I am trying to explain it. I say that if you are to do what hon. gentlemen opposite want, and by compulsion take men and women and put them into places where it is thought they are best suited, you have not the right to say that there are instances where you should not pursue that policy. Either the policy is correct, or it is not. But the very incident quoted by the hon. member for York-Sunbury is a justification of our policy. We are not treating human beings as commodities; we are treating them as human beings. We recognize that that boy, the only support of his mother, had the right to special consideration. Under the kind of policy that Hitler has, under the kind of policy which some of the hon. gentlemen in this house advocate, you could not have that treatment. But this is why we have proceeded step by step, and also why we have not except in two instances applied the element of compulsion. We felt, and I support this view, that if we could get men to go into the armed services and into industry and into agriculture voluntarily, it is more effective to get them in that way than to put them in by compulsion. That is the reason why our policy is one of evolution; that is why it is a day-to-day policy meeting day-to-day needs; and if there is any hon. member who can suggest any other more effective method, I trust that in the course of this debate he will do so.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I suggest to the hon. gentleman that since the war broke out it' might have been a very good idea if they had had a plan, and that they have had no plan since the war broke out.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: No policy and no plan.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member says there is no plan. May I suggest to him that there is a definite plan, and, apart from magicians, it would seem to be the only possible plan, namely, by persuasion, as they have done in England, and in certain emergencies with respect to civilian occupations, by compulsion if necessary.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That has been done by leadership.


Paul Joseph James Martin: 
Douglas Gooderham Ross: You have no compulsion to-day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have on two orders. To-day in Canada, the minister stated last Wednesday, 5,100,000 men and women out of a total population of 8.720,000 aged fourteen years or over are in the armed services or at work. I ask hon. gentlemen to compare that figure with the record of any other country in the world, -with the one exception of Britain, and say if any has a better record.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Why except Britain?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Because, while I could easily make a generalization, I am in the habit of stating what I believe to be the truth. The fact is that Britain, with a natural urge that is not so persistent elsewhere


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That we do not have.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -Britain, a unitary state,, not having the same difficulties in transporting her -people, displays, as I am proud to rise in my place in this house and say, the shining example of an effective selective service system. She has had the advantage of a machinery which is over thirty years old. She has an unemployment insurance scheme which outdates ours by -many years. Ours came into being only about two and a half years ago, but I defy any hon. gentleman to say that in those two and a half years the organization which has been built up is not one of which we in this house and the people of this country have every reason to be proud.
Compare ourselves with the United States. They have an unemployment service ten years old, one of the models in the democratic world; yet it will be found that ours, which is of much shorter duration-


John Ritchie MacNicol: They have not had unemployment insurance for ten years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But they have had an unemployment service office for ten years.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: So have we.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman says that we have. We had provincial offices. But the system was not integrated, and they were not part of a national scheme. That came
into being under the Unemployment Insurance Act. These extenuations may not be justification for the weaknesses of our policy, but they certainly are extenuations.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury made a plea for greater equality of sacrifice, saying that there are some parts of the country which are not giving as much as the others. I cannot quarrel with that. Not much is to be gained by saying where that persists. But can any hon. member here provide a yardstick by which- equality of sacrifice may be measured? Can anyone compare the heroism of the people of Stalingrad with ourselves at home? Can anyone compare the horrors through which the people of Poland have gone with any horrors of which we have personal experience? Can we compare ourselves with the people who were subjected to the blitz in Britain? Of course not. Equality of sacrifice is the thing that one should aim at, but merely to aim at it does not mean that equality can be realized. The fact is that the Canadian people in all walks of life, primarily those in our armed services, those who are serving in our war plants, the ordinary man and woman, the little man and woman in this country -and the rest of us, with all our weaknesses, with all our imperfections of governmental machinery, are nevertheless putting up an effort of which we shall in the terms of days to come have every reason to be proud rather than to be ashamed. It is in that spirit, I believe, that this whole policy should be looked at.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I simply say this. This policy is not perfect by any means. Some hon. gentlemen may say it should have come earlier, and perhaps many will find reason to agree with that. Some will say that there should be a greater amount of compulsion than has been exercised, and that, too, will be a fair issue. Remember, sir, it will only be an issue. Those who entertain the view that persuasion is better than compulsion may be perfectly honest in that view. That is the view which we are trying, and have been trying during these last years, to meet. Where compulsion has been found necessary it has been exercised. Faced with a coal emergency we have sought to exercise, with reason, prudence and understanding, because we are dealing with human beings, the phases of compulsion. With regard to certain non-essential occupations, without trying needlessly to disturb our people, at long last we have been obliged to disturb them and to ask them to leave their normal vocations, and, if they are within the military -ages, to go
War Appropriation-Labour

and serve in those places where they will more directly assist the government at this time of our peril.
That is the record. That is a policy in terms of estimates of man-power supply and requirements, a policy in terms of the allocation of supply, a policy in terms of control of employment, a policy in terms of improvement in efficiency of welfare and administration. The work that we have done, with respect, for instance, to the endeavour to bring recreation facilities to workers through cooperation with the provinces, our efforts with respect to day nurseries, particularly in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, trying thereby to introduce a greater and greater number of women into factory life-all that is part of a policy that is slowly perhaps but gradually making headway. And those hon. members who think we have not even now the sort of thing that was envisaged by a former director of national selective service, find it difficult, with the one sole possible exception of a suggested separate department, apart from full compulsion, to notice in the government's present man-power policy anything really distinguishable from that suggested by the former director of national selective service. I say that the problem has its difficulties. We are a democratic country, a people who are deep-rooted in the desire to be left alone. We do not like to be moved out of our jobs; we do not like to do things that disturb our family attachments or our community interests. But our people have done that very thing, and in its policy of bringing these things about, in the fashion it has, perhaps not always strong, perhaps not always as vigorous as some hon. gentlemen think it should be, nevertheless the government has pursued its course with vigour, with understanding and with results. I submit to you, sir, that nothing else counts.


John George Diefenbaker: In common with other hon. members I followed with great care and attention the address delivered by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. As I listened to that speech I felt that the two problems that should be faced and that were referred to by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) were precisely the two problems which the hon. gentleman did not face in the argument he advanced. He said we could not expect to have equality of sacrifice. No one in this house can disagree with that statement. He spoke of the sufferings of the people of Stalingrad and of the sacrifices of those who to-day are serving in the various theatres of war. He said that their sacrifice and their heroism made impossible equality of sacrifice on the part of the people on the home front in Canada. With that fMr. Martin.]
statement no one can disagree. The argument advanced by the member for York-Sunbury was not based on the principle of equality of sacrifice; it was based on the question whether or not this government was assuring equality of opportunity for service by the people in every part of this dominion. The argument which he advanced was that since the National Resources Mobilization Act was brought into effect there never has been, and there is not now, equality of call in every province and in every part of the dominion. I shall deal with that not by figures of far-off months, but by reference to a table that was recently brought down in this house in the form of a return which shows the call-ups between October 31, 1942, and April 15, 1943, which conclusively establishes the fact, which neither the minister nor the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has dared to try to answer, namely, that there is not now, nor has there been, equality of call in every military district in Canada, nor any reasonable approach to equality of call.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Take page 10.


John George Diefenbaker: I will take figures not in the reformed, revised, enlarged computation which it was found necessary to bring down to-night, because of the impossibility of any statistician arriving at any conclusion on the basis of the figures that were brought diown a week or so ago. The tables a week ago revealed a muddle. The tables brought down to-night reveal a muddle of the muddle and reveal no clarification whatsoever of the earlier ones. I will take the figures set out in a return brought down recently by the government. That will show exactly whether or not there has been equality of call.
The next point raised by the hon. member for York-Sunbury was that there was lack of enforcement of the law so far as the National Resources Mobilization Act was concerned. All of us admit that lack of enforcement of the law tends to disruption and confusion. I was surprised to find that that, too, was one of the things the parliamentary assistant did not answer. He dealt with many other matters, but the two subjects dealt with by the hon. member for York-Sunbury, namely, inequality of call in every province and in every part of Canada, and, second, inequality in enforcement, with the large numbers who are delinquent in consequence and amounting to hundreds of thousands, were not answered nor was there any attempt to answer them.
The other day, on June 23, the minister himself tried to answer the argument I had made on many occasions in this house, that

War Appropriation-Labour
there was inequality in the percentage of callups for men for military service in the different military districts. As reported at page 4030 of Hansard, he used these words:
The instructions to all mobilization divisions are to bring the men in the designated classes under the regulations as quickly as possible and to deal with them as rapidly as the machinery available permits. The districts vary in size. Some have greater difficulty in getting accommodation and staff. Therefore the speed of selection varies, but in the end the result sought for is obtained-that is, all men fit for service, in the designated class, who are not given postponement and have not volunteered for service in the armed forces are selected.
That statement is not in accordance with the known facts. The minister gave two reasons why there might be inequalities. The first reason was that the districts vary in size. What difference is there in the matter of callups on the basis of population because one district may be larger than another? That answer does not afford any defence for what is taking place. The second reason given was that some districts have greater difficulty in getting accommodation and staff. Well, Mr. Chairman, this same matter was dealt with by the Minister of National Defence at page 3059 of Hansard for May 26, when I drew to his attention the fact that there was inequality in call-ups, and that those districts in which the greatest number of volunteers were secured were the districts in which the largest percentage of men were being called up under the mobilization act. This is what the minister said:
Mr. Ralston: I do not requisition from particular districts. I ask for so many men to report at different depots. They can come from British Columbia, Halifax, anywhere at all; I do not designate the district from which they shall come.
Mr. Diefenbaker: Every one of the ministers says that some other minister is responsible.
Mr. Ralston: I do not think 1 am one who attempts to shelve responsibility.
Mr. Diefenbaker: No; the minister does not.
Mr. Ralston: I am asking if my hon. friend suggests that I dictate where the men shall come from?
Mr. Diefenbaker: I do not care who is dictating. I want an explanation from the responsible minister why this condition prevails.
Mr. Ralhton:	I am only saying my hon.
friend cannot get it from me.
Then a little later:
Mr. Ralston: What we do is to make a requisition or statement showing that we want so many men at such and such a depot.
And mark these words:
The men may come to these depots from any place in the dominion. National war services and more lately the Department of Labour, through its registrars and boards, decide what men shall be requisitioned.
The Minister of National Defence indicated that men are called from all over Canada; that regardless of the districts from which they are called they are concentrated in the various camps, without regard to the provinces from which they are called. We are in the position that no member of the government has answered the claim made by me on more than one occasion in this house, reiterated to-night by the hon. member for York-Sunbury, that there is not equality of call throughout Canada.
Let us take the facts revealed, not in the recently revised, enlarged or expurgated computations, -but those contained in a return brought down on June 17, 1943, in answer to a number of questions I had asked. I am going to place on record the information contained in this return, because it shows the facts as they are; it reveals the inequalities of the call-up and demonstrates that even yet there is no approach to equality of call in the various military districts of Canada. These were the questions:
1.	How many men, by military districts, w'ere requisitioned for by the Minister of National Defence for call-up under the National Resources Mobilization Act since October 31, 1942?
2.	How many notices were sent out pursuant to requisition?
3.	How many men, to whom notices were sent, reported?
4.	How many of those reporting received medical examination, and of these, how many passed?
5.	How many of the men to whom calls were sent were duly enrolled?
In the answer it is stated that the total requisitions, both new and supplementary, between October 31, 1942, and April 16, 1943, were 104,684. It sets out the numbers called in each military district, and then, in reply to paragraph 4, states that the following numbers were accepted:
"A" London	 2,419
"B" Toronto	 7,110
"C" Kingston	 1,072
"D" Port Arthur	 583
"E" Montreal	 6,413
"F" Quebec	 2,356
"G" Halifax	 2,995
"H" Saint John	 1,532
"I" Charlottetown	 419
"J" Winnipeg	 2,276
"K" Vancouver	 3,445
"M" Regina	 2,774
"N" Edmonton	 1,842
I have analysed these figures on the basis of the statements made in the February issue of Canada At War, page 22; I have arrived at the figure of the number of men available in each military district, after making allowance for the number of men who have enlisted, and I find that if there had been

War Appropriation-Labour

equality of call, in order to secure the men called up during this period, the rate of call from the available pool would have been 2-22 per cent. What I mean by that is this, that with all the available men remaining in the various military districts, after deducting from the pool as it existed at the time of registration, and as brought up to date by the subsequent registration, the numbers who are in the army whether voluntarily or under the mobilization act, the percentage of call would have been 2-22 per cent. What do we find? In district No. 1, London, the percentage of call was 2-41, or just a little over the average. In Toronto it was 2-78 per cent. In Montreal it was 1-8 per cent, or 34 per cent lower than the average call. In Quebec it was 1-16 per cent, or 91 per cent less than the call would be if it was equalized throughout Canada. In Halifax it was 4-2 per cent, or far above the average. In Saint John and Charlottetown combined rate was 3-8 per cent; in Winnipeg and Port Arthur combined, 4-16 per cent; in Vancouver, 2-87 per cent; in Regina, 2-2 per cent; in Edmonton, 2-13 per cent.
We find therefore that the same inequality in calls which was taking place prior to the month of October, 1942, is being continued in practice, and there is no defence by the government to the charge that there is no equality of call, excepting that the minister says there are two. very good reasons by way of defence. I have referred to those reasons, neither of which explains the situation as it is.
The other point dealt with by the hon. member for York-Sunbury was the question of the number who to-day are wandering in the byways of Canada, who have received a call, but who have not turned up. Mention was made by the parliamentary assistant to the question of national registration. He pointed out that there was national registration in 1940, and that there had been a number of registrations since that time.
Is there any member in the house who will say there has been any endeavour on the part of the government to enforce compliance with the national registration. I do not know how many prosecutions there have been. I speak for the province from which both the Chairman and I come when I say that the number of prosecutions in that province- and1 I speak subject to correction-does not exceed fifty. The only occasion when there is a prosecution for failure to register is when a man is brought up before the court on some charge or another, and it is found he has not a national registration card.
There has been no enforcement of the provisions of the national registration of 1940,
(Mr. Diefenbaker.]
and little or no enforcement since that time for non-compliance. There is only one way in which this question can be brought to a head, as I see it, and that is that once more there will have to be a national registration, and an enforcement to ensure strict compliance. I do not think it is possible to-day for the Minister of Labour or for any other minister of the government to know to what extent there has been an evasion of national registration.


Humphrey Mitchell: I can give my hon. friend the figure immediately, if he would like to have it?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I would.


Humphrey Mitchell: To date there have been 1,351 prosecutions, of which 1,326 have been won by the crown.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that in connection with national registration?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, and 14,932 in the hands of the police at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: No, no; those figures do not answer me at all. Those are figures connected with prosecutions for failure to answer the call-up for military service. I am talking about prosecutions for failure to register under national registration.
Let me say this, too, that the figures the minister has placed before the committee show conclusively how indifferently evasion of the call-up is being enforced. I shall give figures in connection with the call-up, not from the revised list, but from the booklet "Canada at War", issued in February last by the wartime information board. The figures are to be found at pages 22, 23 and 24. They show the government admits that 135,890, of those called up, namely 1,028,753, never replied. They did not answer the call. And of the remainder, after deductions are made for those who received postponements, and for those proved medically unfit, there were 205,776 still unaccounted for. That makes a total of 341,000 men unaccounted for in December, 1942. Those are the studied figures sent out by the wartime information board. As a matter of fact, to-day the minister says there are only 13,000 or 14,000 delinquents in Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: I never said that. Fourteen thousand names have been handed to the police.


*Mr. GARDINER:: Thirteen hundred have
been already in court.


John George Diefenbaker: Fourteen thousand names have been handed to the police. Even in February, as shown at page 24 of this

War Appropriation-Labour
booklet, it was admitted that the total number of medical notices undelivered was 87,485; military training notices undelivered, 9,345, and cases pending, delinquents, or otherwise unaccounted for, 98,128. Those are the wartime information board's figures in February last, and they show the number admitted to be delinquents, out of approximately 1,000,000 calls, to have been 194,958 men.
If the government would admit that it is having difficulty; that it cannot enforce the law; that it has not the moral suasion; that it has not the necessary police force, and that it was endeavouring to enforce the law equally, then one would have more sympathy with the minister's department. But that is not the answer.
I wish now to refer to Mr. MacNamara's speech to the Academy of Political Science in New York, in which he gave various reasons why it is difficult to mobilize [DOT] man-power in Canada. In this speech, to which I referred the other day, he closes with these words:
We have felt our way slowly; are still feeling our way.
Well, Mr. Chairman, after four years of war are not the people of this country entitled to better than that? Can we not have a better answer than that with respect to inequality of call and inequality of opportunity of service for the people of this dominion? Can we not have a better answer than that we have felt our way slowly, and that we are still feeling our way?
When I read this speech I ask myself this question: What defence does the government offer to this speech wherein is set out the situation in Canada respecting man-power? What defence does it offer as to why there has not been the type of war effort Canada has a right to demand? On the first page he states that the situation in Canada is different from that in the United States. It states:
While time will not permit a detailed analysis of the differences and similarities between Canada and the United States, it seems advisable to mention some of the more significant items in any such comparison as a background against which you may consider Canada's manpower policy.
Like the United States, Canada is a federal union, but, because there are only nine provinces as against forty-eight states, the opinion of each province probably carries a greater weight in determining federal policy than does that of any single state.
That statement is a negation of the principles of the Canadian confederation, and a denial of the hopes of the fathers of confederation. That statement, translated into simple terms, means this, that in Canada any one province, be it Saskatchewan, or any

72537-26H
other province, may hold the government back, because of the greater influence possessed by one province in a confederation of nine, than one state in a confederation of forty-eight states.
Next follows something that is rather interesting, am admission of what we have contended on many occasions, that the government of this nation, in so far as the war is concerned, is a matter of government by order in council. This is what Mr. Mac-Namara said:
Most of Canada's war-time policies are expressed in orders in council comparable to your executive orders, passed by the cabinet under this authority and simply tabled in parliament.
It remained for the deputy minister to place before the people of the United States that which has been denied times without number in this house, that parliament has ceased to function in so far as the war-time policies of Canada are concerned, and that they owe their inception in orders in council. Then follows the strangest doctrine I have ever heard advanced by any Canadian. I know my hon. friends from Quebec are just as anxious as anyone else for equality of service.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Equality of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Equality of privilege and equality of opportunity for service. The deputy minister said:
Consequently all government policy has to run the gauntlet of democratic review, in that disapproval of any major policy would necessitate the resignation of the government and, unless the opposition could command a sure majority in the house, an appeal to the country in the form of a general election.
Although Canada like the United States is a land of many peoples, the fact that we spring chiefly from two main stocks. French and British, somewhat complicates, although it also enriches, our political and social life.
Certainly it enriches our political and social life. I continue:
Every government policy must be framed with due regard to their special rights-
That is true.
-and their convictions.
If that statement represents the viewpoint of the government, it denies the hope that this country will ever become united from the Atlantic to the Pacific, it denies an opportunity to the people of this nation to become Canadian, united, firm, strong and free under the British crown, united in their desire to dedicate themselves to common service and common sacrifice. I repudiate the doctrine enunciated in that speech. That will not make for true Canadianism. It is the type of doctrine
War Appropriation-Labour

that will tear this country asunder, will split our people apart, and will separate us, instead of bringing us together in the bonds of common sacrifice in war.
Is it not time that we gave to the people of all parts of Canada equal rights of service, so as thereby to enrich the Canadianism of which we are so proud? We should give an opportunity to every man and woman in every part of Canada to serve equally as nearly as possible. The people in the province of Quebec are perfectly willing to defend Canada. They accepted the National Resources Mobilization Act; they accepted the principle of service for the defence of Canada, but under the enforcement of the legislation to-day they are being denied the opportunity that the other eight provinces have, namely, the privilege and honour to march together regardless of racial origin in a union such as we have never known before.


George Hugh Castleden: The parliamentary
assistant to the minister tried to spread some sugar over the selective service policy when he termed it the master plan. The fact that the figures given on Wednesday have had to be revised this evening would seem to be a contradiction of what he was trying to say.


Humphrey Mitchell: There was not a revision of figures.


George Hugh Castleden: We tried to base our argument on the figures that were given on Wednesday, and those that were given this evening make it rather difficult for us to estimate exactly what is going on. Why was not this explanation given on Wednesday?


Humphrey Mitchell: In view of the confusion I thought I would give a simpler statement.


George Hugh Castleden: Apparently it was required, but it should have been given on Wednesday. I think it must be admitted that when the board in one province grants postponements to the extent of ninety-three per cent and the board in another province grants them only to the extent of sixty-one per cent, the average for the whole dominion being eighty per cent, there is something definitely wrong. I realize that there are difficulties in this selective service the same as there are in many of the things we are trying to do in this war, but there is something wrong when the board in one province shows a tendency not to grant postponements to this extent. The government should have rectified this. I cannot understand why this condition should have been allowed to exist for two or three years. It is unfortunate that Saskatchewan should

have been singled out in this way. I live in that province; I come in contact with the people, and I hear of cases such as that of the only son of a man practically blind1 who was taken off the farm, while two or three miles away two or three sons are allowed to remain. Such inequalities should not exist.
It seems to me the registration of 1940 was badly conducted. I do not know the minister's estimate of it, but I believe it was worth very little. The fact that selective service has operated under so many ministers in three years is proof of the situation we are getting into. The figures given this evening with regard to the number of call-ups and the number of cases in the hands of the police is evidence that the thing has been working poorly. Those who have not answered their call-ups have not been checked up soon enough. The difficulty with the board in Saskatchewan must have been owing to personnel. Who was the representative of the army sitting in with that board?


Humphrey Mitchell: There is no representative of the army who is a member of the board, but the representative sitting in was Lieutenant-Colonel A. S. Redford.


George Hugh Castleden: Is he also officer commanding district depot No. 12?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know.


George Hugh Castleden: I think we ought to have that information.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to get it for the hon. member. I let the army run their own show because I have a large enough undertaking myself.


George Hugh Castleden: It seems to me there is something wrong here, too.


James Garfield Gardiner: He has never been in charge of district No. 12.


George Hugh Castleden: I asked whether he was an official of the district depot.


James Garfield Gardiner: He has never been in charge. He is appointed by the military authorities to appear before the board in the interests of the defence department.


George Hugh Castleden: Was a similar representative of agriculture chosen to look after the interests of that industry? Could I have the name of that man?


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Dawson.


George Hugh Castleden: Did he take the place of Mr. Milliken. who was appointed last January?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.

War Appropriation-Labour


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Milliken was an agricultural representative. He tried the job for two or three weeks and then gave up in desperation, because he had so many cases that he just could not handle them. I should like to know whether Mr. Milliken at the time of his resignation made any recommendations as to what should be done. His statement to the press was that it was such a terrific job he could not possibly handle it.


Humphrey Mitchell: He was the legal representative of the pools out there? (


George Hugh Castleden: Yes.


Humphrey Mitchell: He found that in view of his legal practice it was not possible for him to continue in view of representations that farmers would make through legal counsel. In place of Mr. Milliken we appointed Mr. Dawson who, I understand, is giving satisfactory service.


George Hugh Castleden: The point I wish to make is this. A good many people, as soon as they heard that Mr. Milliken had been appointed, wrote to him to ask for a postponement. They received no reply, because almost right away Mr. Milliken resigned, and their letters apparently were lost. A good many cases came to my attention which had received no consideration at all. The next thing the applicant knew he was called up. Who preceded Mr. Milliken?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know. It was not under my jurisdiction then.


George Hugh Castleden: One of the most discouraging aspects of the whole situation was that the Prime Minister had made an announcement in March, 1942, to the effect that from then, on those engaged in agriculture would pretty well be kept in agriculture, and the onus of proof, according to that statement of the Prime Minister and according to the order in council rested with the board. It was the board that had to prove the men were not essential to agriculture, but the difficulty seems to be that they did not have to prove it to anyone. I ask the minister, to whom did the board have to prove that a man was not essential to agriculture?


Humphrey Mitchell: As my hon. friend understands, the board is like a court, presided over by a judge of the supreme court. The board is the final authority under the regulations and it determines whether or not a man is essential to agriculture. The board takes no direction from the minister. It is a free agent in interpreting the law and regulations.


George Hugh Castleden: But according to the order in council the board had to .prove that the man was not essential to agriculture. Apparently it did not have to prove it to any one. There was no other court to which it had to prove it. It had to satisfy only itself.


James Garfield Gardiner: The man had to prove to the board, which was headed) by a judge, that he was essential to agriculture.


George Hugh Castleden: That was prior to March, 1942.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was always the
case prior to 1942.


George Hugh Castleden: No; a change was made in 1942, and the onus of proof placed on the board.


James Garfield Gardiner: The man would state that he was essential to agriculture, and his statement would have to be accepted unless it could be proved otherwise.


George Hugh Castleden: If the minister will read the order in council and the statement of the Prime Minister, he will find that that is not correct. The onus of proof was on the board, and that is where the difficulty came in. There was no one to whom the board was responsible, and no appeal if anyone questioned its decision. The board was not responsible to anyone so far as I know. In fact, it is difficult even- to get the evidence that was placed before the board. About a year ago, on July 5, I put a question on the order paper asking for the evidence upon which the board had decided that a man was not essential to agriculture and was called up. That question was passed as an order for a return on July 13, 1942, and the order has not yet come down. Here is the master plan at work! I should like to know how many men have been called up from farms in Saskatchewan from March 23, 1942, up to, say a month ago.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have not the figures in front of me but, if I can possibly get them, I shall be glad to do so.


George Hugh Castleden: I understand men are still being called up from farms in Saskatchewan.


Humphrey Mitchell: If they are not essential to agriculture they are called up.


George Hugh Castleden: Medical notices are being sent out?	y


Humphrey Mitchell: They get a medical examination, of course.
War Appropriation-Labour


George Hugh Castleden: Men. are still being called up.


Humphrey Mitchell: Certainly.


George Hugh Castleden: How many in the past month?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know. I will get the information for my hon. friend.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the basis for the board's figures as to how many notices of medical examination shall be sent out?


Humphrey Mitchell: I thought I explained that'. The boards have been directed to move in on the designated age groups and call them up. We are approaching it in that way. There has not been any allotment. We are in a mopping-np process, calling up all men in the designated age classes. These men get their medical notices, but they can apply to a board for a postponement if they are essential to agriculture.


George Hugh Castleden: They can get a postponement if the board proves to its own satisfaction that they are essential to agriculture. In the spring of 1941 medical notices were sent out and a number of men took their medical examination. Then they were suddenly notified to return all their medical notices and to disregard that call altogether. They did so and thought there was no necessity then for making any application for postponement. Then here is the unfortunate thing that happened. The very same group on November 23 last received notices to report in Regina on November 25, with no opportunity at all to make application for postponement. I know of numerous cases of severe hardship as a result of that action.
I would say this, that the efficiency of the department will be judged by the equality with which they administer the regulations, and the record as far as Saskatchewan is concerned is one of which this department cannot be very proud. To call this a master plan is a piece of gross overexaggeration.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I endeavoured to
follow the minister's assistant this evening when he dwelt on persuasion rather than compulsion, but I was not able to follow him in view of what we have experienced in the last few years, because certainly we have had conscription for our home defence army-not persuasion at all. The Minister of National Defence and the Minister of National Defence for Air said that many of their best men had been young men- who had first received their call. Therefore I cannot see how there was any persuasion in these preliminaries; it was conscription for the army.

When we had the national registration in 1940 of men and women, certainly no plan was evolved for the use of our man-power and no estimate was made of the requirements of the armed forces or of industry or of agriculture. No plan was brought into being befitting Canada, not even as much as was done by our good neighbours to the south the moment war was declared. Those people certainly attempted to set up a plan, and they went a little further than we have gone yet in this fourth year of the wTar. One cannot help thinking that the Prime Minister and his ministers are still not assuming the responsibilities of their office with respect to the man-power problem to-day. There are, I believe, some 70,000 recruits in this country to-day who have been drafted. There is a difference of opinion as to what should be done with them, whether they should be in other and more useful employment or whether they should be available for any theatre of war. I know that in this regard, on another item, the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) recently suggested that they should be sent to Alaska in order that United States troops could be relieved to do the fighting of the united nations in active theatres of war. I am sure that no red-blooded Canadian would feel proud of that suggestion, and we should not countenance it.
As to the matter of conscientious objectors, the statement has been made that in a very recent period 500 have been sent into Manitoba. I believe it was represented to the minister and to the government that this approximate number were required for beet production alone in that province. I know also that officers of the minister's department are in a quandary as to which is the most essential place for these men, whether it would be in this beet industry, or in the production of cereals, dairy products and bacon on the other farms of that province. In checking the minister's statement, I notice that he says, as reported in Hansard, at page 3937, that the mobilization boards no longer direct the placement of these men; they simply grant postponements. What cooperation is there between these boards and the minister's selective officers? It seems to me that up to date there is a distinct overlapping there. The mobilization board, when a man is called, hears the man's request for postponement. I assume it takes notes and keeps a record of all that evidence. I should like to know whether that is turned over to the selective officer, or what becomes of it, and if it would not be more beneficial that these selective boards should direct where that man should go at that particular time.

War Appropriation-Labour
The minister has said that young men are called if they are not essential to agriculture. My understanding is that every young man, when he comes of age under the call, whether he is a farmer or not, does receive his call.


Humphrey Mitchell: He receives medical
examination.
XIr. ROSS (Souris): And does he not have to report to the board, if he is fit?


Humphrey Mitchell: He has to apply for postponement, of course.


James Arthur Ross: And if he does not ask for postponement he goes to the armed forces whether he is essential in agriculture or not?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know.


James Arthur Ross: Well, I think the minister should know, and I think he does know.
XIr. MITCHELL: Well, now, I do not know. Let us be perfectly honest. I am not going to mislead my hon. friend. Here are the three steps. The man gets his notice; he receives his medical examination; and if he applies, he obtains a postponement. He has to ask for it, and it is the natural thing to do if the man has a tongue in his head. If I did not want to go in the army, I suppose it is the course I would take, though I may say that if I were ten years younger I would not be standing here. But if the fellow did not want to go in the army, surely, when he went before that board he would ask for postponement. I mean, that is no secret in this country.
XIr. ROSS (Souris): The minister's statement is still very confusing. He has sitting before him his deputy minister and other assistants who, I am fairly sure, can answer this more definitely than the minister has attempted to do. This statement is rather misleading to the people of this country, because I know young men on the farms who are required on the farms but who are receiving their call and reporting to the board.


Humphrey Mitchell: I just said that.


James Arthur Ross: I understood the minister to say, if they were essential to agriculture, they do not do so. But this is the system which the government are working in order to get volunteers for the army. Certainly many young men who to-day are essential on the farms are not going to ask for postponement. As the minister has just hinted, he would not do it; neither would I do it if I received a call; in fact, I do not think either one of us would wait until we received a call. But if we did, certainly, with our pals over there we would not want to ask for postponement. And many of these young men to-day are not asking for
postponement, despite the fact that they are urgently needed on the farm. I say that the government is not fulfilling its responsibility in that I know of young men who have been operating their own farms, and who are of that call age, who this spring did not operate their farms though they would have done so had they some definite assurance that they could carry on for a year. Under the present system all they can receive is a postponement for six months. That is a most indefinite arrangement for any man who has to plan to-day for the production of foodstuffs to operate on. If the Minister of Labour will not agree with me, certainly the Minister of Agriculture will.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will not agree that they get six months' postponement.


James Arthur Ross: What do they get?


James Garfield Gardiner: They get a postponement until further call if they are essential to agriculture.


James Arthur Ross: But they are not assured of anything over six months, are they?


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes, they are assured until further call, which may take them to the end of the war.


James Arthur Ross: They do not know when the next call will be.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, they do not get
another call unless there is new information.


James Arthur Ross: That is a new arrangement, is it not?


Humphrey Mitchell: If I may put it in a
sentence to my hon. friend, in agriculture they get indefinite postponement; in industry, the maximum is twelve months and the minimum six months. That is the whole thing, simply stated.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I shall not go into the
question of policy. Most of the complaints received from my province arise, I believe, on account of lack of experience of men in the selective service branch. Perhaps that is inevitable by reason of the number who have been engaged and the kind of work they have to do. I think it was the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) who asked the minister early in the evening if he had practical men to review or pass on the ability of the men to do certain work. I believe that is a very proper thing to do. I do not think a doctor can judge, absolutely at least, whether a man can work in a logging camp or in a mine or at any other employment where hard physical labour is required. I have before me
War Appropriation-Labour

in concrete form cases which a certain firm employing help in Vancouver took up with the national selective service after the second compulsory transfer order. I have the names, the numbers, and all other particulars, but I will not give the names. In case A, as I will eall it, the party has 'been known to the writer of the letter and to his company for quite a few years. He has suffered from extreme eye trouble since his early childhood. He has been under treatment for a considerable time and is still under treatment from Doctor Graham Elliott of that city, who has started him on a series of artificial fever treatments through another medical practitioner, which treatments cost $36 and necessitates his going into hospital. The writer goes on to state:
At the present time this man is practically blind in one eye and has very limited vision in the other. He has done no reading for over six months and does no writing. Until March last year he had been unable to take employment. At that time, when he had sufficient vision to get around, we found a job for him in eur hardware storeroom where he has served a useful purpose ever since. We of course allow him time off for his treatments, when his doctor recommends them.
Here is the disposition the selective service made. The officials of the selective service board slated him for a lumber or mining camp. The man explained his regrettable inability to consider either. The officials then wanted him to go to the shipyards where they would find him a nice easy job in the shade counting rivets. The man explained about his eyes and the fact that he was still taking treatment.
Then we come to another case, that of a furniture salesman, who had his rejection slip dated October 15, 1942, category E, permanently unfit. He has never done any labouring in his life. He has never been in the woods or in a lumber camp. The official is sending him to a lumber camp and has told him cheerfully that if he does not sign to go voluntarily they will drag him.
Anyone who knows anything about lumbering in British Columbia knows it is work for young able-bodied men. Before the war, only young -men were accepted there. It is an extremely hazardous occupation, much more so than lumbering in eastern Canada, and to suggest that a man should go to the lumber camps in British Columbia without having had any lumbering experience, and being too old and in poor physical condition, is simply to make him a menace both to himself and to those who would be working with him.
The next case-the name and number are given in each case-is that of a man who applied to -the air force and the navy prior to getting his army refusal. He was refused 
entrance into the armed forces on account of a heart condition. He visited the selective service board a second time and was told by the official who interviewed him that the medical board had decided that he should accept work in a logging camp. The man refused to accept -the ruling, and he was told again that he either had to accept it or they would compel him to do so.
I suggest that in such cases there should be a committee of loggers. They may not be qualified from the medical point of view, but I am sure they would know whether a man was able to work in a logging camp or not, because they would have to work with him. In cases of this kind, where a man is slated for some industry, such as logging, or any other activity of that kind, a practical committee of people who know what the industry is like should be asked to say what they think of the possibilities of the man being fit for that kind of work.


Humphrey Mitchell: Those two gentlemen had the right to appeal to the court of referees against the decision of -the selective service officer. I know the gentlemen comprising labour representatives on the -board in Vancouver:	G. Price, Canadian Congress of
Labour; E. Morton, Canadian Congress of Labour; B. Showier, Trades and Labour Congress; R. H. Neelands, Trades and Labour Congress; R. Gervin, Trades and Labour Congress, and E. Smith, Trades and Labour Congress. The men to whom the hon. member has referred could have appealed to them.


James Arthur Ross: The minister did not answer the question in regard to the liaison between the mobilization board and the selective service office. I said there was duplication there, and I should like to know how the two offices operate.


Humphrey Mitchell: Representatives of the selective service attend the meetings of the mobilization -board1.


James Arthur Ross: They sit in on every meeting?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. We felt that the selective service covered all the ramifications of industry and agriculture, and we thought that if we took that from the mobilization board it would be better. All they do is to adjudicate the man as a conscientious objector and he is turned over to the selective service, who direct him.


James Arthur Ross: The selective service officer has all the evidence of that kind.

War Appropriation-Labour


Douglas Gooderham Ross: On page 3954, of
Hansard, giving the tables which the minister submitted, there appears to me to be a point that is not answered. The number of men called is given as 988,475. They were called for medical examination. Some did not turn up, but the number examined was 608,642. Then we find that 233,224 requested postponements; 190,550 postponed and the number in effect, 100,973. That means that the number granted and the number in effect total 291,523. Are all these postponements?
Mr. MITCHELL; Yes.
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's); So that out of the 608,642 examined we have 289,544 called for military service, and out of that number only 160,662 turned up. That leaves about 129,000 to be accounted for. In the statement the minister says:
Voluntary enlistments, as well as postponements, account for most of the difference of 129.000 between the numbers called for military training and those reporting.
I do not know where postponements enter into this. What happened to the 129,000? That is what I should like to know.


Humphrey Mitchell: They are in the army
or in the navy or air force.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Are there 129,000 who enlisted voluntarily?


Humphrey Mitchell: Five hundred and fifty thousand.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is a most extraordinary thing.


Humphrey Mitchell: It may be extraordinary, but they are in the army.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The number called was 988,000 odd, and the number examined
608.000,	and out of the 608,000 that turned up you have 129,000 that you cannot account for. We do not know where they are.


James Garfield Gardiner: They did not have to turn up if they went into the army.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture how he knows they went into the army, and if he can tell me just why they went into the army.


James Garfield Gardiner: Because I was the minister in charge of the registration the hon. gentleman is talking about, at the time it was made. There were 54,000 men who were enlisted at that time, which number added to the
988.000,	makes the total registered who were of military age. Since that time men have been called, and they have enlisted in the army and did not have to report to this board.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: But they did report to be examined.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not the number over the
608,000.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: They are part of the 608,000 who did report to be examined; and out of the 608.000 we have only accounted for the number I mentioned. I think that this is a farce of a statement, which does not give us anything at all. It is just a lot of figures that no one knows anything about, not even the government. They are trying to make excuses for the whole thing, but here you have
988.000	who were called, and you have 608,000 who responded, which leaves 380,000 about whom we know nothing. We know that some of those are in the army, that no doubt some of them have died and so on, but there were
608.000	examined during that time. What has happened to them? Then we have these
289.000	who were called, who had notices sent out to them. Nothing has been said during the debate, so far as I know, about any of the notices going astray in regard to these
289.000	men. They were examined and they were called; notices went out to them, but we never heard from 129,000 of them, and we do not know anything about them. No one knows anything about them, not even the government. The minister tries to make excuses for this state of affairs and goes away back to 1940, when he was in charge of the registration. I think he did a pretty good job at that time; I know I helped him all I could, as we all did. Perhaps I was one of the first members of this house to call for a national registration; that was away back in 1940. Do hon. members remember the registration cards we had to fill out, with all the questions on it; asking city people if they could milk cows, and all that sort of thing? By the way, I should like to ask the minister if he was responsible for drawing up that card and asking all those questions to find out if people in the cities could milk cows, and so on.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Did someone speak? The whole thing is just like that; some ghost here behind me said something; I do not know what it was, and that is the whole situation as far as I can see it. The point is that the government never wanted to get down to compulsory national selective service anyway. They made up their minds they were going to do this whole thing by evolution; they were going to go away back to the old monkeys and see if they could not get some of the monkeys to become men. Thank heaven we had a tremendous number of men who wanted to
War Appropriation-Labour

volunteer and who did so. The answer to the whole question is that the government are not interested in where these 128,000 men may be; they are missing, but no matter. You can take this whole table and it is not worth the powder to blow it up; it is the same, as a matter of fact, as the government's national selective policy.
As I was listening to the hon. member for Essex East, who is the parliamentary assistant to the minister, I thought of the words I used on Friday night in describing the policy of the government. First, I said it was vaporous. Well, it was vaporous when the hon. member spoke to-night; there is no question about that. The next word I used-perhaps I did not go far enough-was that it was vacuous. Well, you know the dictionary meaning of "vacuous"; I believe it means empty, without anything in it, and that was what I thought of as I listened to the minister's parliamentary assistant. I do not think he is quite that bad, but there you are. It will be remembered that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre criticized me the other night for not saying enough, but the third word 1 used in describing the policy of the government was that it was vacillating. Well, did he vacillate to-night. That is exactly what he did; and then when he got through with his speech he said, "We won't use compulsion. We never have, and we do not want to have compulsion in this thing at all. We are going to continue on a voluntary basis." Then, when I asked him a question, as to whether they did not have compulsion, he replied, "yes, but only in two cases." Well, those two cases are for home defence, and for everyone between the ages of sixteen and sixty-five. There you are; that is the whole thing. Here is your list, and it is not worth anything; the figures on it do not mean a thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are making quite a speech on it.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I cannot hear the hon. gentleman. I rather like him; he is a pretty good minister of agriculture, but he is a better politician. He has the province of Saskatchewan right in the palm of his hand, or he thinks he has. Wait until the next election comes along; perhaps he will find that it is not in the palm of his hand as he thought. He is clever, however, and I like to hear him speak in this house. I believe he is a smarter man than we give him credit for being, and I am sure he will say these things are as I have described them, that these figures in this table are worthless and do not mean a thing.
I will ask him the question: does he not admit that?
Mr. Douglas G. Ross.]


James Garfield Gardiner: No, no.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The minister does admit it; I can see him nodding his head. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have many other things I wanted to speak about but I am afraid I was side-tracked.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, June 29, 1943