CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 107, to amend the criminal code.
Mr. GRAYDON:: May I ask the hon. gentleman to explain this bill?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	This bill includes
thirty-eight sections, dealing almost exclusively with questions of procedure in criminal matters. To illustrate what the bill deals with, five sections are designed to facilitate the enforcement of the criminal code in respect of bookmaking; that is, in connection with betting on horse races or athletic events and things of the kind. Six sections deal with offences in which a greater penalty is provided if the offender has been convicted of some previous offence. They provide that there may be no mention of the previous offence in the charge, that this will not be inquired into until it has been ascertained whether or not the accused is guilty of the new offence charged; that then, for the purpose of fixing penalty, he will be asked whether or not he has been convicted previously, and if he denies it or does not reply, there will be an investigation into the question whether or not there is any previous conviction registered against him. Then eight sections merely deal with the proper designation of magistrates who may conduct certain proceedings. There have been changes in provincial laws, and these amendments are to have the sections of the criminal code describe the officials in the same manner as that in which they are described in the provincial laws. Then two sections will restore a jury composed of twelve instead of six in the province of Manitoba. The other sections deal with matters of concordance. There is no new substantial provision included in the amendments.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: No new
substantive offences?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is any
reference made to the present provisions of the code with regard to communism?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: None whatever.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the bill have any relation to the proposed extradition treaty with the United States?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No.


Mr. CHURCH:: Will copies of the bill be distributed to the judges, the bar associations, the law societies, provincial attorneys general, and so on, for their consideration?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Copies of the bill will be distributed to members of this house and will be available to any others who may be interested.


Thomas Langton Church: Is there a clause dealing with motor car accidents, to strengthen the law in view of the representations which have been made as to the awful loss of life on the highways?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There will be a provision by which bridges which are not part of the highways will come under the same provisions that apply to highways, in connection with motor traffic.


Thomas Langton Church: What about the amendments to the code proposed by the chief constables' association, to strengthen the maintenance of law and order in the dominion?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sorry, but at the moment I have not in mind what the hon. member is referring to. Some of these amendments have been discussed and recommended by the chief constables, and I do not know just which of them the hon. gentleman has in mind.


Gordon Graydon: I suppose the hon. gentleman is referring to some representations made to the Minister of Justice by the chief constables' association.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: All the representations made to the Department of Justice since the last time there was a bill before this house to amend the criminal code have been considered, and there has been an attempt to embody
Questions

in the bill such of those recommendations as the department thought it would be in the public interest to include in the code.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The main point is that under this bill there are no new offences.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, there are no new
substantive offences provided.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	How many embassies and/or trade commissions have been opened in South America?
2.	How many embassies and/or trade commissions have been opened in Mexico?
3.	How many employees have been appointed to each such office?
4.	Were such appointments made by the civil service commission?
5.	How many such appointees can read and speak Portuguese and/or Spanish?
6.	How many applicants for such positions could speak Portuguese and/or Spanish?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I understand the hon. member asking this question is prepared to let it drop.


Mr. HOMUTH:: I think perhaps we could leave it on the order paper for the time being.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All right.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stands.


ALUMINIUM LIMITED-HON. LEIGHTOH MCCARTHY
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	.Is the Hon. Leighton McCarthy a vicepresident, and/or director, of Aluminium Limited?
2.	If not, when did he resign either or both of these offices?
3.	Is Aluminum Company of America owned by, or a subsidiary of Aluminium Limited?
4.	Is Aluminum Company of Canada owmed by, or a subsidiary of Aluminium Liimted?
5.	Is Hon. Leighton McCarthy a vicepresident, and/or director, of Aluminum Company of Canada?
6.	If not, when did he resign either or both of these offices?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes; both a vice-president and a director.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The government has no official information on the matter, but has reason to believe

that the Aluminum Company of America is not owned by, nor is it a subsidiary of Aluminium Limited.
4.	The government has no official information on the matter, but has reason to believe that the Aluminum Company of Canada is owned by, or is a subsidiary of Aluminium Limited.
5.	No.
6.	In January, 1943.


R.C.A.F.-HON. LEON-MERCIER GOUIN
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the Hon. Leon-Mercier Gouin joined the Royal Canadian Air Force?
2.	If so, (a) what is his rank; (b) what are his emoluments; (e) what are his duties?
3.	Does he give his full time?
4.	If not, how much time does he give?
5.	Has he served previously in a militarv unit?
6.	Has he taken an officers' course?
7.	If so, where, and when?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Yes, appointed to commission in the R.C.A.F. University Air Training Corps effective 1st March, 1943.
2.	(a) Squadron Leader.
(b)	As an officer in the U.A.T.C., he may draw pay up to a maximum of 30 days for any one year for service pertaining to training prescribed in the U.A.T.C. syllabus and for each day he undergoes special training relative to instructional duties in the U.A.T.C., pay up to a maximum of 15 additional days may be drawn. Pay is at the rate of rank laid down in pay and allowance regulations for auxiliary active air force, namely $6.50 per day. In addition he receives non-recurring uniform allowance of $150 on appointment.
(c)	His duties are that of commanding officer, No. 14 (University of Montreal) squadron, U.A.T.C.
3.	No.
4.	The amount of time involved is the amount required by him to give the necessary supervision of training of the squadron for which he is commanding officer and this would amount to not less than 30 days in the course of an academy year.
5.	and 6. No.
7.	It is anticipated that he will attend a short administrative course prior to the resumption of U.A.T.C. training in the fall of 1943.

Questions .


COST-OF-LIVING INDEX
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	In the determining of the cost-of-living index by the dominion bureau of statistics, what year is now used as 100, or, what is the base of the present cost-of-living index?
2.	Since the outbreak of the present war, what instructions relating to the cost-of-living index have been made by orders in council?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	In calculating the dominion bureau of statistics cost-of-living index, an average of budget costs in the five-year period 1935 to 1939 is taken as equal to 100-0. For the purpose of reckoning the cost-of-living bonus, the index is adjusted so that August 1939=100-0. This adjustment is purely mechanical, and the percentage rise or fall from month to month is unaffected by the shift from one base period to the other.
2.	The only instructions concerning the cost-of-living index made by order in council since the outbreak of war are contained in order in council P.C. 6219 as amended. This order relates to taxes on cigarettes and tobacco.


NATURAL RUBBER STOCKS
Mr. BENCE:: What is the total stock of natural rubber in Canada?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Crude natural rubber is a critical war commodity. It is not in the public interest to answer this question.


THOROLD, ONT., INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOL PLANT
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	Is a plant being constructed at Thorold, Ontario, for the purpose of producing industrial alcohol?
2.	If so, by whom is the said plant being constructed?
3.	What government assistance, if any, is being given to the company constructing the said plant?
4.	Where was the machinery manufactured which is to be used in the said plant?
5.	Who are the officers and directors of the said company?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Ontario Paper Co. Ltd.
3.	None.
4.	No information.
5.	No official information. We understand that the president is Mr. A. A. Schmonn.


POST OFFICE-FINANCIAL SUPERINTENDENT- NORMAN H. MACDONALD
Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	Has an order in council been passed abolishing the position of assistant to the financial superintendent of the Post Office Department?
2.	If not, is there such a submission before council for approval?
3.	Will the abolition of such position enable Norman H. MacDonald, its former incumbent, to obtain superannuation with superannuation allowance ?
4.	Upon being superannuated as aforesaid, will said Norman H. MacDonald be appointed chief organizer for the Liberal party in Canada?


Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	See answers to 1 and 2.
4.	No information.


DAT NURSERY SCHOOLS
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	What provinces to date have signed a dominion-provincial agreement for the operation of dominion-provincial wartime day nursery schools ?
2.	What provinces, other than those named in answer to question one, are at present negotiating such agreements?
3.	On what basis is the cost of dominion-provincial wartime nursery schools distributed between municipal, provincial, and federal authorities ?
4.	Are the initial steps preliminary to a dominion-provincial agreement for wartime day nursery schools taken by the provincial or dominion officials?
5.	Does the initial responsibility for setting up individual units, in provinces with which agreements have been made, rest with federal, provincial, municipal, or voluntary agencies?
6.	What persons employed by the dominion government are responsible for the establishment and operation of these dominion-provincial wartime nursery schools?
7.	What assistance, financial or otherwise, is given by the dominion government in providing day school care in schools?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Ontario and Quebec.
2.	None.
3.	Net expenditure, shared on a 50-50 basis by dominion and provincial authorities.
4.	The draft agreement has been presented to all provinces. Initial steps in signing the agreement would be taken by the provincial authorities.
5.	Initial responsibility for setting up individual units rests with the provincial authorities, who work in close cooperation with local selective service offices and voluntary

Questions as Orders for Returns
welfare organizations. Local committees are appointed by the provinces in all centres where the need is indicated by the above-mentioned agencies and these committees make recommendations to the provinces on the local requirements.
6.	Under the direction of Mrs. Rex Eaton, assistant director, national selective service, Miss Margaret Grier has been appointed to" have charge of the administration of the dominion-provincial agreement for the day care of children.
7.	The dominion pays to the provinces fifty per cent of the net expenditure.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	Did the government enter into any agreement with the national and international representatives of the United Steel Workers' Union on January 22, 1943?
2.	Did the government make an initial offer to the steel workers' officials of 55 cents an hour, inclusive of eost-of-living bonus, immediately prior to that date?
3.	Did the union representatives reject this offer?
4.	Did Mr. Arthur MacNamara, then deputy minister of labour, and vice-chairman of the national war labour board, represent the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Labour, throughout those negotiations with the full knowledge and consent of the government?
5.	Did Mr. MacNamara, on behalf of the government, in order to effect a settlement of the steel strike in January, agree to the payment of a 55-eent rate, to be considered a base rate, with the amount of a cost-of-living bonus to be referred to the national war labour board?
6.	Was there an agreement reached on January 22 between Mr. MacNamara and the steel workers' representatives to the effect that the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation in respect to its plants at Sydney and the Algoma Steel Corporation in respect of its plants at Sault Ste. Marie, would be designated by the national war labour board as national employers?
7.	Was there an agreement reached at the same time, and between these same parties, that part at least of the Trenton plants would be included in the scope of the directions or awards to be made by the national war labour board?
8.	Was there an order in council passed January 26, 1943, giving full authority to the Minister of Labour and the national war labour board to implement these terms of settlement, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, order or regulation?
9.	Is the decision of the national war labour board, as released to the press on March 31, in accord with the agreement reached between the government and the steel workers' representatives on January 22 with respect to, (a) the
(Mr. Mitchell.]
designation of certain steel companies as national employers; (b) the 55-cent basic hourly rate; (e) the inclusion of some parts or all of the plants at Trenton?
10.	Has the Steel Company of Canada made application to the Ontario regional war labour board, since the national war labour board's decision was released on March 31, for permission to pay a 55-cent base rate with full cost-of-living bonus?


FORECLOSURE OF FARM LANDS
Mr. QUELCH:: 1.	How many foreclosures on farm lands took place in each of the three prairie provinces in each of the years from 1930 to 1942?
2.	What was the total percentage of farms in each of the three prairie provinces, (a) mortgaged; (b) held under agreement of sale, in each of the above-mentioned years?
3.	What is the total acreage of farm lands owned by mortgage and investment houses as a result of foreclosure action in each of the three prairie provinces?


Mr. McLARTY:: A considerable amount of the information requested in this question probably will not be available to any department of government, but such information as is available will be supplied. With that reservation I would ask that the question be made an order for return.



SEED POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I believe on Friday of last week, in reply 'o the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff), and again yesterday in reply to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), the Minister of Finance indicated that some statement would be made by him, after consultation with the wartime prices and trade board, with respect to the potato situation, and particularly seed potatoes, dealing specially with the variation in price. Is the minister in a position to make that statement?	.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to see that a statement is made to-morrow. It is being taken up with the board, but I am not in a position to make a statement to-day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister also make some inquiries with respect to allegations in some parts of upper Canada that a black market exists in New Brunswick in connection with potatoes. I notice the subject occupies considerable space in yesterday's

Sussex Military Camp
issue of the St. John Telegraph-Journal. All the leading dealers there have denied that such a condition exists. For the good name of that province I should like to have the matter cleared up.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: When the Minister of Finance makes his statement respecting seed potatoes would he tell us whether or not any provision is being made by the government to relieve the situation which exists?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall deal with that tomorrow too.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence, arising out of the recent disturbance at Camp Sussex on May 6, to which the minister referred in an extensive statement on May 10. It will be recalled that one soldier lost his life in the disturbance, and a number were quite seriously wounded, notwithstanding the statement issued by the Department of National Defence. I would ask the minister if the military authorities have held a court of inquiry, and if so, what is the result? Have the civil authorities held an inquest, and if so what has been the result? Was an inquest held by the regular coroner in the district, or by some special officer? This question with respect to the inquest may not come within the purview of the minister's department.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: As I intimated to the house, a court of inquiry was held, and a representative of the attorney general was present. While I received a telegraphic summary with respect to the court of inquiry, I have not yet received the minutes and findings of the court of inquiry itself.


Gordon Graydon: Has it concluded its hearings?


James Layton Ralston: I think it has, yes. In the meantime I am instructed that an inquest was held. As a matter of fact the body was viewed by the coroner, and the coroner's jury, before the funeral. My recollection is that it was adjourned on May 13 to some later date. I cannot give the house the reason for that adjournment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It met three days ago, and the evidence was taken.


James Layton Ralston: I had not been advised of that. Nor have we been advised as to who the coroner was, or that it was anyone other than the regular authority who would act in connection writh such a matter. I will get information on the point, and advise the house with respect to it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the result of the court of inquiry be laid on the table, or are such matters considered confidential? I do not know what the practice or the proper procedure is, but I may say to the minister that the public down there are very much interested in this matter. Whatever the inquiry discloses I think should be given publicity.


James Layton Ralston: I shall take into consideration what my hon. friend has said. I cannot tell what should be done until I see the findings of the court of inquiry itself. But I do not think the same reason exists for making public the proceedings of a court of inquiry, when there has been a public coroner's inquest. However I shall look into the matter when the proceedings of the court of inquiry are received.



THE MINISTER OF FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Hsley) upon the degree conferred upon him yesterday by McGill university. In the picture he seemed to appear quite happy in the midst of doctors, both hearing and asking questions of the professors and highbrows. May I add that the minister seems to be becoming very popular-by degrees.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the newly-appointed Doctor, and Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). My question is in reference to Mr. H. J. Coon, who some time ago was appointed chairman of a special advisory committee to investigate certain matters connected with the civil sendee. I understand a report was handed down some time ago. Is the minister in a position to advise the house whether a decision has beeD
Passports

made in connection with the recommendations of the committee, and if so what such decision is?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Consideration is not quite completed, but will be very soon.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then what?


James Lorimer Ilsley: A statement will be made.



PASSPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL ,K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): Mr. Speaker, may I refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister with respect to passports? Hon. members have been notified that no forms are made available to them, the reason being that the department wishes to save paper. This is a tremendous inconvenience to many persons in every constituency. Could not some arrangement be made by which at least members of the House of Commons, to whom most of the requests for passports are directed, could be provided with the necessary papers, either for the original passport or for renewals?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This question is closely
allied to the one asked by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart). I should like to have a word with the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs before giving my hon. friend an answer. There may be no objection, but I should like to make sure.



NATIONAL WAR LABOUR BOARD

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DECISION WITH RESPECT TO MONTREAL TRAMWAYS EMPLOYEES [DOT]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MaeINNIS (Vancouver East): I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he will table a copy of the decision of the national war labour board delivered on May 18 in connection with the appeal by the Montreal tramways employees and the company with respect to profit sharing bonus?
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I shall be glad to do that at the
next sitting.



PRIVILEGE-MR. PICARD REFERENCE TO REPORT IN OTTAWA &quot;JOURNAL&quot; OF MAY 27

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. PHILIPPE PICARD (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. My attention has been drawn to the Ottawa

Journal of May 27 which contains a statement supposed to have been made by me. I have no doubt that this same report has appeared in other newspapers. The report quotes me as having said:
We have unfortunately in Quebec this situation, that although it is entitled to the benefits of the Old Age Pension Act, the Prime Minister in a supposedly Liberal government positively refuses to apply it.
That would imply that the present premier, the Hon. Mr. Godbout, has refused to take advantage of the Old Age Pension Act. That is not the fact, because this act has been in effect in that province for eight years. My words are correctly reported in Hansard at page 3051, as follows:
We had unfortunately in Quebec this situation, that although it was entitled to the benefits of ,the Old Age Pension Act, the then supposedly Liberal Premier of the government obstinately refused to apply it.
Those remarks referred to the Hon. Mr. Taschereau who for a number of years refused to avail himself of the benefits of the Old Age Pension Act. It was only in the last year of the exercise of his power, in 1935, that it was taken advantage of. I wish to rectify this misstatement.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member referred to the "supposedly" Liberal government. I have never heard it described as anything else than the Liberal government.


Louis-Philippe Picard: I said "supposedly Liberal Premier".


Gordon Graydon: The same thing would apply to that statement.



FISH PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
' On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Some time ago a statement was issued that British Columbia salmon would be released this year for consumption in Canada. Will the Minister of Fisheries state whether British Columbia herring will also be released for consumption in Canada.


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Minister of Fisheries):: I cannot give the figures at this time, but I can make a return to the hon. member later on if he wishes. We have to ship a large proportion of our herring catch this year to England. I shall give my hon. friend the details later.

War Appropriation-Army



WAR .REFUGEES QUESTION AS TO STATEMENT OF POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the Prime Minister take into consideration the desirability of an announcement to the house and the country of the policy of the government with respect to refugees from Europe? It is a question which is agitating the public mind, and I believe it was the subject matter of a conference recently held in Bermuda. I should like to know Canada's attitude in regard to this matter. I am prompted to ask the question by the fact that a large body of citizens in my city waited upon me when I was home over the week-end to inquire as to the status of this matter, which, I think the Prime Minister will agree, is a most important one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be glad to do
that.



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) inquired) whether Mr. Camil-lien Iloude had applied for release from internment camp to the advisory board which hears petitions concerning' liberations of this kind, and in the affirmative whether a decision had been reached or a judgment rendered, and what were the findings.
On May 15, our department received a letter addressed to Mr. P. M. Anderson, one of our officers, including, among other things, an application from Mr. Houde for an immediate hearing before an advisory board. Notwithstanding the fact that this petition was not submitted in due form or within the time prescribed in section 22 of the defence of Canada regulations, I instructed Mr. Anderson to inform Mr. Houde immediately that we would arrange to have his case studied by an advisory board as soon as possible, and we were able to set the date of his hearing for Friday, May 28, at two o'clock in the afternoon, in Fredericton. The telegram of May 21 which advised Mr. Houde was confirmed by letter on May 22.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 26, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war

Mr. Usley -Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
2. Pay and allowances, $539,730,211.
James Layton Ralston: I should like to give the committee two or three pieces of information which were asked for yesterday. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked how many men had been enlisted in the army from the beginning of the war up to April 30, 1943. In making a reply to this question I want to say that the returns from the first of the year are telegraphic returns, that is, they are from the districts direct to the director of organization; they are not returns made by the records branch. The records branch is always considerably behind, owing to the fact that the attestation papers and all documents have to come to Ottawa and be recorded here. The total figure I have, based on telegraphic returns from January 1, is 469,066. I should like to make one further reservation. I have not had an opportunity to check whether or not there is included in this figure something like three or four thousand men who have been called up under what is known as general order 139. This is an order under which quite a number were called up, particularly at the beginning of the war, to fill special posts.
Another question asked was as to the number who have been discharged, I shall have this information very shortly. Another question was with -regard to the cost of recruiting. I expect to have this during the afternoon. Another question w;as: What is being done to secure the transfer of Canadians serving in the United States army? At the moment I can only make a general statement about this. In the United States, as was indicated in a return filed a short time ago, we have three or four-I have forgotten the exact number- recruiting offices. The arrangement is that there shall be no advertising in the United States for Canadian recruits. When Canadians are called up they go to the induction centre,

War Appropriation-Army

wherever it may be, and they are then informed of the option that they have of enlisting in the Canadian army. I cannot tell my hon. friend at the moment the extent to which Canada is represented at these induction centres, but I shall have this information during the afternoon. In the meantime I am giving him this preliminary information.
With regard to the transfer of Canadians in the United States forces, my hon. friend said that there were some 6,000 Canadian citizens in the United States forces at the present time. There was an exchange of notes between Canada and the United States with respect to the transfer of Canadians in the United States forces to the Canadian forces. The actual carrying out of these transfers has been held in abeyance at the request of the Canadian military attache in Washington. I have a memorandum here on the subject:
The actual carrying out of these transfers has been held in abeyance at the request of the military attache. The transfers were to be carried out "en masse" when the United States authorities had received all the applications and the necessary approvals had been granted. For this reason it seemed desirable not to terminate the individual's right to transfer until such time as it appeared that most non-declarant Canadians in the United States were aware of their right to opt for service in the Canadian army. This was also done with a view to allowing Canadians who had been inducted in the army of the United States, in ignorance of their right to opt, to transfer subsequently to the Canadian forces, if they so desired.
In accordance with the agreement, a circular containing information governing the transfers has been prepared, and a sufficient number of copies, together with application forms, have been forwarded for distribution by the United States authorities to every Canadian serving in the United States forces.
It is impossible to estimate, at the present date, the percentage of the 6,000 Canadians in the United States forces who will transfer to the Canadian forces, as the United States authorities have only recently informed the Canadian citizens of their right to transfer. However, it is understood that the military attache received a considerable number of applications, prior to the distribution of the circular mentioned above.
Transfers will take place at Canadian enlistment centres, in the United States of America, where the applicant will be interviewed by a Canadian officer, and if acceptable, will be discharged from the United States forces, and enlisted into the Canadian forces.


John George Diefenbaker: There was one other question which the minister did not answer.
I asked at page 3059 of Hansard:

Of the three divisions in Canada, would the minister be able to say whether they are up to strength; how many are volunteers available for service anywhere, and how many of them are men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act?
The minister replied that he could not give the strengths of the different divisions, and I can understand that. I realize that to give the strengths would be open to objection, but what I want are the proportions of men available for service anywhere in the world and of those called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act and now in one of the three divisions in Canada. This becomes of great importance in determining the number of reinforcements available for service overseas, and also in ascertaining to just what use the men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act are being put at this time. To answer the question in the way I now suggest would not be subject to any objection whatever, and would give the information I am endeavouring to secure.


James Layton Ralston: At the moment I do not see any particular objection to answering the question. I have not the percentages here, but before I give a final answer I want to consider it further. My hon. friend now has the figures which show the proportion of national resources mobilization men in the Canadian troops in Canada. What he is asking for now is the proportion in a particular operational section, which is a matter to which I shall have to give consideration.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has answered one or two of my questions but has deferred answering some of the others. The first question I asked was for a break-down by military districts of the 125,000 volunteers for the Canadian active army. If my memory serves me, the minister put a table on Hansard showing the break-dowm of the 125,000 volunteers for the Canadian active army by military districts. I asked another question similar to that asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre:	How
many men have been discharged or struck off strength from t'he Canadian active army from the beginning of the war to the end of the present fiscal year?


James Layton Ralston: Those discharged?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, discharged or struck off strength. I understand that there is some technical difference be-

War Appropriation-Army
tween being discharged and struck oil strength. Is there such a distinction? I want figures covering both categories.


James Layton Ralston: I will give my hon.
friend that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to be informed if there is a technical difference between being discharged and struck off strength, and if so, I should like to have the combined figures for both categories. Then with reference to the home defence army, those called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act as distinguished from the Canadian active army-


James Layton Ralston: How did my hon. friend begin his sentence referring to the home defence army?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wanted to know how many men had been discharged or struck off strength from the home defence army since the beginning of the war, and where the men in the home defence army are now serving, say at the end of the fiscal year; and the number of men who are liable for service anywhere.


James Layton Ralston: I gave the last figure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was
68,000?


James Layton Ralston: Yres.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is all right, but I think the minister might give attention to my other questions.


John George Diefenbaker: A number of questions I asked in relation to enlistments and which I regard as important the minister has not yet answered. I want the record of enlistments at the end of each, month beginning with December 31, 1042, at which time, according to "Canada at War"-I have not the exact figure-a certain number of men were enlisted. I want information setting out the number of enlistments month by month since, and also the total number of calls under the National Resources Mobilization Act since December, and the enrolments to date.


James Layton Ralston: The enrolments, not the calls.


John George Diefenbaker: The calls and the enrolments.	,


James Layton Ralston: I do not know what my hon. friend means by the calls.


John George Diefenbaker: The notices sent out.
72537-194}


James Layton Ralston: I do not send out the notices. That is what I was trying to convey yesterday.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We must get it, then, from somebody else in the course of the debate.


James Layton Ralston: I have the total male enlistments of volunteers, according to telegraphic returns, covering the period from January to April, 1943, inclusive. Those enlistments are as follows: January, 111,631; February, 8,927; March, 7,535; April, 6,442; total 34,535. If my hon. friend begins to add those to his figures as of December, he will find there is a discrepancy of two or three hundred odd.


John George Diefenbaker: There is a discrepancy of some 7,000 between the figures now given by the minister and the figures shown in sessional paper 139B.


James Layton Ralston: There will be a discrepancy. Two reasons for the discrepancy have been given to me. One is that the figures for December, 433,000 odd, included between three and four thousand called up under general order 139. The figure I have just given of total enlistments of 34,535 up to April, 1943, is 34,000 odd of actual enlistments. These figures are compiled from telegraphic returns, which are day by day returns, whereas the figures brought down in a return are made up by the records office and are based on documents which have actually come in. If, for instance, you find that for the month of December the enlistments fall off and the records office were figuring the enlistments for January, it would mean that the December documents, of which there were fewer than usual, would be counted in the January month, and that the January surplus should go over into the month of February; I mean, so far as records are concerned. Those are the two reasons given to me as to why there is a descrepancy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, why should that be?


John George Diefenbaker: I brought these
figures up some time ago and the minister thought I was mistaken, but it now turns out that the mistake was not mine; the mistake was in the records, which failed to disclose the actual figure, for the reason mentioned by the minister. *


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid I cannot accept that. It is not a mistake in the records failing to disclose the actual picture; it is the fact that the records for January so far as they are kept by the records office show the actual
War Appropriation-Army

documents which have, come into the office in January and not the actual number of men who have signed enlistment papers in that month; whereas the records kept by the director of organization are from daily telegraphic returns, and show the actual number of men who have signed attestation papers, although their documents will not be received at the headquarters records office until, perhaps, next month. That is the reason.


John George Diefenbaker: But the point I am making is this. I accepted the records as they were brought down, and now, in view of the explanation, the reason for the discrepancy is apparent. But right here on the face of it, and taking the February issue of " Canada at War," the enlistments in the army, according to the official information put out by the wartime information board, are 433,876. On March 31 a return was brought down, in answer to a question of the hon. member for Peterborough West, and it showed that the total number of men enlisted in the Canadian active army as at January 31, 1943, was 437,203, or an enlistment during the month of approximately 3,400, whereas the minister says to-day that the correct figures for that month are in excess of 7,000.
Just one matter more while I am inquiring respecting the enlistments. I should like to know from the minister whether he has ascertained the answer to the question I asked as to the reason for the omission from "Canada at War" of the intake into the armed forces month by month since February. Is the practice of giving the information to be discontinued?


James Layton Ralston: So far as I am concerned it is not to be discontinued.


John George Diefenbaker: It is to be continued?


James Layton Ralston: It was not owing to any action on the part of the Department of National Defence. I have not made any inquiry except from my officers here. The enlistment figures and the intake into the Canadian army, so far as I am concerned, will be available to the public at any time.


Mr. ROSS (Souris) :: Could the minister tell us how many German prisoners were taken at Dieppe? He was going to get us that information.


James Layton Ralston: I have just been inquiring if there are any security reasons why the information should not be given. This is an extract of the report I have:
Navy, 25 ratings; Army, 8 other ranks; Air force, one officer and 3 other ranks; total, 37.
The prisoners belonging to the German army consisted of four gunners. Three of the prisoners of war were of Polish birth. They were mostly poor physique, some having been rejected on this ground for service in the Polish army at the outbreak of the present war.


James Arthur Ross: That is a total of how many ?


James Layton Ralston: Thirty-seven.


James Arthur Ross: That is, the navy?


James Layton Ralston: All. Navy, 25; army, 8 other ranks; air force, one officer and three other ranks.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Were these men shackled, and was it as a result of that that our men were shackled and some are still shackled?


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


Richard Burpee Hanson: Can the minister tell us anything about the present position of this shackling of Canadian prisoner personnel in Germany or by Germany?


James Layton Ralston: That is a matter for the Department of External Affairs, regarding which there have been a great number of communications between the governments concerned, and on which I would prefer not to make any statement other than that made by the Prime Minister.


Thomas Langton Church: 
Mr. ADAMSON:: I mentioned the other nigh't a matter with regard to national service life insurance. I did not have the figures at the time with regard to the American army, but I have them now and I should like to give them to the committee. This is a matter of great importance and I think the minister should have these figures. May I read a short passage or two from "The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science" for May, 1943, with regard to national service insurance:
Opportunity Afforded by National Service Life Insurance
The opportunity afforded to persons in the active service in time of war, and particularly to those with family responsibilities, to purchase up to a maximum of $10,000 of National Service Life Insurance at less than peace-time rates is so wonderfully attractive that all should avail themselves of it to the utmost of their financial ability. The premium rates are low: the cost for $10,000 of five-year level premium term insurance for a person at age 25 is $6.70 per month; at age 30 it is $7.10 per month; at age 45 it is $9.90 per month. With present pay

War Appropriation-Army
rates, every person in the active service should be able to carry the maximum amount authorized.
The insurance once issued by the government can be kept up by payment of premiums, not only during the war but also afterwards; not only while the insured is in the service but also after he returns to civilian life; not only during the five-year term period but also after conversion into an ordinary life, twenty-payment life, or thirty-payment life policy. By insuring himself with National Service Life Insurance, the serviceman immediately creates an estate, payable to certain specified relatives in the event of his death, and through systematic saving he thereby will have acquired, later in life, a valuable financial asset for himself and his family.
I wish to put that accurate statement on the record and suggest again to the minister that this is one of the mpst beneficial clauses in the United States draft act, the allowance of this cheap insurance. It gives the soldier a degree of security, it gives his next of kin a degree of security which is beyond all price, and it frees them from any necessity of appealing to pension boards or other government agencies. It is an absolutely automatic policy granted immediately the soldier becomes a casualty.


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend
is under some misapprehension about this insurance. I did not understand it was automatic. The soldier is entitled to take insurance at these very reasonable rates, but it is not automatic; it is not free.


Agar Rodney Adamson: No.


James Layton Ralston: It is a term policy.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, it is a term policy.
My suggestion was that the same opportunity should be extended to the Canadian army.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend asked me
to get the figures. I thought be meant figures of cost. Of course one cannot get the figures of cost until there is an experience. All one could take would be the commercial rate for a term policy containing the war risk clause and figure out the difference between that and the rate charged under the United States system. That would be the nearest one could get to it in the way of cost.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the
minister later, if he has not the information at hand now, give the house the record of the number of soldiers in Britain who are absent without leave? I suggested to the minister that it was quite substantial, and he rather shook his head, indicating that it was not.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think I said
anything; I said I did not know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister rather shook his head in denial, and I took that to mean that the numbers were negligible. I understand that they are not negligible, that they run into several hundred.


James Layton Ralston: I should rather think
they would.	.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
we should have the number.


James Layton Ralston: I would expect them to
run into several hundred1, out of nearly two hundred thousand men.


Mr. POULIOT:: Some time ago I obtained a clipping from one of our contemporary newspapers, headed, "Rockcliffe Gives Many to Serve Allied Cause," which is very good. The clipping gives a long list of those who- are serving from Rockcliffe, but in that list I find only six privates. Here in one family there is a lieutenant-general, a lieutenant and another lieutenant. In another family there is a captain and a colonel. In another family there is a major and a captain. In another family there are two majors. In another family there is a colonel and an air vicemarshal. In another family there are two lieutenants. In another family there is a sub-lieutenant, a lieutenant commander and a lieutenant. In another family there is a commander and a lieutenant. In another family there is a lieutenant, a captain, a major . and another lieutenant. In another family there is a captain and a lieutenant. In another family there is a flight lieutenant, a captain and a sub-lieutenant. In another family there is a flight lieutenant and a lieutenant-colonel. This shows that Rockcliffe is a nursery for officers.
Last year I obtained a return showing the thunderbolts at headquarters here in Ottawa who have never served in a theatre of war. Lately I have been checking that list, and I find a number of astounding promotions. For instance, last year Colonel T. D. Switzer was over age; this year, according to the telephone book, he is a brigadier. Last year one L. H. Clayton was a major; he has never been in any theatre of war, but this year he is a lieutenant-colonel. Last year one T. A. Johnston was a major; this year he has been promoted to lieutenant-colonel, on account of his great war services in Ottawa. Last year one W. A. Croteau was a major-


James Layton Ralston: Could the hon. gentleman give me the number of the return?
War Appropriation-Army


Jean-François Pouliot: It was No. 350 of 1942. Brigadier Switzer is over age, but Lieutenant-Colonel Clayton is liable and eligible for service overseas whenever required. Lieutenant-Colonel Johnston is liable and eligible for service overseas whenever required.


James Layton Ralston: I may tell my hon. friend he is overseas now.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for the information, but the name still appears in the telephone book; I will strike him off the list. I understand that Lieutenant-Colonel Clayton won his spurs in Ottawa, in the great office of the judge advocate-general.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think it lies in the mouth of my hon. friend to talk about men winning their spurs in Ottawa in war time.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have no lesson to learn from Colonel Ralston in that respect. I admit that he gave fine service overseas, but in the last war I acted in accordance with the law, and I did not buy an exemption from anybody. I have the right here in Ottawa to mention the promotions that are given men who are not in a theatre of war. but who send others to war. I have no lesson in patriotism or in dignity or in loyalty to learn from the minister. I will tell him that for the time being, and I do not want that kind of jeer with regard to members who fulfil their duties honourably. It is not that I was not at war the last time-


James Layton Ralston: I suggest that my hon. friend treat these men in the same way, since they are doing their duty honourably.


Jean-François Pouliot: They may do their duty honourably, but I wonder what they are doing as thunderbolts. This man is in the office of the judge advocate-general; I will come to that in due course. As I was saying, last year there was one W. A. Croteau, who was a major and liable and eligible for service overseas whenever required. This year he is a lieutenant-colonel. Last year one E. Acland was a major; he was also liable and eligible for service overseas whenever required, and this year he is a lieutenant-colonel. That is not all; the list is long. Last year one E. J. H. Morrisey was a major.
I may say that I do not know these gentlemen; I have taken the record I was given last year. Sometimes there is a slight discrepancy in the initials, perhaps a C for a G, and so on.


James Layton Ralston: Does it indicate in what capacity Major Morrisey was employed?


Jean-François Pouliot: He was described as a major last year; he was liable and eligible for service overseas whenever required. This year in the telephone book he is described as a lieutenant-colonel. Then last year there was mention of a Major Thompson; this year the initials are not the same but he is described as a captain. Then last year there was mention of one R. W. Zinkman, who was described as a major, liable and eligible for service overseas whenever required. He lias won his spurs in Ottawa; this year he is a lieutenant-colonel. Then last year one J. L. B. Roop was described as a major, liable and eligible for service overseas whenever required. He has won his spurs at headquarters and is now a lieutenant-colonel. There was also a jump for one H. A. Hunt, who last year was described as a major, liable and eligible for service overseas whenever required; he is a brigadier now. Last year one R. B. Sharpe was described as a major, liable and eligible for service overseas whenever required. He has won his spurs at headquarters; he is now a lieutenant-colonel. There was also one R. McColm, who last year was described as a major, over age. In spite of his old age he has won his spurs in Ottawa for gallantry and is now a lieutenant-colonel. Then there is one A. J. Lemay, who last year was described as a major, liable and eligible for service overseas whenever required. He also has won his spurs in Ottawa, and now is left in Canada.
I started to work on the captains, and I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that the second name, Captain A. Barnes, over age last year, had been promoted to major. Every little bit helps. Now, as to the others who had never been in any theatre of war last year-and there are many of them. There are elderly gentlemen. Some names do not appear in the bulletin. Five names among the colonels, majors, and lieutenant-colonels do not appear in the names I have read, down to the captains. But all the others are still there. They are doing a good fight for the country, in uniform.
Now I will explain to the minister why I talk that way. I do so because in my humble view men in uniform must be soldiers, and a soldier must be one who fights. So long as a man is dressed in civilian clothes I have no objection; but the objection I have is that those men, who do no fighting, receive allowances in just the same way as those who expose their lives at the front. That is my . point.

IFar Appropriation-Army
No member can say that mentioning facts like these is helping the enemy, or that-this is an abuse of prerogative. When the hon. member for St. Paul's asked a question not long ago the minister refused to answer him. But that question was a proper one, and it was along the same lines as the return to which I am referring, which I got last year, and a copy of which I gave to every hon. member. Hon. members were afraid to discuss it. There is no reason to be afraid of it. But with regard to the pay for these fellows, I would say that there are civilians throughout the country who work just as hard as possible to help win the war, and to pay salaries to the soldiers. They Object strenuously to paying allowances to men who are disguised in uniform and who do very little work. That is my point. I have not the least objection to pay and allowances, and allowances which will be sufficient for the dependents, with respect to those who are training in camps in Canada, and who look after the defence of this country, or with respect to those who are overseas. I think it is our duty to look after our soldiers and officers. But I have the utmost objection to pay and allowances to men in uniform who are doing office work. That is my point, and I would ask the minister to answer it. But before doing so, I would remind him that I made criticism of his predecessor, the present Minister of Pensions and National Health, when, some years ago, there was an increase of S500 for the judge advocate general. I think it was not justified. I also have the press clipping of October, 1940, where a similar matter was mentioned. This is a dispatch from Ottawa:
The Minister of National Defence announces that Acting Major-General P. J. Montague, C.M.G., D.S.O., M.C., Y.D., is transferred from the position of assistant to the adjutant-general at general headquarters of the Canadian army in England to that of superior combatant officer and assistant to the judge advocate general at the same general headquarters. This appointment takes effect from July 6, 1940.
Is it because of the transfer of that gentleman to the branch of the judge advocate general that the present judge advocate was appointed brigadier? I would like to know that, and I ask the minister kindly to give me an answer to it.


James Layton Ralston: The answer is no, that the judge advocate general was appointed brigadier long before the appointment of General Montague as judge advocate general overseas.
I am not going to take many minutes, I assure the committee, to answer the attack my hon. friend has made. I just wish to read the expressions he has used with regard



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
to these officers at headquarters: "fighting the good fight for Canada at headquarters"; that they had "won their spurs on the field of Ottawa".
Jean-François Pouliot: I did not mention the field.


James Layton Ralston: And that they were
"disguised in uniform". These are the epithets and descriptions-


Jean-François Pouliot: Designations.


James Layton Ralston: -which my hon. friend- which the hon. member used, in connection with these men at Ottawa. I say to my hon. friend

to the hon. member-that what is set out opposite the names of these officers is absolutely correct. Every one of them who is physically fit is liable to and available for service at any time he is directed to serve overseas. I know of no exceptions. I say this advisedly, that I do not know of any man at national defence headquarters who is liable to and physically fit for service overseas who would not like, if he could be spared, to be serving overseas. That has been evidenced in a great many cases, where we have had the greatest difficulty in persuading men to stay here.
I say to the hon. member that evidently he seeks to turn entirely upside down the whole operation, not only of the army but of the air force and the navy, and of the military organization generally throughout the world. His test is to be that a man must carry a rifle or else he cannot wear a uniform. These men who are serving at national defence headquarters, many of whom are veterans of the last war, are men who could serve as combatant officers if they got the chance. But they are men who are needed-some of them are. needed to make returns such as the hon. member held in his hand this afternoon. They are needed to make returns to this house, and to keep the records which are required in order to supply the hon. member with information which he may use in an attack against them. This gentleman, the hon. member for Temiscouata, has probably used up as much time at national defence headquarters by way of requiring returns as any other two hon. members in the house. But we have supplied those returns as fast as we could. It requires officers, men who understand these things, and who have some connection with the administration, to bring down such returns.
If the hon. member knew anything about the organization of the army he would know that you have to have men to provide accommodation as well as men to provide



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
War Appropriation-Army
[Stage Direction]
training. He would know you have to have men to provide supplies, to provide ordnance and equipment, as well as men actually to shoulder rifles. These are all part of the modern army. The endeavour has been to see to it-and it is being done more in this war than any other-that staff officers are kept in touch with regimental work, and the reverse, namely, that regimental officers are kept in touch with staff work, by making the positions transferable. That has been the practice which has been followed, not only in Canada but overseas as well.
I can only say that I am not going over the names of these officers, because it would be invidious to single out any of them. I think every officer he has named, and every officer he can name who is attached to national defence headquarters, would be only too happy to serve overseas if the occasion came. As a matter of fact I do not know all these officers who have been named, but many of them have been overseas. The hon. member mentioned one who, I happen to know, is overseas to-day.
I say only to the hon. member and to the committee that the duty of Canada is to provide the best from which to support our overseas army, as well as Canadian defence. We are endeavouring to do that by having officers who are properly equipped, who are efficient and who know their work and by giving them experience overseas as fast as we can. Many of those at national defence headquarters have come back from overseas, and many are going overseas. I make no apology. I say that it is unworthy of a member of this house to make the attack which the hon. member has made upon these men who are doing their duty because that is where they have been told their duty lies.
Jean-François Pouliot: I have just one word
to say in reply to the hon. gentleman. I shall use his own slogan and say that I have no apology to make for what I have said. He has no copyright on that slogan, so I shall use it. I want the committee to understand my position with regard to these gentlemen. We have just voted an item of $8,832,687 for civilians in the department. I have no objection to the minister being assisted by civilians in connection with civilian work, but that men who have had no service should receive allowances just because they are in uniform is I think most unfair to the taxpayers of this country. I am glad the Minister of National Defence did not go as far as the Prime Minister went and accuse me of attacking those who

are shedding their blood for their country. I never did that. He stopped within the limits beyond which he should not pass in describing these gentlemen. I did not attack them. I did not say that their work is useless because I do not know what it is. AVhat I have stated is true, that they get their promotions through being in headquarters at Ottawa. I still submit, even though I may be alone in doing so, that it is most unfair to pay allowances to the dependents of men who are in uniform but who are not in the army. That is all I have to say at the moment.


Mr. LOCKHART:: This would seem an
opportune time for the minister to make clear to the committee, and to those on the outside who are interested, the workings of the dependents' board of trustees. I shall cite one particular case for the minister's guidance. A widowed mother has one son serving overseas and another now at Camp Borden. She was suddenly stricken with an acute illness and had to go to the hospital. The young man who is at Camp Borden was considerably worried and harassed over the situation. Accounts totalling $500 or more had accumulated in connection with hospital and medical services. Certain relief has been granted and I understand that fifty or sixty per cent of the amount of the accounts has been paid. However, the hospital in particular is pressing for further payment. It is impossible for a young man earning $1.30 a day to pay the rest of these bills. I should like some indication of the attitude which will be adopted in cases such as these. I know of several, but the circumstances in this case are particularly acute. If the minister could make a statement as to what actually constitutes the power of the dependents' board of trustees it would be most enlightening to many soldiers who have mothers at home and other dependents.
I should like the minister to give information at the proper time as to the pay which is held back overseas. An hon. member this afternoon raised the question of insurance and reference has been made to security after the war. I may be wrongly informed, but my information is that a certain part of the pay of single men overseas is held back and that some of them have accumulated certain sums of money which will be available to them, at some future time. I am informed that they can draw on this money, although I do not knovr for what particular reason, and then I am informed by another source that the money is all held for the soldier until he is dis-

War Appropriation-Army
charged from the army. I think the minister could, in a sentence or two, inform the committee on this matter.
There is another matter about which I should like to inquire and which is indirectly connected with the minister's department. I refer to wartime housing. According to a press clipping, consideration has been given to this matter by the mayors' conference now in session in Ottawa. For the last two years I have been urging that wives of men serving in the armed forces should receive a reasonable share of the accommodation provided by Wartime Housing. We have had a return which indicates the tremendous expenditures which have been made in the large areas. Because of the urgent housing situation in many places, soldiers' wives have been evicted. I know of many cases. They find it almost impossible to obtain accommodation. Apparently this condition is general because I understand the mayors' conference has passed a resolution in this connection. Many cases have come to my attention, and I am sure other hon. members have had the same experience. I have had urged upon me the necessity of the government providing housing accommodation for the wives and families of these men.
Only recently there was an increase in the allowances, and the cost of living has been added, but I feel that further action should be taken, possibly in conjunction with the Minister of Munitions and Supply who is responsible for this housing, to the end that soldiers' wives should not be subjected to this inconvenience and hardship. The minister has said that there is a definite slackening off in the demand for industrial workers and consequently in the larger centres some of the houses which have been occupied by industrial workers should be available to soldiers' wives. The soldiers' wives should be able to secure the accommodation they require and not be forced to live under the conditiops that some of them are living under to-day. These are three matters I had had brought definitely to my attention, and I pass them on to the minister for his consideration, in the hope that he will make a statement which can go out to the country.
I have been asked recently, and over the past year in particular, questions relating to the present se't-up of our army overseas. I am only a layman in these matters and I was not in a position to answer some of the questions that were asked. I submit them to the minister because I believe that information with respect to the army set-up would be of interest to the people of this country generally.
72537-195}
I understand that the Canadian army overseas started out originally under the corps system, one corps at first, then two and perhaps more. Subsequently the minister and his associates decided to form a full-fledged Canadian army. I should be glad if the minister would indicate what additional personnel was required by this change from the corps system to an all-out Canadian army, as it has been described to me. The public would like to know the additional number of officers and ranks and other personnel required by this change. Would he also state the additional cost and the approximate number of promotions and type of promotions entailed thereby? These are matters that have come to my attention in the last few days, on which I should like to have information.


James Layton Ralston: I shall do what I can to deal at once with my hon. friend's points. First, with regard to the case before the dependents' board of trustees, I understand that my hon. friend intends to give me the name. The dependents' board of trustees is responsible for investigating and dealing with cases where there are special difficulties or special hardships. Hospital bills such as my hon. friend mentioned are included in that class.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: In whole or in part?


James Layton Ralston: I have just been asking about that. If there is a general rule at all- I am not sure that the board has a general rule, because when it was set up it was intended that there should not be too rigid rules-I would say that generally hospital bills are paid at the public ward rates, but that is not an inflexible rule. It depends to no small extent on the recommendation which is made by the committee in the particular town or locality in which the applicant is resident. These committees, as my hon. friend knows, are composed of citizens. They are in no way official, in no way connected with the department of defence or the Department of Finance. They are composed of people who have or ought to have and I believe do have intimate knowledge of these cases and sincere sympathy and sound common sense in dealing with them. The payment that would be made in such a case as my hon. friend mentions would have regard to the recommendation which was made by the local committee. The bill might not be paid in full. I am very much interested in looking into this particular case to see if the general principles that I have tried to indicate are carried out.
War Appropriation-Army


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is not the soldier in many instances asked to repay the hospital bill in monthly instalments?


James Layton Ralston: I am informed that there has never been a single case of the kind, that not one soldier has ever been asked to pay back the money. If anybody knows differently I should appreciate hearing about it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I heard differently.


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon. friend mind giving me the case? I do not mind his giving it to me publicly.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I will check on it and let the minister know.


James Layton Ralston: Replying to my hon.
friend's other question in reference to deferred pay, the general rule is that fifty per cent of the pay is deferred when there is no assignment of pay. If there is an assignment of pay the difference between the amount of the assigned pay and the fifty per cent is deferred. Deferred pay can be drawn on, generally speaking, in cases where there are extraordinary events in the family or family difficulties which demand an extra amount of money. Quite frequently I have had applications from soldiers to draw on their deferred pay on such grounds. Illness at home is another ground. Any bona fide case of hardship is given favourable consideration and the deferred pay is allowed to be drawn on in such a case.


Alfred Henry Bence: Is that only with respect to
overseas personnel.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. My hon. friend's
other question was in reference to housing. I can say to him that I have every sympathy with the cases that are put up. A good many cases arise-perhaps they are not such as my hon. friend has in mind-from the fact that the wife or the family of the soldier wish to be with him as long as they can and therefore move from home.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Not in this case. They are right in the place where they have lived all their lives.


James Layton Ralston: I was thinking of Halifax as an example.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: It is nothing like that in this case.


James Layton Ralston: I have had this matter up with my colleague, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, on many occasions. A separation allowance is paid to the wife with the very idea in mind that there will probably be a

separation at some time or other in the soldier's experience, and that there should be some compensation on that account. I quite agree that the payment of separation allowance does not provide a house.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: If the minister will
allow me to interject, the very fact that nearly 1,000 houses have been built under wartime housing indicates the need, and my understanding was that there were to be from fifteen to twenty of these houses built in my own particular locality, but we never got anything like that number. Out of seven or eight hundred built, only ten or fifteen were built in this particular locality, and when a soldier's wife is evicted the minister will appreciate the discontent that is caused among the soldiers.


James Layton Ralston: I was just about to express appreciation of what my colleague, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, has done with regard to housing, but after what my hon. friend says I had perhaps better not be too enthusiastic. I know that in one town 150 have been built by wartime housing, and provision was made for an extra twenty. I certainly would want to take up my hon. friend's case to see if it is not possible to get a number of houses built there. They are generally made available to the municipality on the understanding that the municipality will give first call to soldiers' dependents. I am going to ask my hon. friend to give me particulars of that as well.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Are there other regulations?


James Layton Ralston: There are no regulations; this is a working arrangement. Wartime housing does not apply to soldiers; as my hon. friend knows, it is for the purpose of supplying housing for munition workers who have to live near the plants where they are working. This is only an arrangement between the two departments. Although we are not legally responsible, naturally I feel we should take the greatest interest in helping to provide proper housing for the soldier's wife and dependents. We had a survey made on our own account, apart from the Department of Munitions and Supply and apart from the authorities, in three of the most congested areas, and were able to demonstrate the need and to get a reasonable and I think a sufficient number of wartime houses to take care of serious cases. There are no arrangements other than the arrangements which are made with the municipality whereby the municipality is handed over the houses, and asked to look after them, either through the municipal organization itself or through civilian committees. Very often, as

War Appropriation-Army
my hon. friend knows, welfare committees in the different towns take care of that situation. They are very active in most of the crowded areas that I know about, in endeavouring to see that the soldier's wife is placed under proper housing conditions.
With regard to the army overseas, my hon. friend has asked me a very difficult question concerning numbers. An army is not a fixed establishment. My hon. friend was a little wrong in his history. In the first place the first and second divisions went overseas and were formed into the Canadian corps. Then the third and fifth divisions went over; I do not think the fifth ever went into the first corps, but the second corps was formed and at the same time the army headquarters and organization was authorized as well. Army headquarters and organization involves the provision of staff at army headquarters and also provision for certain servicing units from army headquarters forward to the two corps which may be in the area, and a certain number of combatant units which are necessary and which the army commander may from time to time need to dispose of in one place or another in order to make his dispositions effective. It depends on the operation what units ancillary to the army are necessary. Certain fixed units in the way of supply and ordnance units are necessary, but the combatant units which it is necessary for the army commander to have depend on the type of operation. There never is a time when the army is entirely on its own so that it does not have other troops serving with it and serving it. My hon. friend will remember that in the last war we had a battery of the Lahore division up and down the line serving with the Canadian corps and assisting in relieving us. Of course the same thing would apply to the operation of the Canadian army if it were fighting. There would be other troops on lines of communication. I think I can get the figures of the-number of officers and other ranks for army headquarters and for such ancillary troops as might not have been formed had there not been an army organization. I believe that is what my hon. friend wants.
The hon. member for Peterborough West thought he knew of a case in which men were asked to make repayment of assistance given them by the dependents' board of trustees. I have in my hand a circular sent out by the board, in which it is stated:
Grants made by the Dependents' Board of Trustees are not loans; they are not repayable and they do not affect regular Pay and Allowance cheques. The Dependents' Board of Trustees does not offer "charity": its object is to help dependents in cases of special hardship or emergency.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I am to understand then that the general set-up and the approximate number and approximate cost will be available later with respect to the army overseas.


James Layton Ralston: I think I can give my hon. friend something approximate.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Could I be advised whether emergency accounts will be paid in full under extenuating circumstances, or whether there is some opinion held by the dependents' board of trustees that only a percentage will be paid?


James Layton Ralston: I am advised positively that there is no opinion held by the trustees that in no case shall more than a percentage of hospital bills be paid. The amount depends on the circumstances of the individual case.


Mr. HAZEN:: On Monday evening I
addressed a question to the minister about the number of personnel, civil and military, serving in public relations, and the total of salaries and wages paid them. Has the minister that information available yet?


James Layton Ralston: I have not the information at the moment. The hon. member asked for the number in each salary range both here and overseas, did he not? I do not mean to make him repeat the question, but that is the matter to which he refers?


Douglas King Hazen: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: The information is being tabulated as fast as possible. I thought I had here some memorandum with regard to it. I cannot now make a complete statement about it, and perhaps I better leave it until I have the full information.


Douglas King Hazen: What I had in mind was to ask the minister to put it on Hansard. This item may pass without our having an answer to the question.


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon. friend like it on Hansard? I can make it an order for return. It will be quite bulky.


Douglas King Hazen: No, I do not want it treated as an order for return.


James Layton Ralston: I mean, I will see that it is copied in, or I will put it in Votes and Proceedings.


Douglas King Hazen: There is another item I might refer to under pay and allowances. It is a matter of which I cannot speak with any personal knowledge; it is an opinion expressed by an officer serving overseas with regard to pay and allowances in one particular
War Appropriation-Army

branch of the service, the artillery. Perhaps I can express it best by reading just what he wrote.


James Layton Ralston: This is a gunner, an artillery man writing?


Douglas King Hazen: Yes. He says:
A sore point is what is known as "specialty pay" or pay for the job, specialists, etc., which is O.K. as far as it goes but it does not go far enough. Recently we have been allowed specialists pay for our G.P.O. and 0. Packs., but there are still the qualified signallers who are of a much higher I.Q. than the ordinary run-of-mine man, but once on the job they get bogged down.


James Layton Ralston: He is a little tough on the private.


Douglas King Hazen: He is talking of qualified signallers. Evidently they do not receive any specialist's pay, or they did not at that time. This letter, I might say, was written a month or two ago, or perhaps longer.
In the navy this is acknowledged and they get extra pay for such qualifications. In the signal corps it is the same, hut in the artillery no, although we have signallers who are every bit as good and in numerous cases better than those in the signal corps who get paid for their job.
As a result there is little incentive to become a signaller, and they are the thing that makes an artillery regiment what it is. Without good signallers we are about as useful as we would be without guns, as we have to depend almost entirely on R. Toe and W.T. and not on line as we have not got the time to lay it or perhaps the opportunity in quick moves. It is . . . embarrassing when the wireless does not work.
I bring this to the minister's attention because it is possible there is something in it and it might be to the advantage of the service if these signallers received some additional pay.


James Layton Ralston: The matter has been brought to my attention. I cannot make a statement about it but I know the case exactly because it was discussed with me when I was overseas last time. It was discussed by gunners, and it has been under discussion at headquarters.


Alfred Henry Bence: I do not know whether the matter to which I am about to refer has been brought to the minister's attention but it is of sufficient importance to bear repetition. At the present time there is a great dearth of doctors in Canada and the population generally are not able to obtain the medical assistance they need. I understand it is the policy of the administration to do everything they can to ensure that the men overseas or away from their dependents are not caused any unnecessary worry, and in regard

to social problems and questions of the kind, arrangements are made and if necessary anything that is wrong is straightened out after investigation. It so happens that the civil doctors engaged in Canada are so busy now that they are unable to treat all the cases that are brought to them. On the other hand, the doctors in the army, to my knowledge, have not in many instances enough work to keep them busy. Has the minister seriously considered trying to set up some system under which the doctors in Canada at different points would be available to look after at least the dependents of the men in the service? If in centres where the doctors are not too busy it could be arranged that these people could go to them-I do not suggest that the doctors should make any house-to-house calls, because I do not think they could do that-it would remedy a good deal of the trouble and remove the worry from the soldiers. It would provide a necessary and beneficial form of assistance to their dependents.
Another matter to which I would direct the minister's attention relates to medical categories. I have been informed that a man does not have to have the same high standards in order to obtain an A rating which it was necessary for him to have last year or the year before. Can the minister advise the committee whether or not the medical requirements within a category, such as A, have been reduced, and similarly in connection with B and so on? Will the minister also inform the committee whether or not further consideration has been given to the matter of enlisting more category C men? The C.W.A.C. was recruited for the purpose of allowing men of competent categories to go on active service. There must be a large number of men of C category who want to get into the service and who could be doing the same type of work that the C.W.A.C. women are doing. What is the attitude of the department in that regard? Are steps being taken to utilize these men?
Reference was made to the dependents' boards of trustees. In what manner are these boards set up and, generally speaking, how many people constitute the different boards in various parts of the country?


James Layton Ralston: Answering the last question first, I am advised that there are twenty-one boards set up across the country, and that from six to ten people constitute each of the boards.


Alfred Henry Bence: How are the selections made?

War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: The first selection was made here of the dependents' board of trustees. We endeavoured to get representation through the appointment of people who were experienced in welfare work, who were well known in the community, and who it was thought would command not only the respect but the confidence of those who would be subject to their administration. We endeavoured to get responsible people.


Alfred Henry Bence: Was it done by the dependents' allowance board?


James Layton Ralston: No, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Finance, but mostly the former, had to take the responsibility for the selection of the dependents' board of trustees in the first instance. The first chairman of the dependents' board of trustees was Doctor George M. Weir, a former minister of public welfare of British Columbia; he went across Canada and interviewed those who were interested in welfare matters in the different centres and got together a local committee to deal with the situation in a particular locality. That is, as to the board itself. On the board there is also a representative of the Canadian Legion; there is a representative of the Department of Pensions and National Health or of soldier settlement, and the same representative qualification holds true with regard to the committees themselves. These committees were selected largely by the chairman. I do not think the committees were all completed when Doctor Weir resigned to resume his previous duties, and Mr. Pembroke took over as chairman and completed the organization of the committees, for the most part as they stand to-day. There is a paid secretary and clerical staff in each committee. These are the only people who are paid in connection with local operations, and there are of coui'se technical and clerical staffs at headquarters.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How were the appointments made? I am thinking about the one in military district No. 7, New Brunswick.


James Layton Ralston: Is not that the legion representative?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I cannot remember.


James Layton Ralston: Is that not Major
Winslow?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is he the head ?


James Layton Ralston: No; he is the legion representative on the board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who was the chairman and who was the secretary?


James Layton Ralston: Where?


Richard Burpee Hanson: In New Brunswick.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Gerald Lawson of the Bank of Montreal in Saint John is chairman of the local committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: First class.


James Layton Ralston: With regard to medical categories, my hon. friend asked whether the requirements in category A have been reduced. There was a reduction last year. I filed for the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) a return showing a slight deduction in regard to the qualification for eyes and ears.


Alfred Henry Bence: Has there been any reduc-x tion since that time?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think so. This is the first time this has been spoken of although it has been under consideration. A system is being inaugurated with regard to the categorization of recruits which I would think would have the effect that the hon. member is speaking of, namely, of the army being able to utilize perhaps more of those who have been heretofore rejected on account of category. The categories have been fairly rigid and there are cases, as hon. members know, in which a man is rejected for having, say, two fingers off or something of that kind, which really does not interfere with his soldiering ability but at the same time puts him in a category which is not A. A system has been devised- I think it is called the "Pulhems" system- whereby the categorization depends upon the particular function which is affected by the defect or impairment; certain defects, even though they might put a man in a different category under the present system, would not put him in a low category so far as qualification as a soldier is concerned.


Alfred Henry Bence: For example, a man with
deficient eyesight but with complete correction might be taken on in some clerical capacity?


James Layton Ralston: My only answer to that would be that certainly I should think so. The director-general of medical services has just returned from overseas, where he discussed this whole question with the army commander and the corps commanders at Canadian headquarters, and this system is being adopted there as well.
With regard to my hon. friend's question about taking in more C category men, the
War Appropriation-Army

difficulty in that connection-and one always sees the difficulties-is that we make C category men in the army. That is to say. you take in a B man; if the training is stiff enough he may become a C man involuntarily. Therefore you cannot take in too many C men at the bottom, so to speak; you have to be careful in your selection. The rule we are following just now is that we take in fifteen per cent B1 men. That is as far down as we are going, except in connection with employment for special services, clerical services and sedentary occupations or technical services of the nature indicated by my hon. friend in regard to clerks.
The last' question is a difficult one to answer, because I cannot make any statement about policy. The suggestion offered by the hon. member was very broad; in a word, I think it was that the dependents of soldiers should receive free medical treatment.


Alfred Henry Bence: Not necessarily; but it
seemed to me that some sort of scheme might be worked out. I am not going to enter into any controversy over the question of free medical service; it was just a suggestion that I thought the minister might consider.


James Layton Ralston: I realize that. This matter was before defence council only three weeks ago, not in connection with dependents in the cities or towns but in regard to those in isolated places where it was difficult to get medical assistance. Some conclusions were leached at that time which now are being put into effect; I am afraid I cannot give them offhand, but to some extent at least they will alleviate that situation. I cannot say that the system is applicable generally, but I have made a note of my hon. friend's suggestion to see if any further extension can be made.


Mr. GREEN:: In that connection, has the army made any survey to see whether or not more doctors are being taken in than are required, and also to see whether there is any overlapping as between the army medical service, the naval medical service and the air force medical service? It does seem that in some centres there are more of these military hospitals than are required.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think that would be possible. I thought my hon. friend was going to say there might be more medical officers than were required.


Howard Charles Green: More hospitals and more doctors.


James Layton Ralston: All I can say is that this is a matter in connection with which I think we have taken pretty forward action. We have accepted the offer of the Canadian Medical Association and its associated society in the province of Quebec to participate actively on a board which has been formed and which has been making a survey all across Canada in connection with this very matter. I believe the Canadian Medical association are fully alive to the desirability of conserving the supply of doctors and seeing to it that the armed forces are not unduly served in that respect, at the same time recognizing the need for doctors for the army, the navy and the air force. On that board are the director-general of medical services (army); the medical director-general of the navy; the director of medical services (air); the medical assistant to the deputy minister of pensions and national health; the medical director of the Department of National War Services; a representative of the director of national selective service, and five representatives from the Canadian Medical association, who compose the Canadian medical advisory committee of that association. As I have it here, that makes three service men, three from civilian departments and five from the Canadian Medical association. They are making a survey, which I think is fairly well completed now, into every nook and cranny of this dominion to ascertain not' only the number of doctors available but also the needs of the locality. They take in the medical profession, the nurses and the dental profession as well; they consult with the civilian authorities to ascertain the civilian needs, as well as the army needs, and so on. In connection with that survey they have included the medical profession; all branches of public health- that is the provincial branches as well as the dominion-all hospitals, the nursing profession, dentistry, medical schools, medical research, industry, urban municipal organizations and rural municipal organizations. I need not go into that in detail, but I assure hon. members that the survey is such that it will see to-it that the three services have not more doctors than they need, and at the same time that civilian needs are adequately met.


Howard Charles Green: I think many doctors who were just too young to serve in the last war, as well as others still younger, consider that it is their duty to get into the 'forces, and they may have brought some pressure to bear in order to be allowed to get in. Most of us, I am sure, know of doctors who have had very large practices and who have felt it their duty to go into the service and give up those practices. They go into the forces and then

War Appropriation-Army
sit down with very little to do except fill out a lot of forms and try to get through the red tape, for which the medical services have been notorious. There does seem to be a great waste of the wonderful talent of these doctors, and I would' suggest that the department have a very careful check made to see if that waste cannot be stopped.


James Layton Ralston: I do not want the committee to get that idea or to be too convinced of the truth of the suggestion, which I am sure my hon. friend sincerely believes, that there is a great deal of red tape and a great waste of time in connection with the medical services. Perhaps I am too optimistic; I do not think I am, but I really think the medical services of the three armed services-of course I know more about the army than I do about the others-are in excellent hands; that the organization is such as will produce results; that they are alive to the fact that the supply of doctors, nurses and hospital personnel is not unlimited, and that they must improvise as far as possible. I know there becomes a routine in the army medical services, the same as in any other service; but I am sure if my hon. friend would visit the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps training centre at Camp Borden and see the intensive month which these doctors, old and young, spend there learning something about the army, learning something about their duties, trying to eliminate red tape as much as possible and at the same time to become useful both as regimental officers and as medical officers, he would feel that the army is making genuine progress along the lines he has suggested.


Howard Charles Green: The situation now may be
better than it was, but a year or so ago I knew of one doctor who had to write the words "light duty" and sign his name after the names of eighty patients every day. That is just tommyrot, and things like that should be cut out.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister explain the new system of categorization which has been built up, and which he referred to this afternoon as the "Pulhems" system? Everyone realizes that the old category system had become rather archaic and out of date with the passage of years. I should like an explanation from the minister, if he is able to give it, as to how this system now in effect overseas is designed to improve the man-power situation. The questions I wish to ask the minister are these. Under the new system, when put into effect in Canada, is it the intention to take men into the army who would be unable to serve, except in certain categories.
as office men, and to take in another category in another capacity, and the highest category to serve overseas? This is a tremendous change. I should like to know how it is to be brought into effect, and whether it is to be utilized in so far as the examination of men called up for service or joining voluntarily is concerned.


James Layton Ralston: Well, I certainly stepped
into something when I mentioned this matter, because I must confess to the hon. member that I do not know the details of the working out of the system. I had the director-general of medical services appear before defence council about three months ago, at which time he explained the situation quickly, and outlined the general principles. As I remember it, the categorization was for army service, and not just for physical categorization. And categorization for army service was indicated by the reference to the particular function which might be impaired in respect of a man who is not physically perfect, instead of referring to A, B, C or D, regardless of the function impaired. In other words, it might be the head, the respiratory organs, the limbs or the heart. The categorization refers to the particular function affected. As a result of having such classification, it will be possible to utilize men for the army who formerly were just shut out because they were in the blanket category A, B, or C. The plan is being used, and will be used1 for those who are called up for' service, and the others who have volunteered.
I should like to give the committee more detailed and scientific information; but I simply cannot do so, and I believe I must confess my inability to do so. I should not like to indicate to the committee that I have the scientific ability to describe the system.


John George Diefenbaker: Does it mean that many men who. heretofore, would have been discharged for physical unfitness, and who are now in the service, will be kept on, and placed in work commensurate with their peculiar abilities?


James Layton Ralston: I should think it would mean that. Certainly that is one of the ideas of adopting it. It is a more scientific and precise method of cataloguing men according to their physical abilities, having regard to the needs of the army.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it used in any other army?


Jean-François Pouliot: What would be most scientific would be to put at headquarters those who are unfit, so as to relieve those who are fit That would be scientific.
30S4
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: I can say to the hon. member for Lake Centre it is not in rise in the United States, up to date.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it in Great Britain?


Mr. GRAHAM:: Where did the name come from ?


James Layton Ralston: I think it may fee named after the man who suggested it.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: This afternoon the hon. member for Temiscouata spoke about a return. A question appeared in my name on the order paper of May 13. On that occasion the minister said:
I ask the hon. member to drop the third part of this question. There can be only one reason for that question, namely to draw some inference that these men are not doing their duty.
Then, on May 20 I rose on a question of privilege in regard to the matter. The minister had imputed motives to me. Rising at that time I said-


James Layton Ralston: That was exactly the inference the hon. member for Temiscouata drew from it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That might not be correct, though.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I did not hear what the minister said.


Gordon Graydon: He said the hon. member for Temiscouata and he were in agreement, as usual.


Jean-François Pouliot: I agree with the hon. member for St. Paul's.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I rose on a question of privilege. I am sorry the minister was not in the house at the time, because the last thing I had in mind was to question whether these men were doing their duty. However, in answering my question the minister went off the handle a little bit, I thought, and made a long statement. In answering he might just as easily have given the reason why it was not wise to give the full information that was there.
Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but there was an order which had come down in the name of the hon. member for Temiscouata. I saw no harm in asking the question.
I have in my hand the answer to the question, and I find that on the headquarter's staff here there are 154 officers and 239 men who are medically fit, and between the ages of thirty and thirty-five. In the first place, some of those men very likely have come back from overseas. I do not know about that. Probably they are on the headquarters staff for a definite

reason. Why they are there I think the country should know. Then, I am informed that many of these men would like to go overseas, and get into active service. They are given various excuses of one kind or another for being held in their positions, and they do not like it.
When one finds there are 393 of them who are medically fit, it seems strange that they should be held here. Probably they could be released., and older men take their places. Perhaps they are indispensable. I do not know. But that is a question which might very well be answered. Then, while I am on my feet there are other matters about headquarters' staff I should like to mention. After all, the running of this army, in both Canada and Great Britain, is a pretty big proposition. On the other hand, it is well known to many people that there are a great many square pegs in round holes on the headquarters staff. What is being done to straighten out that condition, and to have it run so as to eliminate rumours? Perhaps it is run as well as it possibly can be; I do not know. Is it operated economically? Are there too many people on the headquarters staff?
After all, we are spending the taxpayers' money. If we get value, we do not mind; but rumours are going round, and I believe the country would like to know more about what is going on there. For instance, how many officers and men are there on the headquarters staff? How many women are on that staff? Who looks after the staff? What kind of supervision is there? Who is in charge of the whole thing-the office manager, or the head of the whole show? Who looks after the proper spending of our money, and sees to it that there is not too much waste? Not only that; who sees that these people have a day's work to do? I have been told by many of them that they do not have enough to do, half the time, and they almost have to make work for themselves. Is there efficiency around there?
These are questions the country would like to have answered. If everything is lovely, then that is fine. But if it is not, something ought to be done to correct the condition. After all, rumours cannot be permitted to circulate without there being some contradiction, or without something being done about the matter.


James Layton Ralston: I cannot give the hon. member the number at headquarters, because I have not the figures before me. First, with regard to officers and other ranks at headquarters between the ages of thirty and thirty-five, I will only say what I said before, namely, that those men are there on orders from their

War Appropriation-Army
senior officers, because it is believed that they are needed there, or that it is desirable to have them there in order that they might get experience for the field. As my hon. friend has suggested, many of them are men who have come back. I do not think that the number is unduly large, having regard to the number of officers we have in the Canadian army.
With regard to the matter of efficiency, all that I can say is that there are two deputy ministers of national defence, Colonel Des-Rosiers and Colonel Currie. I am not going to say anything more about them. These gentlemen are well known to the country and I do not think I have to give them any testimonial. They are efficient, able, conscientious and loyal administrators of the department. They have assistants who are endeavouring to do their level best to see that the business of the department is carried out efficiently. Where efficiency does not obtain, they are endeavouring to see that it does. No one says that everything is lovely at national defence headquarters, but I assure my hon. friend that they are striving to see that it is as near to being 100 per cent efficient as could be expected in an organization which has increased by about one hundred times in three years. I do not think any business organization which increased as fast could obtain 100 per cent efficiency, but they are striving for that.


Mr. McCANN:: A few moments ago the minister referred to the new system of categorizing men. By a strange coincidence, when he was speaking I noticed an article in the Ottawa Journal. As sometimes happens, one gets from the newspapers information which is not obtainable in the house at the moment. I think this article is worth while putting on the record, and I am going to take the liberty of doing that. It reads:
Overseas army has new plan to grade men
A new system of medical boarding of personnel in the Canadian army-designed to simplify grading and as a step in solving the man-powrer problem-is now in effect overseas and ready for adoption in Canada.
Known as the Pulbems system and replacing the old "category" method, its advantages are:
1.	To give a more complete description of the man and thus serve as a more adequate guide to his fitness for the army.
2.	To eliminate a loss of men for Canadian or overseas duty resulting from the previous system of generalized medical grading.
3.	To facilitate placing men in the type of duty they are best fitted for.
The system, which will make the word "profile" as common as the word "category" is essentially simple.
"Pulhems" is made up of the initials of seven human factors in the selection of a man. These
initials stand for physique, upper body and upper limbs, locomotion or lower limbs, hearing, eyesight, mentality and emotional stability.
In each of the seven initials there will be gradings from one down to five. Below the rating of four, in any one of the seven groups, will mean that a man is not acceptable for service.
Thus the "profile" will replace the old A, B, C, U and E categories. A glance at it will give a complete picture of a man's physical fitness and tell what his individual equipment and deficiencies are.
Not only will the selection be more thorough in accordance with modern medical science and education, but the necessary weeding out of men already in the army in selection for overseas service will be considerably simplified and reduced.
The Pulhems "profile", as it is called, shows the man's fitness for military duty and indicates where that fitness is most effectively applied.
For example, a man might have a good physique and yet have a heart weakness or foot trouble which would bar him from service. Similarly, he might be physically in superb condition for one form of duty in the army and yet his stability might indicate that he is more ably equipped for another type of service.
I believe that this new method of categorizing men as to medical fitness has a distinct advantage over the system previously used. It outlines in detail the several ways by which the medical officer would' classify a man as to physical fitness. One of the difficulties has been that one medical man would see a physical ailment in ^ certain light and classify it differently from what another medical practitioner in another place would do. This new system provides greater uniformity. Another matter that will be taken into account under the new system is the type of work to which a man will be assigned. A man might be quite all right in an office but no good at field work. My submission is that entirely too many men have been rejected because their medical category was not high enough. If you look at those engaged in industrial life and eliminate those wearing glasses, you end up by having very few people. Many of these men can be used in some types of army service just as well as they are used in industrial life. A great number of young men have a desire to serve their country but are barred from doing so through no fault of their own, on account of some minor physical disability. I think this new system will clarify the whole situation and will help to standardize in a desirable way the methods of examination and selection.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the system being followed with respect to the medical examination of "R" recruits? The minister will recall that at the beginning of the war a circular was sent out stating that
War Appropriation-Army

each man was entitled to go to any registered medical practitioner for examination. I think the experience was that this was a mistake, and I shall not say anything further about that. Then a new system was established. I understand that in each military depot regular boards are set up, made up for the most part of officers of the army medical corps. The result is that many local doctors are not being used.
I think this system has a distinct advantage. I would direct the attention of the minister to protests which have been made in various places against the adoption of this method. I hope the minister will not back down on its use. I call to mind a report in a French-language newspaper published in Quebec city which gave the details of what had occurred in a meeting of the city council. There had been a protest by one alderman against doctors being brought in from outside to carry on these medical investigations. I hope the minister will uot be influenced by local politicians in connection with this matter. Will the minister tell us the present position with respect to medical examinations, having regard to the fact that the earlier system was evidently found to be wanting?


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend is mixed up as between two jurisdictions. The service he speaks of, the examination by a civilian doctor, was an examination which was conducted under the Department of National War Services, and, later, under the Department of Labour, in order to ascertain whether a man should be called up for examination by an army medical board. I would much prefer to have the Minister of Labour speak on this . point, and I shall only say what my own impression is. I should like to leave it to the Minister of Labour, because I haVe no doubt that the matter will be discussed when he is before the committee. My impression, however, is that my hon. friend is wrong; that what might be called a screening examination by the civilian doctor has not yet been entirely done away with.


James Joseph McCann: That is still carried on.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. As I understand it, a civilian doctor examines the man and reports the results of his examination to the Department of Labour or to the registrar of the board in the locality in which the man is called up. If the man is reported on favourably as being within a medical category which would enable him to be accepted into the army, a notice is sent to the man to appear before the army medical board for examination.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is to say, if the examination is unfavourable in the first instance?
Mr. RALSTON; No; if it is favourable, favourable to the army. I mean, if the man has been found to be physically qualified by the civilian doctor's examination. If, on the other hand, the civilian doctor finds that the man is not physically fit or does not come within a high enough category, the man returns home and the civilian doctor reports the results of his examination to the registrar of the board. The board-I think I am right about this-has a medical revision officer whose principal job, or at least one of whose jobs is to examine these reports and, if he considers that there is a possibility that the man might be passed by the army medical board, notwithstanding the results of his examination which the civilian doctor has reported, the man is ordered up for examination by the medical revision board, which is composed of civilian doctors.


James Joseph McCann: Three.


James Layton Ralston: This is still under the Department of Labour, not defence. If the medical revision board finds that the man was wrongly classified by the first civilian practitioner, the registrar orders the man to appear before the army medical board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So that there is a check-up on the local physician?


James Layton Ralston: Yes; there are really three examinations. If the man is turned down by the civilian doctor, there is an examination by the medical revision board; and if the man is passed by the medical revision board, he goes to the army medical board in the regular way.
My hon. friend speaks of the organization of the army medical board. There were a great many boards throughout the country. It was a tremendous strain on the medical profession to supply men enough and have them sufficiently au fait with the medical regulations to make examinations which would stand up. It is a tremendous work that has been done, and on two or three previous occasions before the committee I have indicated the efforts made by the director-general of medical services to see that these boards were standardized and located in convenient positions so as to save transportation expenses. The system we are endeavouring to inaugurate is that at the

War Appropriation-Army
depot or headquarters-I do not recall1 which it is in Fredericton; I am speaking of my hon;. friend's own province-


Richard Burpee Hanson: At the depot.


James Layton Ralston: -there is there a five-man board composed of army medical doctors and specialists of all types, so that instead of sending a man to see a T.B. specialist or a heart man or some other specialist, the board can deal with him as nearly as possible at one continuous sitting, and they endeavour to see to it that when a man is accepted into the army his examination will have been such that he will be able to stay in. We have had from 70,000 to 80,000 discharges altogether, not all medical discharges, but that many altogether.
On the other hand, we have had bitter complaints. Someone has suggested-I think it was the hon. member for Renfrew South -that the army doctors had been too strict; that in the last three months or more they had turned down nearly 50 per cent of the men. That is what gives rise to the criticism which is made not only by the hon. member for Renfrew South but by the public generally, and particularly by my colleague the Minister of Labour who is calling these men up and saying: You will not take them when you get them-you are too choosey.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is not the reason for
so many turn-downs that the vast majority of physically fit men have already been enrolled?


James Layton Ralston: No; there ought to be men physically fit in these age classes. I have some figures from south of the line which indicate that we are not much stiffer in our physical examinations than they are there. I am saying that, on the one side, there is the complaint that men get into the army when they should not, and therefore there are many discharges, and on the other hand there is the complaint that the army medical boards are too stiff and that we are wasting money by having so many turn-downs.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The rejections are increasing; they are up to 50 per cent?


James Layton Ralston: They are increasing over
last year.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Over the long-term
period, I mean?


James Layton Ralston: I think they are increasing over last year.
To come back to the remarks of the hon. member for York-Sunbury, what we are endeavouring to do is to have medical
boards that we can pretty well stand on, so to speak, and we want them imbued with the idea that we do not wish to turn down a man who will make good in the army in some position under this new system. We think we shall get better results by doing it in that way.
I want to thank the hon. member for Renfrew South for having so clearly explained the system regarding which I had only the barest outline. I appreciate his having put on record the statement which he has made; and if the hon. member for St. John-Albert were here, who is so interested in the directorate of public information, I would point out that the hon. member for Renfrew South has been able to give the committee more information on the subject than even the minister.
I also want to withdraw humbly and apologetically the indication that I gave, in answer to a seductive question from the other side, that Mr. Pulhems was the man who invented this new system.


John George Diefenbaker: It was not intended to be seductive, but rather to elucidate.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: This afternoon one or two subjects have been reviewed which I had intended to bring up under other items, but apparently they come under item 2.
The first is with regard to doctors in the army. Notwithstanding all the assurances the minister has given us, my information from doctors both in and out of the service is that a great many doctors are still being employed in the army on work that does not require a graduate doctor. I have heard of doctors who are required to put in their days on what is pretty much routine work which could just as well be done by medical students or others who are not graduate doctors. In view of the great need of doctors at the present time, I suggest to the minister that every possible means be taken to see to it that every doctor in the armed forces is used in essential medical services. I have on my desk a request from a very large community which is being served by only one doctor and which was formerly served by five doctors, They have asked me to request the minister or the department for the return of one or two doctors from that community who are now in the armed services. There is a real need to conserve to the best possible advantage what medical personnel we have in the army.
Concerning housing for soldiers' wives and dependents, I do not know what the minister or his department can do, but it seems to me
War Appropriation

Army

that there should be, in the larger communities particularly, some one of the numerous government agencies in those communities whose responsibility it shall be to assist soldiers' wives and dependents in securing housing. In Toronto and greater Toronto the situation is desperate. There is no government agency whose responsibility it is or that has any authority or power to assist these people in securing homes. The situation there is peculiar. We have no Wartime Housing. The people who work in different industries come to those industries from all parts of the city; and, because there is no demand on the part of a great number of employers from one industry, Wartime Housing refuses to give the city war-time houses. The result is that war workers, by reason of their reasonably better pay, are crowding into all parts of the city; soldiers' wives and their dependents are being crowded out, and there is no one responsible for looking after their interests. I suggest that some arrangement be made with other departments of the government to enable the wife of the soldier who is serving overseas to secure adequate accommodation for herself and her family.
I have here one instance. A man returned from overseas and was, I think, a month in Canada. While he was away, his wife had been unable to get a home. She had to separate the family, part of the family living with some relatives, others living with others. He came home just before Christmas. He appealed to me to see if I could find a home in which he could bring his family together in order that he might spend Christmas with them. I applied to every welfare agency in the community, and between them they found it impossible to secure a home in which that man could gather together his family and establish them before he went overseas.
I had another instance, of a soldier's wife, with two children, who was ejected from her home and the house sold by permission of the court. No single agency in the city or suburbs could find a home for that woman. Finally, although she was living in the suburbs of Toronto, she and her children had to move into a room over a downtown restaurant, where, in order to reach her home, she had to take her children through the kitchen of the restaurant.
These are only indications of the situation in Toronto and possibly in other large centres. Certainly, anything that the minister can do in cooperation with other departments of government to relieve that situation will add to the building of the morale of the men in our armed forces and of those in our communities who' want to support them.

I should like to ask a further question, regarding soldiers' pay. The minister outlined yesterday three conditions on which the increase in pay is granted. In the case of soldiers overseas who did not take basic training, are they required, in order to get that increased pay to take some form of basic training? Are any soldiers overseas debarred from that increase on account of inefficiency? It seems to me that, once a man has reached the stage where he has been drafted for overseas, he should, on the ground of efficiency, be automatically accepted for the increase in pay. So far as soldiers overseas are concerned, the public of this country-I cannot speak for the armed forces, but this is true of any persons with whom I have conversed-would support the department in making that increase automatic, without stipulating the three conditions which the minister laid down yesterday.
I do not know the feeling of other hon. members in regard1 to the matter, 'but it seems to me the minister would facilitate discussion of these estimates if we could have something by way of a breakdown in advance of the different estimates. If we could have only one mimeographed sheet, for instance, covering one or two of the headings in the summary, it would help. We have spent nearly a week in discussing two items, and I think most of the time was spent because hon. members are trying to get information. We do not know enough about the workings of the department to ask intelligent questions about expenditures which are involved in these large amounts. I fail to see how any hon. member can vote intelligently on a $539,000,000 item which is set forth in only three words, and we shall have to wait two years before we get any details of these items. Two years from now they will be recorded for us in the auditor general's report.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is really nothing in the auditor general's report.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I suggest that the minister give us some break-down. There must have been one prepared by his department in order to arrive at these totals. I submit it would help hon. members in the discussion if, even though the notes were meagre, they could be provided in mimeographed sheets for us to examine.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I wish to ask the minister something in connection with the method of medical inspection. We have read from time to time many press reports-one quite recently -in reference to the number of soldiers who have been discharged from the army. I

War Appropriation-Army
believe the last report I saw stated that from sixty to seventy thousand had been released from the army.


James Layton Ralston: That is about right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is away up high, anyway; and I have been wondering how in the world such. a large number of men, many of whom must at the time of enlistment have been unfit, got into the army. I had occasion to see three young men who had been called into the army recently, and from my survey of them I made up my mind that "the halt, the maimed and the blind" as well as the fit are now being called in.


James Layton Ralston: The what?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The halt, the maimed and the blind are being called into the army.


James Layton Ralston: I was just saying the other way about. I would say it was the other way about. The complaint is that we are too choosey in rejecting men.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will give a description of these three cases. One was a man of thirty-eight years of age, I believe, who had. flat feet. I have known him for many years, and so far as I have known he has been quite unfit for army work. I believe that when he was first called he was placed in category C2. I thought that was a low category.


James Layton Ralston: Did he have special training for any trade?


John Ritchie MacNicol: No. He and his mother have been operating a clothes cleaning and pressing business for many years. If he has to close up the store, I do not know what the mother will do. Looking him over, I wondered how he got through any medical board. Another young man I know of has had a cracked kneecap, I was told, for a long time. He cannot walk a block without having to sit down. He is not in any shape to march, and after he was put into the army I said to him, "What are you doing?" He replied, "I am in one of the hospitals and my duty is to direct people where to go." Well, a fourteen year Old girl could do that. This man, I suggest, might have been left at home. His father is about eighty, and they have been operating a butcher shop and food store for the last thirty-seven years, but though he is the only one who can help his father he has been called into the army. And, as I was told, he has a cracked knee cap. I am wondering if the medical men are strict enough in their examinations. The minister says that the complaint is that the inspection is too rigid, but these two cases I have mentioned-I will not discuss the third-would seem to indicate that
the examination is not strict enough. How in the world was the first man passed when he was put into category C2 the first time? I am only reporting what I have been told.


James Layton Ralston: Has my hon. friend the name?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, I will give it privately. I should like the minister to give some reasonable excuse for the enlistment in regard to some 60,000 or 70,000 men on whom the government has spent a great deal of money, maybe millions in the aggregate, who are now discharged from the army before taking part in the war at all. Many of them came back from England. I know a number myself, and discussing the matter with them I have been told that their medical inspection was more or less a joke. I should like someone to defend the physical examination of these men.


Mr. GILLIS:: There are a few questions I wish to ask the minister. I desire to get some information with regard to the machinery of the dependents' board of trustees. What does it consist of in the different provinces? How many are there on the committees functioning in the different provinces? If the minister has given that information, I shall be able to get it.


James Layton Ralston: In reference to the questions raised by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) with regard to doctors, he has spoken of a particular community which is sorely in need of medical assistance and, second, he states that he has had conversations with men in and out of the service who think the doctors are not employed to the best advantage. He has not made that as a general statement, but he did say, I understood, that there are medical men who are employed where men without medical qualifications could be used. That could only occur at headquarters, because we must have a medical doctor with the unit. I have taken this matter up with the medical people so far as the establishments are concerned; that is to say, how many doctors should we have in connection with a certain formation or unit. They say that we have to have the same number of doctors as the British have, inasmuch as we shall be associated with them, and approximately the same number as the United States. It is difficult to cut down the establishment of doctors in field units or in general hospitals, and by field units I mean regimental or combatant units. In the second place there are the field ambulances, casualty clearing stations, general hospitals behind and base hospitals which must be taken care of. You cannot cut these down The only other place where my hon. friend seems to 'think there is a misuse of medical
War Appropriation-Army

man-power would be at headquarters, perhaps at camps, training centres and places of that kind. But there is no establishment there to compare with the establishments overseas, and we ought- to be able to serve them with the fewest possible doctors consistent with satisfactory service and the proper maintenance of health. However, I have made a note to examine fully into that.
With regard to housing, there is not much I can 'add. I have been listening to hear of actual oases. My hon. friend has given two concrete and appealing cases. He has referred to the man who came to gather his family for Christmas and the man who had to take his family through a restaurant kitchen in order to get a place in which they could live. That does not sound right to me and I shall look into it. With regard to pay overseas, my hon. friend suggests that the efficiency requisite for overseas pay be cut out. I suppose what he means is that it be presumed that a man who has gone overseas-


Joseph William Noseworthy: For increase of pay.


James Layton Ralston: The efficiency test was for the purpose of basic training. In some units overseas there has been a test of that kind, not to require them to take the full four months basic training but to get the condensed course of which I have spoken.


Gordon Graydon: Does that efficiency test apply to all ranks?


James Layton Ralston: It only goes up to lance-corporal. It is only to qualify for increased pay.


Gordon Graydon: Everyone is presumed to be proficient if he is above a lance-corporal?


James Layton Ralston: He does not get any more pay on account of efficiency. The fifty days condensed course is for the purpose of giving qualification in basic training. I know one does not wish to plead that there is only a small number affected, but the fact is that the number is only small. I gave it yesterday. Between eighty and eighty-five per cent of a cross-section which was taken have already been awarded increased pay. I do not think there are very many who are being deprived of it.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The minister would not say that the fifty days of basic training are given expressly for the purpose of qualifying these men for increased pay?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. You take the staff of the corps of militia staff clerks, or people like that, who have not been given the basic training. It is useful, as my hon. friend knows.

He and I know the situation that arises when the cooks, the batmen, the clerks and all the rest go up to the line, and it is desirable that they all have some basic training.


Joseph William Noseworthy: That is my point; it is desirable for army efficiency.


James Layton Ralston: That is right.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. REID:: Mr. Chairman, there is one matter I should like to draw to the minister's attention, but before doing so may I outline the circumstances with respect to one case, although I realize particular cases should be left to some other time, rather than be discussed in the committee stage. However, this afternoon a great deal of discussion centred round the medical inspection of men before enlistment.
A case which is causing some concern and wonderment in British Columbia was drawn to my attention. It is the case of a man who applied for hospitalization or treatment for his leg. It so happens that- this man was taken into the services, despite the fact that he has a wooden or artificial leg. Upon making application for treatment for his leg he was denied such treatment, and so far as I know has been denied treatment for that part of his leg ever since. He belongs to the signal corps of the active service forces.
He told me that the doctors knew he had a wooden leg, because that fact was stated on his papers, and that there was nothing hidden about the fact that he had an artificial leg. When he outlined the case to me I agreed with him that if they took a man into the active service, knowing he had a wooden leg, they had every right to attend to his request. That man has been fighting for special treatment for that part of the leg remaining. I understand the leg was lost while he was occupied in industrial life before entering the forces. I am wondering, and other people are wondering why a man of that class would be accepted into the services. He gave me his name and regimental number.


James Layton Ralston: I am wondering that, too.


Thomas Reid: I am told he was in the signal corps.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Was he medically examined?

War Appropriation-Army


Thomas Reid: Yes; he was medically examined. His statement is that in his military papers or history is recorded the fact that he has a wooden leg.	[DOT]


Gordon Graydon: Did he tell the doctor that?


Thomas Reid: Yes. He said, "You will find this information in my military papers. I did not conceal my disability, at all; and so I think I am entitled to treatment." On hearing his story I felt he was entitled to hospital treatment for his leg, particularly if he was taken into the army upon disclosure of the fact that he had a wooden leg. I am asking that every consideration be given to this man's appeal.


Gordon Graydon: In view of the widespread interest there will be in such a case, would the hon. member tell me how long this man was in the army before the fact that he had a wooden leg was discovered?


Thomas Reid: It was discovered before he went in.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Was the treatment necessarily treatment for the leg, and if so, which leg?


Thomas Reid: It appears that his left leg had been amputated above the knee, and that it was causing him a great deal of agony and suffering. The wooden part of the leg, or whatever the artificial limb was made of, was causing the stump of his leg a great deal of trouble, and required treatment.


Mr. GRANT:: Poor circulation?


Thomas Reid: It was very poor circulation, I will tell jmu. We in British Columbia are also wondering what attitude the authorities will take when this man is discharged from the army. The stand was taken by the hospital board that he had not received his injury in military service. His reply is, "I know I did not; I received it in civilian life, but you took me into the army, knowing I had this disability."


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps I did not understand the hon. member's answer. Do I understand that the man was in the army?


Thomas Reid: He was in it, yes. The hon. member asked me how long the man had been in the army before it was discovered that he had a wooden leg, and I said it was discovered before he went into the army. That was my answer.


Gordon Graydon: I did not make my question clear. How long was he in the army before the authorities finally discharged him on this account?


Thomas Reid: He is not discharged yet; he is still there.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Worse and worse!


Thomas Reid: Yes; he is still there and, so far as I know, he is not yet discharged. Meantime he is demanding treatment for his leg.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The wooden one or the other one?


Mr. PERLEY:: Which leg?


Thomas Reid: That is what I am pleading for to-night.


Ernest Edward Perley: The leg, or the stump?


Thomas Reid: Well, the stump of the leg. It is clear to anyone that he would not want treatment for the part of the leg which was gone. That would be too silly. He is asking for treatment for the part remaining, because it is causing him a great deal of discomfort. He told me he had to ask for a few days off, on account of the pain that this part of the leg was causing him.
I thought at first he was just joking about it, but he assured me that he was not. I said, "Well, why would they accept you in the forces?" His reply was, "I can do signalling, the same as other men. I want to do everything I can." I would not say the leg is wooden, but it is artificial.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: What rank does he hold?


Thomas Reid: He is a lance-corporal, with one stripe. He is advancing. Many men with two legs have not done as well.
Mr. DOL'GLAS (Weyburn):	Sometimes
they have wooden heads, but they are of higher rank.


Thomas Reid: You would not have to go outside the House of Commons to find that. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to answer any question, so long as they come one at a time, but not a dozen at a time.


Mr. NIXON:: How long was he in the army before he made application for treatment?


Thomas Reid: It was six months, I believe, before that portion of the limb began to trouble and pain him. It was then that he applied for the treatment he was refused.
There is another matter I would draw to the attention of the minister. Perhaps I should first state the case briefly, but before stating it may I point out that I believe there is in -this case a principle at stake. This is the case of a married woman who was first of all working in an aeroplane factory in Vancouver, and whose husband enlisted in the
War Appropriation-Army

air force. She informs me that while she was employed in the aeroplane factory, and her husband was in the air force, she was in receipt of dependents' allowance. Then she said, "I thought I would respond to the call for women in the armed services, and so I joined the women's corps of the air service. Immediately upon joining, my dependents' allowance was cut off." I have a question to ask on that point, and I would ask the minister to comment upon it. She said, "While X was employed making aeroplanes I was receiving fifty cents an hour, and still received dependents' allowance, but when I joined the air corps"-receiving, I think, about ninety cents a day-"the dependents' allowance was cut off."
I suggest that the principle of the payment of dependents' allowance should throughout remain the same, even if a woman leaves coim mercial employment and joins an active service women's corps. I should like the minister to make some comment on this case. If the statement made by this lady is correct, and I have every reason to believe that it is, there would seem to be something unfair, and a principle at stake. To my mind she should be entitled to a dependents' allowance, no matter where she is.


James Layton Ralston: In reference to the first case, if my hon. friend mentioned it to me it has escaped my memory. I can deal with it only when we have the file. There must be some circumstances in connection with it with which I am not familiar and regarding which I do not propose to speak until I have the facts. If my hon. friend will give me the name and number, I shall try to get the facts to-night.


Gordon Graydon: Has the minister not come across similar cases?


James Layton Ralston: No; I have not.
With regard to the other case, the provision of the pay and allowance regulations is that when the proposed recipient is a member of the defence forces of Canada a dependents' allowance is not granted. As a matter of fact, these cases are under consideration now and a recommendation has been put forward with regard to them.


Gordon Graydon: The question raised by the hon. member for New Westminster prompts me to bring a matter to the attention of the minister at this time which I consider is the appropriate time. This matter was referred to when the minister was making his opening statement. I refer to the difference in pay to those serving in the Canadian Women's Army Corps and those serving in the Canadian army.

The argument is advanced, particularly in labour circles, that equal pay should be received for equal service as between men and women. In ^iew of the widespread interest which has been shown in this differentiation in pay as between men and women in the forces, perhaps the minister would give the committee some indication as to why the women in the armed forces of Canada are paid less than the men. I should like to have some explanation as to why this rate has not been increased.


James Layton Ralston: I dealt with this matter the other evening when answering the hon. member for North Battleford. I indicated at that time that I could only speculate as to the basic reason why the women in the Canadian Women's Army Corps, the women's division of the air force, and the navy received less pay than the men. It begins, I think, with the organization of the Auxiliary Territorial Service when it was provided that they should receive only a portion of what was paid to the men. My hon. friend asks me why. Here again I can only speculate. I would suggest to him, as I suggested to the hon. member for North Battleford, that while there are certain services in the army, navy and air force which women can perform, they are not in the combatant services and therefore are not required to do the same type of work as the men.
I may say quite frankly to the committee that with regard to trades pay, which is an additional pay, I have felt that if a woman is following the same trade as a man, there should be equal trades pay for her. I may say that the matter of both basic pay and trades pay has been the subject of consideration by an interdepartmental committee and by the defence council, and is now before the government. I do not think there is anything I can add to that because the matter is under active consideration at this moment.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to ask the minister a question concerning the matter of the insurance principle for pensions for those who volunteer for active service. There seems to be a distinct difference between those who are serving in Canada and those who have gone overseas. On several occasions the minister has put up a sound argument as to why his headquarters staff should remain where they are. He has contended that they must obey orders. Men, once they have volunteered for active service, must go where they are ordered to go by their superior officers. I know of many instances, but I have in mind one in particular of a young chap who volunteered and served on the west coast for over a year. He was admitted as an A1 man, and he believed himself to be perfectly

War Appropriation-Army
fit to go anywhere. He became a casualty as a result of training, and he is finding it difficult to prove his case. He is certainly in a bad condition.
The hon. member for Brantford City pointed out that it is possible that some of our troops will be fighting in the Aleutian islands or Alaska. It seems to me that if a man offers himself for active service and becomes a casualty while serving in Canada, he should be placed on an equal footing with the man who serves overseas. If anything happens to a man in industry he is taken care of, and properly so, by the workmen's compensation act, despite the fact that while working he may have received considerably more remuneration than is received by a soldier. I know the ministers have offered excuses in past years, but I have never yet been able to get it clear in my mind. This principle prevailed from approximately the outbreak of the war, until May, 1940, when an order in council was passed. I wonder if the minister and the government could not see fit to have this principle apply to all those who are on active service without having a deadline of service overseas?


James Layton Ralston: This really is not in my
bailiwick.


James Arthur Ross: It is closely linked
with the minister's department and the Department of Pensions and National Health.


James Layton Ralston: Whether or not the committee thinks it is sufficient, the reason for the line of demarcation is a simple one. As the committee knows, the so-called insurance principle is much wider than the principle of any other pension legislation. Under the insurance principle, if a man is disabled on service he is entitled to a pension. His disability may be entirely removed from army service; it might be something that would have happened to him in civil life, but if he is on service he would be entitled to a pension. I think the reason for the introduction of the insurance principle was that so many men were finding it difficult to prove the inception of their disability.
As the hon. member well knows, in the stress and strain of active warfare a man might report to a regimental aid post, and there would be no opportunity to make a record of what he had been treated for. He might get as far back as the field ambulance post without any report being made. Records might be destroyed, and the result was that many times it was difficult for a man to prove his case. He would have to rely on the evidence of comrades, who perhaps were not there
or who perhaps had become casualties themselves, in order to show the inception of his disability. Because there might be difficulties in getting evidence or there might be lack of evidence, due to no fault of the soldier himself, it was felt that, rather than putting on the soldier the burden of proof, the so-called insurance principle should apply and that if he had incurred disability under those conditions it might be presumed that the disability was due to service. That is the line, I understand, taken in the United States pension act. The provisions of their act are that the disability must be shown to have been suffered in the line of duty-I think those are the words of the act-and that is the principle which is adopted in regard to pensions in Canada. Here the chances are very much less of there being the same confusion and the same handicaps in the way of producing evidence with regard to the circumstances under which a man received his disability, and it was therefore felt that the principle of "in the line of duty" or "attributable to service" might properly apply. Veiy briefly, those are the reasons which I think cause the differentiation between the two classes of service. Under the act as it is now, I understand that there is a provision whereby any place can be declared a theatre of war.


James Arthur Ross: I presume the pension board have some discretionary powers provided it can be proved that the disability occurred in actual training.


James Layton Ralston: It is attributable to service if it can be proved that the disability was incurred generally in connection with training. But if it was purely a civilian accident or something of that sort which the man incurred in Canada, he is not pensionable.


Mr. NEILL:: Suppose he takes T.B.?


James Layton Ralston: It would be pretty easy,
I think, for a man to show whether he took T.B. in Canada while on service and that he had reported it to his medical officer. The records would be there to bear out that the inception of the disease was in Canada and while he was on service. He would have full evidence with regard to the conditions under which he worked and as to his condition when he entered the army. It would therefore seem quite easily possible for the medical officer to show whether or not it was incurred in the line of duty, to use the expression in the United States pension act. It would be rather more difficult overseas, because very often a soldier did not report to his medical officer. It was sometimes considered not good soldiering to report, and the man would fight
War Appropriation-Army

out the disease and only report to some medical officer when it was too late. The medical officer might subsequently become a disability himself or be killed; the field dressing station at which he worked might be blown up. In such a case the man is given the benefit of the doubt and the disability is regarded as attributable to service.


James Arthur Ross: I agree with the
minister as far as he goes. But I have one specific case of a man who was accepted as Al. He trained for over a year, was promoted and was certainly a good soldier. When he went into hospital they told him that he had this condition when he entered the army. He himself did not think so, but believed that it was the result of an accident in training. I have heard of many cases of a like nature and it seems to me that some insurance principle should apply for the benefit of these chaps, and that the onus should not ibe on them to prove their case.


James Layton Ralston: I think that is a matter of administration rather than of legislation,


James Arthur Ross: That may be.


Clarence Gillis: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. My point of order is this: Is it permissible to discuss pensions under the estimate now before us? If it is, then this group is quite prepared to carry on a thorough discussion of that question. But I cannot find on the printed sheet before us any item under which pensions can properly be discussed. I would like your ruling, Mr. Chairman. If you are not going to limit the discussion to the item before the Chair but are going to allow a discussion of pensions on this item we are prepared to discuss them.


James Layton Ralston: Before you give your ruling, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I prefaced my remarks by saying that I did not think pensions were within my bailiwick, meaning within my jurisdiction. I do not think the question could properly be discussed on this particular item or on any of the items now before the committee. But I answered the hon. member's question out of courtesy. He rather, pressed that the subject was not very far away from soldiering, and of course it is not. But many subjects which affect soldiers do not come within the Department of National Defence, and I think this subject is one of them.


James Arthur Ross: I agree, but the matter had to do with the medical officer in this
IXIr. Ralston.]
particular case, and the medical officers are a portion of the army. I said that the two were very closely linked together, and the point I wanted to make was with reference to the medical officers of the army.


James Layton Ralston: I have asked my colleague, the Minister of Pensions and National Health, to make a note of the case.


The CHAIRMAN:: I am of opinion that the point of order has been properly answered by the Minister of National Defence himself. I say again that it is not within my power to limit the discussion to the item before the Chair. That is absolutely within the realm of the members themselves. We must recognize that on a vote of this magnitude


Clarence Gillis: We are trying to stick to the items that are on this sheet of estimates, Mr. Chairman, and trying to relate our remarks to the item before us; but if a rambling discussion is to be permitted we want to know, and we will get into it too. I think fifty per cent of the discussion this afternoon was certainly not relevant to the item. Pensions come entirely within another department altogether. I want to be helpful and to stick to the item before us.
Mr. GRA1DON: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South is quite right in his remarks with respect to pensions, but when he suggests that hon. members have been out of order in discussing general matters of army welfare on this item for pay and allowances I have to disagree with him. This is the only item, I submit, upon which general matters relating to the armed forces can be discussed. If one looks at the other items in this appropriation, it will be found that they are confined to matters of a technical nature, upon which general matters relating to the whole department cannot be discussed. I think that should be made plain. All these matters we have been discussing come under the general heading.


Clarence Gillis: Still on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, and replying to whar, the leader of the opposition has said, I find that this printed sheet of estimates provides an opportunity for the discussion of practically ever}' matter that comes within the realm of the defence department. Then there are supplementary grants such as the one for the dependents' board of trustees. We have discussed that matter for practically the last two days. Other grants are specifically set out at the bottom of (he sheet. There is also an item

War Appropriation-Army
for medical stores. That is item 5. But before we reached that item we had a discussion all afternoon about doctors. I am waiting until the proper item is reached to discuss certain matters in which I am particularly interested. If we are to continue to carry on as we have been doing, we shall never get through these estimates. Anyone who is trying to consider these estimates in an orderly manner, one by one, certainly does not feel like discussing matters which are not relevant to the item before us. Therefore I do not agree with the leader of the opposition.


Gordon Graydon: It is not the first time.


John Horne Blackmore: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Breton South were very pertinent. I have watched the way in which you have conducted the business of the committee, and in my judgment you have done exceedingly well. But you are in the hands of the committee, and I must say that the committee is using you pretty roughly. Surely we should carry on our discussion in such a way as to dispose of one item at a time, instead of rambling all over the place as we are now doing. I do not believe that is the desire of any hon. member. I think everything that can be discussed on any of these items will be eligible for discussion on the minister's estimates when they come up, and certainly pensions can be discussed on the estimates of the Minister of Pensions and National Health. Many other matters can be discussed on the estimates of the departments. I therefore feel that we should cooperate to get these items off the sheet one by one.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have already ruled) on the point of order, but I might make this statement. Personally I do not wish to prolong the debate, but it is not within the power of the Chair to shorten or lengthen any debate. If I attempted to do so, there would be a terrific reaction against my activities. It must be realized, however, by all hon. members that we have been discussing the estimates before us, not for hours, but for days. I believe the point of order is well taken by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and by the Minister of National Defence, and I trust that hon. members, if at all possible, will keep within the limits of the item we are discussing.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Mr. Chairman, since we have been discussing doctors, wooden legs and various other things, I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of National Defence a matter which I think is of great importance. I have received a letter from a young
medical doctor serving in the armj'. I have already sent a synopsis of the case to the minister's under-secretary and have discussed it with him, but I think I can do no better than to read, with the permission of the Chair, a short extract from this letter. In my modesty I shall not give to the committee the name of the doctor, but I have given it to the minister's under-secretary. The writer says:
I wanted to bring your attention to something which affects all the graduates of Dalhousie.
This week a routine order came out stating that we from Dalhousie were qualified lieutenants beginning March 23, 1943, and those from McGill, Toronto university and Queens have been granted their promotions to captain as of April 30, 1943. We will have to wait another year for our promotions. There is no difference in our qualifications and they are not our seniors, as you know, but they have their promotions on the fact that these other men-
That is the men from McGill and Toronto universities.
-write their dominion council examinations before they do their interneship, which is one year ahead of us. We, as you know, write ours after we interne.
They all started together and all graduated together.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who is the author of this letter?


Thomas Vincent Grant: I said that in my modesty I would not give the name. .


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the hon. member is quoting from a letter, we are entitled to know who is the writer.


Thomas Vincent Grant: I am reading from a letter from a doctor, and I said at the commencement I did not wish to give the name.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member has had a good deal of parliamentary experience, and it is not a question of his modesty or of anybody else's. He knows the rules of the house, and the rule is clear that if a member reads from a letter he must upon request of any member of the committee give the name of the writer.


James Layton Ralston: I thought that, too, at one time and I enunciated that principle but the Chair ruled against me. I understand that it is a public document, the authorship of which must be disclosed if quoted from.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point of order, there is no doubt about the ruling as to a public document read by a minister or member of the government. As to private documents, personally in my experience as a member I always felt that if a letter were quoted from the name should be given. I
War Appropriation-Army

must say that I do not know whether that is the rule, but it should be. That is my private opinion.


James Layton Ralston: I am citing Beauchesne, second edition, paragraph 316:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the house, if it can be done without injury to the public interest. The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda. On the 18th May, 1865, the attorney-general, on being asked by Mr. Ferrard if he would lay upon the table a written statement and a letter to which he had referred on a previous day, in assuming a question relative to the Leeds Bankruptcy Court, replied that he had made a statement to the house upon his own responsibility, and that the documents he had referred to being private, he could not lay them upon the table. Lord Robert Cecil contended that the papers, having been cited, should be produced; but the Speaker declared that this rule applied to public documents only.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: Mr. Chairman, I do not see why there should be two different rules on different sides of the house. When I read a letter I was requested to lay it on the table. Why should the same rule not apply at the present time?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The ruling was given by Mr. Speaker on March 7, 1941, in connection with a private letter read by the hon. member who has just spoken.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was that ruling?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The ruling was that an hon. member is not entitled to read from communications unless he is prepared to place them on the table of the house.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunibury):: I think the ruling is wrong.


Mr. GOLDING:: On a point of order, a ruling was given in connection with the hon. member for York South, who read a letter from a gentleman in the employ of the Massey-Harris Company; and the ruling was that if he took responsibility for the contents of the letter he did not have to give the name of the writer. That was not very long ago.


Thomas Vincent Grant: May I read the remainder of the extract? I will take all responsibility.


Gordon Graydon: Name.


James Layton Ralston: There do seem to be conflicting rulings, if that is the case. I recall now the recent ruling. I had not known about the ruling in respect of the hon. member for North Battleford, but I do remember not very long ago that Mr. Speaker, referring, I think, to
[The Chairman.]
this paragraph, indicated that if an hon. member reading a document, took responsibility for the contents, and it was a private document, he did not have to divulge the name of the writer. I think that is the most recent ruling, and the most recent ruling would apply.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On that question, I believe we should proceed with some uniformity, although I have just expressed my own personal view, which I very strongly hold. On one occasion this week the hon. member for Temiscouata quoted from several letters and, I believe, gave the names of the writers to the minister himself, and no objection was taken thereto at the time. I think we should follow the same procedure with respect to the hon. member for Kings at the present time.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member for Temiscouata did not lay the letters on the table.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is not being laid on the table either.


James Layton Ralston: If I may speak a third time, I submit that giving a name and a letter to a minister is not laying it on the table.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; I did not suggest it was.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Mr. Chairman-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Order. The Chairman has said that the name must be produced.


Thomas Vincent Grant: It says-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understood you to rule, Mr. Chairman, that the name of the writer had to be given.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I did not so rule; I gave it as my personal opinion. What I said was that I was strongly in favour of giving such names, but the rules are against me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It all depends upon whose ox is being gored. When the hon. member for North Battleford produces a letter the Speaker rules that she must give the name of the writer; when the hon. member for Kings produces a letter, the rule operates the other way.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the hon. member for York South?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not remember about the hon. member for York South, but I remember that the rule has been stated thus.

War Appropriation-Army


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With all respect to the ruling given by His Honour the Speaker in the case to which reference has been made, I would point out that, as regards the letter produced by the hon. member for North Battleford, and the principle that a member should take full responsibility for the contents of such a letter, there were some rather questionable allegations in that letter with respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Speaker ruled partly on that ground. An unsigned letter should not be read in- the house, and there are many precedents. In accordance with past precedents every case must be decided on its own merits or demerits.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It all depends upon majority rule. It depends upon whose ox is being gored1.


Thomas Vincent Grant: I hope this turmoil is over. I will take responsibility for all I have read, and I shall have more to say about the matter. I want to give, the minister an example of what is taking place. In 193& for instance, two young men entered medical college, one going to Dalhousie and the other to McGill. They continued their studies for four years, passing their examinations, the one I have in mind particularly having taken many honours. At the end of the fourth year the McGill student was allowed to take his dominion council, but the Dalhousie student was not allowed by that college to do so until the end of the fifth year, at which time they both graduated. These two young men entered the army and the Dalhousie man is made a lieutenant while the McGill man is made a captain.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Send him to Saskatchewan or Manitoba.


Thomas Vincent Grant: This is an important matter to me Mr. ex-leader of the ex-Conservative party. The McGill student, who was in the same class, according to their rules was able to take his dominion council at the end of the fourth year, and he puts in his interneship afterwards. The Dalhousie student is not allowed by the rules of that university to take his dominion council until he has finished his interneship at the end of the fifth year. But they both graduate together. The McGill man because he had taken his dominion council a year ago was recognized as a doctor with a year's practice and was made a captain, while the Dalhousie man who was in the same class, the same year, but did not
take his dominion council until the end of the fifth year, had to wait a year for his captaincy. That is the regulation to-day and that regulation should be rectified at once. Someone says, why does not Dalhousie change its regulations? That is all very well; but has this young man to wait, when he has been discriminated against, until Dalhousie changes the regulations? I say, no. He is in the army, and since we are talking about money matters, I would point out that the McGill man gets an increase of fifty per cent in his pay. He gets $1.50 a day extra for professional services and another SI a day besides. But the other man, working shoulder to shoulder with him, doing the same work, has to be content with a lieutenant's pay for one year. We are told that the mills of the gods grind slowly, but I think there were a lot of pigeon-holes in those old mills and they were full of unanswered letters and unpaid bills. I am not referring to the Minister of National Defence. I am not speaking of the mills run by the Minister of National Defence to-day. My opinion of him is the reverse. Sometimes he does things a little too fast before giving them full consideration.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


Thomas Vincent Grant: He is not one of those whose mills grind slowly, but I wish to bring this matter to his attention now, and I do not want a joke made about it, because it is an important matter to me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Now the truth is coming out.


Thomas Vincent Grant: It is also an important
matter to the young man who has just graduated from Dalhousie, with a load of $7,000 of debt on his shoulders, having to enter into competition with a young man from McGill getting three times as much pay, both from class A colleges, both on an equal footing, both graduating at the same time. I know the Minister of National Defence does not regard this as a joke. It is not his fault. It is due to a lack of knowledge of medical matters on the part of the officials of the department who make these regulations. I am finding no fault, but I want to have the matter rectified at the earliest possible date.


Mr. ISNOR:: I wish to support the plea put before the committee by the hon. member for Kings. I have no individual case in mind; but speaking in a general way I may say that this matter has been brought to my attention
War Appropriation*-Army

on more than one occasion, and while I am not positive, I am inclined to think that I did bring it to the notice of the Department of National Defence some time ago. In any event, the feeling in the east, particularly in the city of Halifax, where Dalhousie university is situated, is that there is a distinct discrimination in the treatment accorded to graduates from that college in comparison with that accorded to graduates of other universities in other parts of Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that by the Department of National Defence or by the medical council?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Those who say that I am wrong no doubt base their opinion on the fact that the graduate of one college is given his doctor's certificate immediately following his fourth year, later serving his interneship of one year, whereas the Dalhousie student is not given his certificate until he has served his year's interneship. I think that is the difference. It is contended by those who support the view expressed by the hon. member for Kings that there should be no such distinction when they graduate as medical doctors.


Thomas Vincent Grant: They are not allowed to
practise until they finish their fifth year.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The contention is that both
should be treated alike; that if one receives his captaincy at the end of four years, so should the other; or that if for any reason one should be required to wait till the fifth year, the other should be treated in the same way, and they should both get their commissions at the same time. I support the representations of the hon. member for Kings; I do not think there should be this difference. I believe they should both receive the same sort of commission at the time of graduation.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I do not know anything at all about the case that was mentioned, in which apparently one man at the end of four years received a commission as a captain, while the other, after four or five years, received a commission as a lieutenant. I know, however, that if you take medicine at McGill university you stay four years at the university, and at the end of those four years you must spend one year as an interne before you are allowed to write your dominion council, so that in all you must put in five years.


Thomas Vincent Grant: No.


James J. Donnelly: I beg pardon; I have
two children who have just done it. They had to put in five years in all, four years at

the university and one year interning in a hospital:	Then they are allowed to write
their dominion council.


Thomas Vincent Grant: No; they can write their
dominion council at the end of four years.


James Layton Ralston: When doctors differ, far
be it from me to rush into the discussion until I know the facts and understand the regulations. I can only say to the hon. member for Kings that I will certainly look into the matter. If he brought it to my attention it has escaped my memory, but I shall look into the matter" and see the merits of the case. I rather understood at first that one man was entitled to practise after four years, after having taken his dominion council, so called, while the other man was only entitled to practise after five years, but apparently neither is entitled to practise until the end of the five years.


James J. Donnelly: They cannot write their dominion council until the end of five years.


James Layton Ralston: I had the impression from the remarks of the hon. member for Kings that they could take the dominion council at the end of four years; but I thought the point being made against the army was that one, having taken his dominion council at the end of four years, was then entitled to go in as a full-fledged medical officer and get his captaincy, while the other had to wait until he took his dominion council after five years. However, I will get the facts and have the matter looked into immediately.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In any
event, the Department of National Defence have nothing to do with it. They do not appoint a man as a captain until he has taken his dominion council examination. I do not know why we are discussing this, except possibly to air a personal grievance on the part of the hon. member for Kings. That is all it is.


Thomas Vincent Grant: That is pure dirt, and nobody expects anything else from the hon. member for York-Sunbury.


Mr. FULFORD:: Mr. Chairman, I have purposely refrained from taking part in this debate or asking questions of the Minister of National Defence, though on several occasions I have not only been tempted but wanted to do so. However, I have made it my policy, realizing the importance of these estimates, to do nothing which would in any way impede the progress of the committee. But I must say, and I am speaking as a junior member and a back-bencher, that I find it

War Appropriation-Army
most discouraging when a single member makes speech after speech, day after day. I refer, of course, to the hon. member for Temiscouata. I am reminded of a cartoon I saw recently, which showed a censor busily clipping at a letter with his scissors, taking out whole sentences and paragraphs. He leaned over to his friend and said, "It is not the information contained in this letter; it is the eternal repetition that I cannot stand." I know this house has become exasperated, and I know further that the country is becoming exasperated and getting fed up with our system when one man can monopolize so much of the time of the house. It is hard for me to say this, for I have a great deal of personal respect and admiration for the hon. member, but the time has come when we can no longer listen to one man monopolize the time of the house. Are we sent here by our constituents and given an indemnity to listen to the views of a single person? If we were all to speak as much as the hon. member speaks, then I believe we would have to split into three eight-hour shifts and sit three hundred and sixty-five days a year.
I do not intend to take up all the subjects which have been referred to, but there is one I do want to mention; I refer to certain what I might call hygienic safeguards which are reputed to bfe issued to the armed forces of Canada. I wonder if my hon. friend has heard of the crusade that is being carried on throughout the world to stamp out one of our greatest curses, venereal disease.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of privilege and to a point of order, and I will take the point of order first. Yesterday I started to speak about this matter, and the Minister of National Defence said that this was not the time to deal with it, that there was a special item covering the matter. If the hon. member for Leeds is permitted to speak of it now, I do not see why I should not have the right to ask questions on the same item, after he has finished. I should like you to decide that point, Mr. Chairman, for this is my point of order. Later I shall bring up the question of privilege.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I must repeat that necessarily we have allowed a little latitude, under orders from the committee itself, but I can only plead with hon. members that as far as possible we keep to the item under discussion at the moment.


George Taylor Fulford: I only mentioned that in
passing.
There is another point I must mention, though it is of no particular interest to me or,
I believe, to any other hon. member, because I believe the vast majority of hon. members have nothing but the greatest confidence in the Minister of National Defence. Not once but many times the hon. member for Temiscouata has accused the Minister of National Defence of lacking courage. The last time was on May 24, when, as^eported. at page 2955 of Hansard, the hon. member for Temiscouata said:
What I have said was that the Minister of National Defence did not have the guts to say to the Canadian people that the question was, are you in favour of or against conscription, yes or no?
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that anyone who was decorated three times in the last war; anyone who was wounded three times; anyone who went out to rescue men under fire and was idolized by his own men, does not lack guts.


Mr. BLAIR:: The subject under discussion is pay and allowances. I am very glad the previous speaker said what he did. He has saved me a great deal of trouble, because the very things with which he dealt have been worrying me. Perhaps I would have dealt with them in rasher language, in more unparliamentary terms, so that I greatly appreciate his remarks. I regret very much that the minister has to sit here day after day listening to these continual attacks, when he should be at work in his own department. I can understand the minister's fatigue, and that he is tired out. Yet we keep him here, in the chamber. I wonder if, when these speeches are being given, he could not withdraw, and let some minor official sit here, so that the minister could attend to -his duties. If we want to retard our war effort, then the way for -us to do it, in a sly, deceptive way, is to keep the minister sitting in his seat, and not allow him to attend to his duties as Minister of National Defence.
I do not know how to prevent it, but I do know that if this House of Commons could purchase a mouth gag, or a few things like that, it would be worth while. We need something. I must say that these speeches attacking the Minister of National Defence, and the questions asked, should be withheld as much as possible. And all the trouble is not coming from Quebec, although the biggest -part of it is. Toronto spoke up to me just a moment ago. I wish you would talk to some of your own friends from Toronto, and get them to keep quiet. They are what I would call a nuisance. They are embarrassing the minister, holding up the business of the committee and taking advantage of the rules of procedure.

War Apprupriation-Army


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the hon. member doing now?


John Knox Blair: We have a right to unite our efforts, and tell our friends. I have great admiration and respect for every hon. member
of the house. I hav^ respect for the men I have criticized. But I must say they are imposing upon the committee. This house is not the first court of the land; the first court of the land is back in the country. And back in the country there is being created a spirit of bitter hatred for some Frenchmen, and for some men from Toronto, too-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Especially from Wellington North.


John Knox Blair: -because they are holding up the business of the house. All the accusations against the Minister of National Defence are not called for. I have watched him for many years in the house, and I have every admiration for him, nor have I any criticism to make whatsoever. I hope he will be allowed to attend to his duties as Minister of National Defence.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of
privilege. I have the greatest admiration for the eloquence of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford) and the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair). They are two of the best speakers in the house, and-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would ask the hon. member to come to his question of privilege as quickly as possible.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will do that. The hon. member for Leeds has stated that the member for Temiscouata has taken the whole time of the house. Well, sir, those facts should be established from Hansard. I deny completely what the hon. member has said. I made a few remarks on Monday-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: -and on Tuesday there is very little in the name of the hon. member for Temiscouata. Yesterday I was not even in the house; I came here just about adjournment. And to-day what did I do? I spoke for only five or ten minutes. All the time was taken by other hon. members, and I admit it is their right to speak. I never want to take more than my share.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: Of course, what has been said to-day was organized behind the curtains. But no one will prevent my using my privilege

to defend the rights of my electors and the citizens of this country. If certain hon. members are afraid to do their duty, I am not; and I will continue to do it. I will never be frightened by them. They may look well at the bull moose and the bull buffalo in front of the ladies' gallery, because they will never be reelected, because both the hon. member for Leeds and the hon. member for Wellington North will bite the dust at the next election.


Mr. BRUCE:: I wish to take the time of the committee for a few minutes to set the record straight. I was able to read only last night of what took place the previous evening when I was absent from the house, and when the Minister of National Defence made some comments which affected me. He stated, as reported at page 3008 of Hansard, when referring to me:
He was singling out the chief of combined operations, the men who had to do with that operation beginning with General Montgomery, who was in the southeast command at the time and under whom our troops were operating; the chief of the imperial general staff, and all those who had to do with making the plans for that operation.
I made no reference whatsoever to the men who made the plans for the operation. I had no thought of criticizing General Montgomery, and was not aware that he was in England at the time, but presumed he was in North Africa. I made no criticism whatsoever of the other leaders there, or of Lord Mountbatten, or Lord Lovat, or General McNaughton, or any others who were taking part in planning that campaign.
My reference was to the commander of the military force-


An hon. MEMBER:: Who?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I did not mention his name, because I' did not wish to do so. However, since the minister-


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is he?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I will mention it in a moment; just be patient, please. However, since the Minister of National Defence has made a statement which, in order to correct, forces me to state to whom I referred, I shall do so in a moment.
In the first place I should like to say that the minister read a long extract two evenings ago from the book called "Combined Operations", a copy of which I have been able to secure only to-day. He states that the extract

War Appropriation-Army
he gave was a summary of Dieppe. I should like to continue that summary by quoting a few short extracts.
At the bottom of page 135 we find this:
By half-past six in the morning the force commanders on H.M.S. Calpe were well aware that the situation was not developing as well as had been hoped. No word had come from the Royal Regiment at Ruits or from No. 3 Commando at Berneval. On the other hand, the situation at Pourville, where the South Saskatchewan Regiment and the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada were engaged, appeared not unfavourable. It was known, too, that No. 4 Commando had landed successfully at Vasterival. The military force commander decided that the time had come to make use of his reserves. They consisted, in the first place, of the Fusiliers Mont-Royal, a famous French-Canadian regiment.
Then, at the middle of page 137 will be found these words:
Despite the efforts of the Fusiliers Mont-Royal, the eastern headland still remained untaken, and soon after seven o'clock, Major-General Roberts decided to reinforce again, this time with the Royal Marine Commando.
And a little further down are these words:
Like everyone else on board the ships, he could see but little, Dieppe was shrouded in smoke behind which the battle spluttered and rumbled. It seemed to the military force commander that, now the Casino was captured and the tanks were over the esplanade, there was still a good chance that he might seize the town. At that time, he did not know that the Essex Scottish and the Fusiliers Mont-Royal had been unable to subdue the eastern headland, but he knew that it was being attacked. There was a reasonable prospect, or so it appeared, that the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry, if reinforced, would be able to capture the western headland. The Royal Marine Commando was accordingly sent in to help them to do so.
In the third paragraph on page 139 we find these words:
Not all the landing craft had reached the shore. Many were still coming in with great resolution under this heavy fire. On board one of them was the officer commanding, Lieutenant-Colonel J. P. Phillips. In the sunlight striking the beaches and houses of Dieppe with all the greater brilliance after the darkness of the smoke through which he had just passed, he saw the true gravity of the situation. Far from being clear of the enemy, the beach was swept by their concentrated fire. Realizing that the situation was not what the military force commander had visualized, he determined to halt the landing if he could. By then his craft was close -in shore. Putting on a pair of white gloves so that his hands could be the more easily seen, he jumped on to the forward deck and signalled to the remaining craft to put about and return to the smoke screen. They saw his hands moving and understood his meaning. As they began to turn, he fell mortally wounded. By his action, he had saved some
two hundred of his men from entering a fire which must have proved mortal to very many of them.
By now it was obvious that the headlands to the east and west of Dieppe would not be captured in time to permit an entry into the town; the doors were, in fact, still closed. It was decided to withdraw those who had been assaulting them and the town so intrepidly.
I should like to quote a few words from a review_ of this book by Blair Fraser, which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of Saturday, May 22. It was after I had read this review that I made the remarks which I did a couple of days ago. The relevant part reads as follows:
Gillis Purcell of the Canadian Press has already reviewed it in exhaustive detail in these columns. Little need be added except to say that Saunders makes' it clear the Dieppe raid was a failure. Of ten objectives, one was fully and one partially achieved. However, a number of misconceptions about Dieppe are cleared up.
On page. 3009 of Hansard the Minister of National Defence is reported as follows:
It was not General Roberts about whom my hon. friend was talking; it was the high command, and the high command were those of whom' I was speaking, the officers I have mentioned.
The officers to whom I referred a moment ago. The Minister of National Defence is drawing an inference which is improper. I should like to interpret my own remarks. In addition to the reports one saw in the press and heard elsewhere is the fact that a general commanding a division, after having received battle experience which should have been invaluable to him in a similar capacity when invasion will take place later on, was removed from an active command and given a position as head of reinforcements, a departmental position. I think anyone would consider that a demotion. However, the minister does not refer to it as such. What I have referred to caused me to speak of the incompetent leadership by the high command, and by that I meant the high command who was in charge of this operation, the gentleman to whom I have just referred.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend when making charges with regard to incompetent leadership and tragic failures should be more specific than he was the other evening if he wants it to mean anything other than what anyone would take normally, that the high command as we know it means those who are in charge of the strategic war. My hon. friend now says that it was General Roberts whom
War Appropriation-Army

he was talking about. As I see it, he certainly took in a lot of territory just to mention General Roberts when he used the term "high command".
May I deal just for a moment with what my hon. friend has read. He has quoted a correspondent or some newspaper man on the Montreal Gazette as the basis for his conclusion that Dieppe was a failure. I prefer to quote the book on which he has relied, namely, "Combined Operations" and on Mr. Churchill, in the passage which I read and which appears on pages 3009 and 3010 of Hansard. He will not find there any indication that Dieppe was a failure. I think I was frank with the committee and with the house when I stated that from the point of view of strategic reconnaissance and strategic objectives, the report showed unmistakably that Dieppe had achieved its objectives. On the other hand, I said just as clearly that I did not claim that tactically Dieppe was a success from the point of local operations. My hon. friend still adheres to his conclusion, and apparently he does not take back the words "tragic failure". He treats the whole operation as being accurately described as a tragic failure. I shall not take up the time of the committee to read again what I have already placed on Hansard, but I commend those passages to the committee and to the people of this country as showing just exactly what Dieppe accomplished.
Not the least of those accomplishments was something which I did not mention, something which I think up to that time in the war had not been accomplished or had not been demonstrated. I refer to the absolute cooperation and* coordination between the three arms of the service, the navy, the army and the air force. Up to that time no operation in the war had demonstrated that such cooperation was possible. That feature of Dieppe, apart from the matters which I mention, it seems to me is of the greatest importance and will have the greatest attention by those who are planning operations of this kind in the future.
With regard to General Roberts, the hon. member cites page 135 and takes that as his foundation for his charge of incompetent leadership. The passage he read was:
By half-past six in the morning, the force commanders on H.M.S. Calpe . . .
Mind you, that was not General Roberts alone. With him were the naval commander and a representative of the air commander. The three of them were together on the same ship. I quote again:
By half-past six in the morning, the force commanders on H.M.S. Calpe were well aware that the situation was not developing as well
i Mr. Ralston.]
as had been hoped. No word had come from the Royal Regiment at Puits or from No. 3 Commando at Berneval. On the other hand-
Here I pause to say this, that in military operations, as I think my hon. friend knows, the man on the ground has to make decisions quickly and on the best information he can get, and he is not chargeable with negligence if he makes such decisions as a reasonable man would make having regard to the knowledge which he had. I continue:
On the other hand the situation at Pourville, where the South Saskatchewan Regiment and the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada were engaged, appeared not unfavourable. It was known, too, that No. i Commando had landed successfully at Vasterival. The military force commander decided that the time had come to make use of his reserves. They consisted, in the first place, of the Fusiliers Mont-Royal, a famous French-Canadian regiment. At that moment, the fire on the eastern half of the main beach in front of Dieppe had slackened somewhat. It seemed to Major-General Roberts that if the Essex Scottish could be reinforced, they would be able to capture the vital eastern headland, especially now that they had tanks to help them, for he had just received a message to say that they were ashore.
It was under these circumstances that General Roberts did what any commander would generally do who finds the operation is not going completely to his satisfaction. He called upon his reserves. The committee will realize that that is exactly what reserves are for. If the job can be done with the task forces allotted, that is one thing. The reserves are there for the very purpose of assisting in a situation where the operation is not going entirely according to plan, and General Roberts accordingly sent in his reserves, the Fusiliers Mont-Royal. It says later:
Like everyone else on board the ships, he could see but little. Dieppe was shrouded in smoke behind which the battle spluttered and rumbled. It seemed to the military force commander that, now the Casino was captured-
That was on the front.
-and the tanks were over the esplanade, there was still a good chance that he might seize the town. At that time, he did not know that the Essex Scottish and the Fusiliers Mont-Royal had been unable to subdue the eastern headland, but he knew* that it ivas being attacked. There was a reasonable prospect, or so it appeared, that the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry, if reinforced, would be able to capture the western headland. The Royal Marine Commando v'as accordingly sent in to help them to do so.
Does the hon. member or the committee find anything in that which indicates incompetent leadership? Is my hon. friend prepared to put himself in the place of General Roberts on that ship, in consultation with the other two commanders of the force, and say

ll'ar Appropriation-Army
he should have backed off and ordered a withdrawal at that time? What would my hon. friend have said; what would the people of Canada have said; what would the people of Britain have said if the Canadians, simply because the situation was not clear on the left, had ordered withdrawal and not gone on with the operation? It is all very well to sit here and make judgments now, and pass caustic remarks and talk about "incompetent leadership"; but it is another thing to be in the midst of a battle, in charge of what was the climax of all the commando operations which had been put on up to that time, and which it was hoped would be a success, and for which he had been given reserves in order to try to make it a success, and then decide to quit on the job, not to call in his reserves or make any further effort. That is the situation which presented itself to Major-General Roberts, and that is why I say that the hon. gentleman's suggestion of incompetent leadership in the high command, if he means General Roberts, is not justified by anything he has read or anything in the book, but quite the reverse. .


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just one
word, if you please, notwithstanding the minister's defence.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who is
running this committee, you or the chairman?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. I think the
hon. member for Fort William has the floor.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He is not in his seat.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Notwithstanding the defence which has been made by the Minister of National Defence, the fact remains that after Dieppe Major-General Roberts was demoted and taken out of an operational position and put into an administrative position.


An hon. MEMBER:: That has already
been denied.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What inference are we entitled to draw from that? I put that to the minister. I do not wish to enter into a controversy about the tragedy of Dieppe. The fact speaks volumes for the understanding and judgment of those in charge over there, and I do not know General Roberts from a hole in the ground. He has been "demoted upstairs," and why was he demoted upstairs if it were not as a result of dissatisfaction with his leadership at the top? I put that question to the minister.
72537-19T


James Layton Ralston: I have only to say to
my hon. friend that I answered him once; as a matter of fact, I believe, I answered him twice. Dieppe took place on August 18, if I remember correctly. General Roberts was given charge of the reinforcement units some time in February, six months afterwards. If the occasion for the change had been Dieppe, would they have left General Roberts in command of a division all that time?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know.


James Layton Ralston: I would think not. I
have stated, and I state again to the committee and my hon. friend, that the change of job by which General Roberts was put in charge of a reinforcement unit, and which involved the control of thousands more men than he had before-


Richard Burpee Hanson: An administrative position.


James Layton Ralston: No; far from an administrative position-was not due in any way to his conduct of the Dieppe operations. I cannot say any more about the matter. What I have said is that, far from its being an administrative post, it is a position which involves the utmost knowledge of training and the requisites of battle, because he is training men for battle.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is not going to lead them in battle.


James Layton Ralston: And it is the first time a decision was made to put a major-general in charge of a Canadian reinforcement unit. My hon. friend cannot get away from that book, and that book states exactly what the situation was with regard to General Roberts at that time. I leave it to the hon. members of the house and to the fair judgment of the people of this country whether there is any man here or any man in this country who would say that General Roberts was guilty of incompetent leadership under the circumstances portrayed by Saunders in his discussion of the Dieppe operations.
One thing more. The hon. member for Parkdale has indicated it was General Roberts to whom he referred and that it was not the high command. Let me read the words he used, as reported in Hansard, at page 3004:
I want to say just a word about the Canadian army's battle honours. After nearly four years of war they are represented by two tragic failures, Hong Kong and Dieppe.

War Appropriation-Army

Note this:
They were not failures to fight courageously to the death on the part of the rank and file and the officers in charge of the attacks-
Is that General Roberts or not?
-but they were due to incompetent leadership in the high command.
My hon. friend said that he did not mean the high command at all. I leave the house and this country to decide what he meant when he made that reference. I submit it was a loose and irresponsible statement, a statement which should not have been made, in view of the gravity of the subject which he was discussing.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I should like to say a word or two in regard to what the minister has said.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. The hon. member for Fort William yielded his place to the hon. member for York-Sunbury, and I believe that the hon. member for Fort William should now have the right to speak.


Mr. McIVOR:: Mr. Chairman, we are having a fine time to-night; it has been a real battle. I have a request to make of the Minister of National Defence, but before making it, I wish to pay my tribute to the outstanding qualities of the minister. He has more grace in his heart than I could possibly have, because when a man will point his finger and shake his fist, I expect he means business. I would say to these people who find fault with our cabinet ministers that they should throw down their hammer and take up a horn, and they would get farther.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member would like us to quit on the job.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Let me remind His Majesty's Loyal Opposition that when they were seeking for the best brains of all Canada to lead a national government, the Minister of National Defence was the man they thought best suited for the position. I have found in all my relations with him that he acts as a real gentleman, and back of it all he was a soldier and does not need to take a back seat to anybody.
The only thing I wish to ask is a request which comes from a few folks who are neither wives nor mothers, in homes that lost boys who made the supreme sacrifice. It is this, that an aunt who was a guardian, or an older sister, the father, or the nearest of kin in the home, should receive the silver cross when the mother or the wife is not there. I suggest that when a boy goes overseas and does not return, the father, or even the brother or
fMr. Ralston.]
sister, would like to have that little silver cross in remembrance of the son or brother who will not come back. I make this request on behalf of a number of people who asked me to do so, and I hope the minister responsible for supplying these decorations will give it favourable consideration.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The minister stated a moment ago, on the strength of the references which he read, that I could not have meant what is called the commander of the military force, who, I assume, is the man in charge of operations. Wha.t I made clear, and what I thought was clear, is that when I said, "they were not failures to fight courageously to the death on the part of the rank and file and the officers in charge of the attacks'' was "those in charge of the attacks on shore." These men were fighting on shore; the commander was on his ship in the sea, some little distance from shore. I think it is quite clear that my reference was to the men fighting on shore and trying to get into Dieppe.


James Layton Ralston: Why not say so?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The minister made another reference, namely, to my quotation of Mr. Blair Fraser, whom he spoke of as a reporter on the Gazette. As a matter of fact, it was not Mr. Blair Fraser's own opinion I was quoting; it was his opinion after revising the very book from which the minister himself quoted. After reading that book Mr. Fraser reviewed it, and his opinion was as indicated in the remarks I made a few moments ago.
I do not wish to prolong this. I would just say this in conclusion, that I would never have thought of bringing up the question of Dieppe had it not been that the Minister of National Defence spoke of it as the turning point in the war. I thought that was ah extravagant statement-


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


Herbert Alexander Bruce: -and the statements he made would appear to try to interpret a failure as a victory.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I hope I shall not be out of order if I refer to something under the heading of "pay and allowances," since that is the item before us. I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of National Defence to article 102, paragraph (c) of the assigned pay and dependents' allowance regulations. This paragraph deals with

War Appropriation-Army
persons other than wives, children and so on, who in certain cases are entitled to dependents' allowance. The stipulation is made that where such other persons as are referred to in this section are in receipt of $65 of other income they are therefore not entitled to the dependents' allowance. I think I can state what I have in mind best by giving briefly the details of a case. It is the case of an enlisted man who was the only son in a family. The father had been an invalid for a good many years. The son during his employment before he enlisted contributed regularly to the support of the family. It is also true that his mother was working, making the sum of $75 a month. Owing to the father's invalidity it was not possible for the mother to maintain the home on that amount. Accordingly the son made a contribution month by month. Upon enlistment he immediately assigned $20 a month to his mother, or father-I am not sure which it was-and while he was still alive did his best to secure a dependents' allowance. That allowance was not granted. Unfortunately he has become a casualty, and since his death any effort to have a pension awarded to the mother or father has been refused, on the ground that dependency was not established during the lifetime of the enlisted man. Of course, in the correspondence I have had with the dependents' allowance board on this matter, the board has had no other recourse than to quote this provision to me, namely, paragraph (c) of article 102, I feel that this limit of S65 is perfectly justifiable where there is only one person who -has been dependent upon the enlisted man. But there must be a great many cases such as the one I have recited, where the father is an invalid, and where the mother is at work. Her income, as was pointed out the other night by the hon. member for North Battle-ford, is less since she is a woman, than that of a man, and she finds her position quite difficult. So long as her son was working before the war his contribution enabled them to carry on, and while he was in the forces his assigned pay, although not as much as he was contributing before the war, nevertheless made it possible for them to carry on. When that is cut off, their position is an extremely difficult one, and it seems to me that not only should consideration be given to this particular case but there must be others like it.
The suggestion I should like to make is that some amendment be made to this paragraph, so that when "the other person" defined in this
72537-197J
section is a mother who has to support an invalid husband, at least that $65 ceiling be raised to a more adequate amount.
There is one other section in the same book of regulations to which I wish to refer before the minister makes a reply. This time it is to article 61, subsection 1 (a) and subsection 3. They relate to the necessity which is laid upon paymasters to have men paraded before them in order that they may be advised of the details of the dependents' allowance regulations. According to these subsections, the instructions seem to be quite definite, and I hope it is not out of order to ask whether they are being carried out. I ask that question because one specific case has been brought to my attention, and I have been told of others. This particular case is that of a widower who enlisted and left his child in the care of his father, the child's grandfather. Immediately upon enlistment he made an assignment to his father of $15 a month, and later on he learned that had he made an assignment of $20 a month in favour of his daughter she would also get dependent's allowance. He forthwith made that change, but his effort to have it made retroactive, either to the date of enlistment or to the date of the original assignment, was in vain. His complaint to me is that he was not advised when he enlisted that such was the situation. I have been told that there were other cases.


James Layton Ralston: He was not advised?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He was not advised of the details. I put a question on the order paper along this line some time ago, and it was passed as an order for return but it has not yet been brought doivn. I should like to know whether something could not be done to make sure that all men on enlistment are advised of the details concerning dependents' allowance regulations, and in particular that they are advised that it is necessary to make these assignments of pay in order to have dependents' allowance granted. Would the Minister make some comment on these two matters, the one relating to article 102 and the other to article 61?


James Layton Ralston: In reference to the first case, I can only ask my hon. friend to leave it with me. I take it that what he wants to know is whether it is possible to have article 102(c) amended so that the limitation of $65 might not apply in the case of a person, a mother, who is supporting other dependents. I would ask my hon. friend to leave that for me to take into consideration. The case was not brought to my attention before; I have just asked the officer who is with me about it, and he says it is rather a special case. I will see what can be done about it.
War Appropriation-Army

With regard to the other case, my hon. friend is right in calling attention to subsection 3 which states in precise terms that the provisions with regard to assigned pay shall be fully explained. One would have thought that they would be explained, and the man had a perfect right to have them explained to him, not only as to the effect of the assignment to the father but as to the effect of the assignment to the daughter as well. I presume that case has been brought to the attention of the department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has been brought to the attention of the dependents' allowance board, yes; but the board refuses to make the dependent's allowance to the daughter retroactive.


James Layton Ralston: The whole basis of the application to make it retroactive is that the provisions of the dependent's allowance regulations were not explained to the man in accordance with the requirements of subsection 3, and that is a question of fact which will have to be looked into.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister asking me whether I brought to the attention of his department the negligence to which I have referred?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not.


James Layton Ralston: That is the point at issue in reference to the question of making it retroactive. *


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister like to have me bring it to the attention of his department?


James Layton Ralston: No; we have made a note of it; but perhaps my hon. friend will give us the name.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will send it.


Mr. HANSELL:: With regard to pay and allowances of those men who are discharged from the forces and who have not yet been able to get employment, if the minister has answered the question I am about to ask I will not press it, but I understand that this * particular phase has not been discussed. According to order in council P.C. 2341-


James Layton Ralston: Is that the order in council providing for reemployment?


Ernest George Hansell: It is the order in council increasing the allowances. I quote:
Whereas the rates or out-of-work benefits and grants under the said order are deemed inadequate-

I am pleased that the government have decided that $9 a week is inadequate.

it is deemed advisable that the sum be increased to $10.20.
I must say I admire them for opening their hearts to such an extent that they have increased it a couple of dollars a week.


James Layton Ralston: May I just call attention to this. I know that this debate, particularly to-night, has pretty well gone around the circle. Could my hon. friend bring that in under some other item where it would be more appropriate? I think he is discussing the case of a man not in the army and in respect of whom payments are made by the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Ernest George Hansell: I think the minister is correct. This man is not fighting; be is coming home, and he is out of work.


James Layton Ralston: If he is in the army he gets more than S10.20.


Ernest George Hansell: This fellow cannot be in the army because he gets only $10.20. I am willing to discuss the matter under an item in the Department of Pensions and National Health, if I can be assured that there is an item there under which I can discuss it.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend accept my absolute assurance as a member of the government that there will be an opportunity to discuss it?


Ernest George Hansell: Thank you.


James Layton Ralston: Under the estimates of the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Howard Charles Green: This vote for pay and allowances amounts to slightly under $540,000,000. I should like to find out from the minister what the department figures each man costs per annum and also whether or not there is a difference between the case of a man who is overseas and the case of a man who is serving in Canada. If one takes the total number of men in the army, which the minister the other day said was 250,000 in Canada and 190,000 overseas, one gets a total of 440,000, and dividing that into this vote we get a cost per man of approximately $1,225. That may not be a fair way of arriving at this cost, and I wonder whether the minister can give us the figures. I should like to ask one or two more questions after I get the answer.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think it has been calculated in that way. My hon. friend is right on a rough calculation; that is what it comes to. It is calculated on the basis of $382,000,000 for all ranks and for trades pay and uniform allowance; then dependents'



194S

[Stage Direction]
War Appropriation-Army
allowance and subsistence allowance amount to $157,000,000, making a total of $539,000,000. There is one thing I wish to mention in connection with dependents' allowance. I have been expecting someone to ask how it comes about that there is an increase over last year in connection with dependents' allowance, pay and subsistence allowance. I think the increases amount to something like $45,000,000. The balance is arrived at on an average basis, because you cannot tell what will be the strength of the army; that is to say, reinforcements will go up; they will come down again; then they will go up, and so on. The balance is calculated on an average number during the year; I think they average it from month to month, or something like that. I am sure there is not a firm figure which is used by those who make estimates, for the purpose of just saying that we have an average of so many men and that therefore the cost is $539,000,000. It is broken down into officers, other ranks, trades pay, uniform allowance, dependents' allowance and subsistence allowance.
Howard Charles Green: Would it be fair to say that it costs a thousand dollars per man per year?
Mr. RALSTON; Yes; that would be an average, taking in, of course, everybody, officers and all.


Howard Charles Green: That is only for pay and allowances. In addition, of course, we have the upkeep of the men and equipment.


James Layton Ralston: And accommodation, food and clothing.
Mr. GREEN; Yes. The minister said yesterday that there are in Canada 68,228 home defence troops and "R"-recruits, who of course are really home defence troops. So that one would not be unreasonable in calculating that the cost to Canada of the home defence army, for pay and allowances alone, would be at least $1,000 per man, which would make a total of over $68,000,000 per year. Is there anything unfair in that conclusion?


James Layton Ralston: I would not think so. I would not think that would be an unfair inference.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us
approximately how many home defence men will be required per month during the present fiscal year, and also at what total he places the requirement for home defence men? My point is this, that sooner or later we shall have all the home defence men we need, for we can use only a certain number. Can the minister tell us whether or not the government has decided what number will be needed eventually?


James Layton Ralston: No. What I can say to my hon. friend is that I prefer to put it on the basis on which I put it when I made my statement, namely, that we calculate that one hundred thousand men will be required altogether.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that general service men?


James Layton Ralston: That is one hundred
thousand men altogether. You see, if home defence personnel come in they would be used to replace general service men; and that, as I indicated, is a figure which cannot be absolutely accurate. It is maintenance more than anything else, and it will depend upon what may be the developments of the year. I can only say that the number of home defence men depends upon the number of general service men.
Mr. GREEN; I understood the minister to say that of the one hundred thousand there would be about twenty-five thousand home defence men.


James Layton Ralston: Yes; I estimated that the twenty-five thousand would be required for service in Canada. If they are general service men, then you do not need the home defence men; that is about the sum of it.


Howard Charles Green: Will there not be some final figure above which no more home defence troops will be required? Has the government not some idea of what that figure will be?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think I can give my hon. friend any idea as to that because, as I say, it will depend upon the number of men who are required in order to do home defence duty and release general service men, and that will depend upon enlistments.
Mr. GREEN; When we have released from Canada all the fit general service personnel, there will come a time, surely, when no more home defence men will be required. Has the government any idea of what that figure will be?


James Layton Ralston: There might come a time also, I suppose, when no more enlistments would be required. I do not think I can make it any more definite than that we require one hundred thousand men; I say that is the estimate for the year, and the more general service men, the fewer home defence men.


Howard Charles Green: But the minister said that the number of men in Canada during the coming fiscal year would be reduced from 250,000 at least to 235,000. Many of the general service men are not fit to be sent
War Appropriation-Army

overseas. We also have 68,000 home defence men. Surely there is an approximate total to be reached for home defence men, after which we shall require no more, because under present policy they cannot be sent overseas.


James Layton Ralston: But I do not think I can make that estimate to-night. As I say, it just depends upon the rate of enlistments. I do not think this is a time when one can make an estimate and say we shall come to the end of home defence men at a certain time. It will depend upon the enlistments and the number of men required for overseas and in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Then the minister cannot give any approximate figure?


James Layton Ralston: No; I cannot.


Howard Charles Green: I have another question. The units of the Canadian army were raised on a territorial basis; that is, there were certain battalions from Ottawa, certain battalions from Toronto, certain battalions from Vancouver, and so on. The first reinforcements that went overseas also came from these respective cities; that is, the reinforcements for these units. Now it would appear that the territorial system of building up and reinforcing, our units has completely broken down. That is, over half an Ottawa battalion may now come from Toronto, or from Winnipeg, or from other parts of Canada. The same is true in regard to reinforcements; that battalion may be reinforced with men from many different parts of the country. I should like to know whether that is true overseas and also whether it is true in Canada. I believe that in fact it is much worse in Canada; that in some instances the units are only names as far as the territory is concerned; that is to say, that a Vancouver battalion is now practically full of men coming from all Dver Canada and has practically no men from its home city. Will the minister tell us whether or not that is correct and, if so, whether there is not some way in which that situation may be overcome, because it does mean so much to have the men from the various towns and provinces kept together? It improves their morale; they understand each other better. In the last war we were all very proud to be in a British Columbia battalion, for example; I know the minister was equally proud to be with a Nova Scotia battalion. That system seems to have broken down completely in this war, and I think it is most unfortunate. I would ask the minister to make a statement in regard , to that situation.


James Layton Ralston: I yield to no one in my desire to maintain what I might call the community spirit just as far as possible, but I would remind the hon. member-if he did not have the experience, I did'-that we got men from a good many parts of Canada in the Nova Scotia battalions, and we welcomed them. I am sure the British Columbia battalions did exactly the same thing. As my hon. friend probably knows, we had to break up a number of Nova Scotia battalions in order to provide reinforcements, and I think in my own battalion we had a great many men from Saskatchewan as well. There is not the same opportunity in this war, in the first place owing to the kind of war it is, to maintain reinforcements from the territorial locality from which the battalion comes. As my hon. friend knows, there are many more tradesmen in units to-day, and you cannot get tradesmen the way you could get infantrymen in the last war. By "tradesmen" I mean also men with specialist weapons, because when in a battalion you get not only the rifle, the hand grenade and the Lewis gun but, in addition, the two-inch mortar, the three-inch mortar, a carrier, a Boys anti-tank gun and several other specialist weapons; you have an entirely different situation, and you cannot get as easily the full number of suitable men from the same locality. About six or nine months ago, realizing that it was necessary to get men in order to supply the need for specialists and tradesmen, we got certain men from localities other than those in which the battalion was organized. And realizing, too, that from some localities more battalions, in proportion to their population, had gone overseas than perhaps they could support, with respect to reinforcements, we formed the corps of infantry. I have not the order in council here to-night; but the effect of it was that infantry was made a corps, just as gunners are made a corps, just as the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps is made a corps, and just as ordnance is made a corps. We did have the proviso in that, as far as possible, men should be reinforced from the territorial localities from which the battalions originally came. We are endeavouring to carry it out so far as possible. In the battalions in Canada, of course, as men are withdrawn to go overseas to fill up the reinforcement pool, they have to be put in where we can get them. If we cannot get them from the particular locality from which they come, we have to get them somewhere else, in order that the battalion may be filled up.

War Appropriation-Army


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be possible to fill up some units with men from their own province?


James Layton Ralston: I would say it was possible to fill up some but that might depend upon the physical situation. If that is possible it would be done. But, generally speaking, it is not possible because, as I say, you have to have such an assortment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that true of officers, too?


James Layton Ralston: You have to have men from all parts to form a complete infantry unit. But just as far as possible-and this may be regarded as a pious hope, although I assure my hon. friend it is more than that, and the adjutant general's hair is turning gray trying to carry it out as far as he can-we try to follow the principle of maintaining the territorial esprit de corps of the unit. I do say that.
I wish to mention this, also, that in this war it is becoming more and more a war of units rather than a war where territories are concerned. Take the air force, for instance. In the air force we find squadrons in which are men from British Columbia to Newfoundland. What counts for esprit de corps is the identity of the squadron rather than the territory from which the men come.
For instance, again, consider the old 51st, a division we all know, which was in the last war. It was an imperial division overseas.


Howard Charles Green: A Highland division.


James Layton Ralston: There were a great
variety of men in the 51st division. But it was the tradition of the division which counted. I think that we of the infantry- including my hon. friend and myself-thought more highly and sought to perpetuate more earnestly the local esprit de corps than did any other arm. of the service.
We are trying to do that. The formation of the corps of infantry was the last step we had to take in that connection. And we stipulated in that connection what is not in force in writing in regard to any other corps, namely, that the principle of territorial affiliations should be regarded wherever possible and feasible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the
minister indicate the position with regard to officers, in connection with the matter I raised the other night? Officers from the second battalion have gone into the reinforcement pool. In many instances we found that from the South Saskatchewan regiment they
went to the Regina Rifles, and the Regina Rifles officers in the second battalion went to the South Saskatchewan regiment.


James Layton Ralston: That is not too bad.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In many
instances there has been a lot of bad feeling, because the second battalion has produced forty-six reinforcement officers, and most of them have been taken off to other units. In the meantime the first battalion are writing back and wanting to know why officers are not being sent out from the second battalion. The officers have been sent, but they have not got them.


James Layton Ralston: The best I can do is to
say to the hon. member that we are keeping before the authorities overseas the principle he has pointed out. I say without criticism of those overseas, because I think they have handled the situation as well as possible, that I do not think we have even had a complaint or an implied complaint by men who for the time being had gone to hospital from their own units, went back to reinforcement units, were sent to some other units, and could not get back again. There is a perpetual liaison maintained by units with the reinforcement group to see that their own men do not get away from them. It sounds easy to do this, but there is some difficulty in connection with it. All I can say is that we do keep that point before Canadian military headquarters, which really has charge of reinforcement units, in an endeavour to see, first that a man goes back to his own unit when he has been released on account of illness, or for some other reason and, second, that reinforcement officers come from the same locality. I would even hope with my hon. friend that, as far as it is practicable, reinforcement officers would come not only from the same locality but, if possible, from the second battalion of the same regiment. But I imagine there are those who would feel that if the Regina Rifles got reinforcements from the South Saskatchewan regiment, the Regina Rifles should fee! fortunate, and the South Saskatchewan regiment should be satisfied. I can understand that it would be desired to draw an even finer line than that, particularly a unit like the South Saskatchewan, which has made such a name for itself.
However I shall certainly keep the matter before the authorities at headquarters.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal in the contention of the last two speakers with reference to men from the same district not being sent to units for reinforcements. In the last war the practice of having
War Appropriation-Army

reinforcements from the same district was a good one. It led to a sentiment favouring recruiting, and improved local feeling in the municipalities and districts in which the units were formed.
A change was made before the present minister took office. However, I never could see the value of the new system, because I thought it hurt recruiting to some extent. Certainly it hurt recruiting in some of the older provinces, where old units were established which took a great deal of interest in the people in those districts.
For instance, let us consider No. 2 military district, the largest in Canada. Recruits enlisting in Toronto are sent to Vancouver, right across the country. This may be national in spirit, but it has worked out very badly for the taxpayers in that community. The result is that the two great railway systems in Canada, through carrying these men, have made a great deal of money.
This section has been under discussion for several days, and the subject matter is almost exhausted. Most questions of policy have been discussed. I do not wish to delay the passage of the item, but there is one matter about which I would ask the minister, and to which I would ask him to direct his attention. I refer to the records office. I appreciate the records kept. I can understand the great amount of work done by the records office in going over attestation papers of 700,000 to 800,000 men. That is indeed a big job, one which even a private insurance company would require a long time to do.
But there is something to be said in favour of a better system of keeping records. For instance, in connection with victory loan campaigns, and the records kept concerning income tax and matters of that kind, one can learn immediately what each municipality has contributed. Then, the information can be broken down into municipalities. I know municipalities need this information, because after the war soldiers will be coming home, and they will say they came from Toronto, Hamilton, London, Brockville, or some other point in the dominion. They will point out that they are citizens of certain municipalities. After all, this is a citizens' army, and when a man joins it he should not lose his civilian status.
I know a change in records is a hard job, and I believe the minister for the army has done a great deal in this connection. I am hoping however, that his two colleagues, namely, the ministers for the navy and the air force, will do the same thing. These records must be made available to the municipality,

because they will need them after the war. These soldiers will come home, and they will want to have this information in their home localities.
I know that men from No. 2 district have gone as far as Vancouver to enlist. Many sons of families in my constituency did not wait to get back to Toronto, but enlisted in Vancouver, Calgary, or any other point where they happened to be. For that reason the records are not up to date, so far as Toronto is concerned.
I think the minister did very well when he decided to follow the British practice in having a break-down of the religious denomination shown on the army attestation papers. This information was sought not from a purely religious point of view, but rather in an effort to try to get a total war effort from all the religious bodies of the country. Sessional paper 356 was tabled to-day and contains the following information:
What are the number of officers and men in the active service forces of the army, navy and air force, with their religious affiliations as set out on their attestation papers down to the end of 1942?
So far as the Canadian army (active) is concerned, the reply to the question is given on a percentage basis in accordance with the statement of the minister appearing on page 1960 of Hansard dated 7th April, 1943. Percentages of those called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act are not yet available.
As of 31st
Religious denominations	March, 1943
Per cent
Roman Catholic	 29-76
Church of England	 25-55
United church	 20-96
Presbyterian	 10-84
Baptist	 5-53	.
Lutheran	 2-27
Jewish	 1-07
Methodist	 1-05
Salvation Army	 0-43
Congregational	   0-02
Other denominations	 2-36
No religion or religion not stated... 0-16
That return contains some very good information, but I do not understand why the percentage basis has been adopted. I believe the numbers of each enlistment should be given.
Another matter is the quotas set for the different military districts. In the victory loan campaigns they have a quota system; they asked the city of Toronto to subscribe $238,000,000; then they raised it to $276,000,000, and the city has actually subscribed about a billion dollars. I do not believe in a percentage system like this. I believe in the British system which was in effect in the last

War Appropriation-Army
war when they gave the exact number of enlistments. I admit that it would be a hard thing to handle in the records office.
I hope the minister will be able to make a statement in connection with the inquest held at Sussex. Perhaps he could do this when his hard work in the house is finished. I should like to see the policy adopted of holding civilian inquests.
I should like also to have some statement made by the government as to our atitude after the war toward Germany and Japan. I do not want to see a repetition of what happened in the last war when so many pacifists said that we were not fighting the German people, that we were fighting the German government. Germany is the same yesterday, to-day and forever. We must not forget that Russia will not wait for any international trial boards. With Russia it will be a case of an eye for an eye and a limb for a limb. I believe it would be a good thing if Canada were to make a statement along these lines. We should make a statement about these barbarians in Japan, and let the people of Germany know that we are not going to wait for any international accord. Washington is two or three thousand miles away from the theatres of.war, and Russia itself on the spot, will clean up the brutal axis gang. These matters will have to be dealt with promptly. Germany, Japan and' the rest of them should be told now how they are to be dealt with so far as Canada is concerned.
I noticed a statement in the press yesterday that the representative of the British government in Canada had made a statement which I think should have come from a minister of the crown. I am not objecting to the statement, but I think the practice is entirely wrong to have a minister come back from England and make a statement about what General McNaughton is going to do about Canadian officers and referring to the work of developing new arms which had been carried out by the Canadian army. With all due respect, I think this statement should have come from a responsible minister of the crown. This country has had a good deal to do with improving the technical equipment of the Canadian army, the air force and the navy. I am speaking as a private member and not for the party. I remember when Lord Elibank came over here and made certain statements that war was near, and he was told to mind his own business.
In reply to what the hon. member for Cape Breton South has said, may I say that
I did not say that the universities were full of aliens. There are only 231 alien refugees, and according to the law everyone who is not a British subject is considered an alien. Three returns have been brought down by the minister, but a great deal of objection could be taken to the practice to which I referred. I hope the hon. member for Cape Breton South will read the returns. I think the practice is all wrong, and many of the soldiers overseas do not believe in it.
I have sent the minister many communications and letters containing complaints and other matters, but I do hope he will try to clean up this trouble which has arisen among the soldiers overseas in connection with their pay. I hope the government will announce a policy of equality for all, in connection with both the new pay and pay for the men in the lower ranks. They certainly deserve it.
There should be more civilian inquests held in connection with deaths in the military forces. Many of these matters could be better dealt with by means of civilian inquests. It would help recruiting to have municipal officers go into these matters.
During the last war while I was a Conservative; I did not have any politics, and the same is true of this war. At that time I found that there were no adequate hospitals in military district No. 2 at Toronto- The terrible influenza epidemic broke out, and nearly two hundred men -were lying on the ground at Niagara camp during those terrible months of September, October and November, 1918. I got a young friend of mine into the Royal Air Force, and in about a week he was dead in his coffin.
When it was discovered that there was no hospital accommodation they wanted to open up the old base hospital on Gerrard street in Toronto. This hospital was not considered good enough for civilians, but they wanted to put the soldiers into that institution. There was a Royal Air Force camp at the university with three or four hundred men, many of whom caught the flu and died. As chairman of the police commission I insisted upon civilian inquests being held. I attended some of them myself and examined witnesses. I can tell the committee that a terrible state of affairs was shown to have existed, and finally hospital accommodation was provided. Civilian inquests would not only help recruiting but would bring out many matters.
War Appropriation-Army

Another problem that will have to be faced is housing accommodation for the returned soldier and his family after the war. I hope the minister will not be unmindful of the housing situation that is bound to develop and I trust he will take it up with the other ministers.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member spoke about the records office and improving the system with particular reference to the municipalities. Does he mean that there should be some registration on the attestation paper with regard to municipalities? I want to see if any change ought to be made, so that it be made right away. I want to get my hon. friend's idea about it. Perhaps he would write me with regard to the improvement of the record system, so that it might be of some benefit to the municipalities.


Thomas Langton Church: The minister will recall my letters, and I admit that there have been improvements made, but the improvements do not go the whole length of the way. For instance, on the attestation paper the residence is given, such as the city of Toronto, and the street number is given and the names of the parents. I believe that if my suggestion were adopted it would be a great help to the municipalities. As it is now, people on the lakeshore road and in West York and South York say they belong to the Toronto district, and the city of Toronto has to provide accommodation that no other municipality does. After the last war a great many soldiers headed into Toronto from all over Canada, because they believed it was the place where employment might be found.


Howard Charles Green: When the minister made his statement the other day he dealt with the whole military policy of the government on the basis that there were two fronts, the European front and the North American front.


James Layton Ralston: There are two fronts in North America.


Howard Charles Green: It may have been an oversight, but the minister did not deal with the Pacific front. There is a war on the Pacific which may be a very serious one for Canada, and the minister should give the members some idea of the military policy of the Canadian government with regard to the Pacific war. In my remarks the other night I said what I thought about it and made certain suggestions, but the minister has said practically nothing throughout this whole debate concerning Canada's share in the war on, the Pacific. I would ask him to tell us to-night the policy of the Canadian government with regard to the Pacific war.


James Layton Ralston: What I want to say to my hon. friend is that the government regards this war as just one war, not two wars. Our policy with respect to Japan is that whatever we can do within our power to help defeat Japan we shall do just as we intend to do it in regard to Germany. I cannot make any more definite statement than that for reasons which I think my hon. friend and the committee will understand. There is only one war in the mind of the government, not two, and we propose to follow that course.


Howard Charles Green: I pointed' out the other night the position we are in with regard to our Canadian army on the Pacific, that it is almost entirely a home defence army. I pointed out that no unit and no men had been sent to Australia in order to get battle experience against the Japanese, and apparently no men had been sent to the Aleutian islands for that purpose. We are entitled to know whether the government intends to continue fighting a defensive war on the Pacific or whether it does not. The people of Canada, certainly those who live on the Pacific slope, are entitled to know the policy of the government. The British have been very straightforward and have toldi the Americans that they intend to stand behind them until Japan has been conquered. Canada has made no such statement-


James Layton Ralston: I made exactly the same statement just a moment ago.


Howard Charles Green: -although we were the first to declare war on Japan. Is it the policy of the Canadian government to fight a defensive war on the Pacific, or is it not?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot make any statement further than the one I have already made, and if my hon. friend will look at what I have said he will realize that I have gone just about as far as anyone has gone in connection with the war against Japan, which as I say is only part of the war against Germany.


Howard Charles Green: You have not gone very far.


James Layton Ralston: I have stated that Canada stands in this war against Japan just as she does against Germany, and that anything within her power that she can do to help defeat Japan she will do. That is exactly the same statement that my hon. friend says was made by Britain. I do not propose to say anything about sending an expeditionary force or anything of that sort. The government has fully in mind the fact that Japan is our enemy just as much as Germany.

War Appropriation-Army


Howard Charles Green: Is there any reason why Canadian troops in our Pacific army should not be given some battle training against Japan? For example, Canadian officers and non-commissioned officers were sent from Britain to North Africa in order to get experience which they were to pass on to their units in Great Britain. Why is not something of that sort being done on the Pacific?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot make any statement further than the one I have made. Developments will dictate the whole situation and whatever steps the government may take in order to carry out the policy I have just stated.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to the medical services. In case of an accident involving injury, who decides whether there shall be an investigation? We will say that a man is suffering from hernia as a result of injury. Who decides whether he is to receive an operation?


James Layton Ralston: With regard to the investigation, if there is any doubt or confusion, or if it is necessary to take the statements of a number of people with regard to the circumstances surrounding an accident, a court of inquiry is immediately held for the purpose of ascertaining the facts.
As to who decides whether an operation shall be performed, I would presume-I have not the book before me-that this would be done on the advice of the medical officer.


George Hugh Castleden: I would point out what an injustice may sometimes arise from the decision whether or not to hold an inquiry. I drew the attention of the minister to this particular case last year. A man was injured during night operations at Petawawa camp. He reported his injury but did not receive any very great attention for a couple of weeks afterwards. Then he was found to be suffering from hernia, and it was recommended that he should have a truss. The history of the case shows that the man did not receive the truss until six months afterwards, until he was posted out west. After receiving the truss he constantly asked the medical authorities to operate on him, to fix him up so that he could continue his work in the army. They refused to do so. Later, in March of that year, he was discharged. Upon discharge he made application for pension, and here is where the injustice came in. Upon applying for pension he could not prove that he was injured on that night operation because there had been no court of inquiry. There was just the medical officer's slip putting him on night duty and
giving him a few pills. This man suffered, I believe, permanent injury on account of the delay in providing him with a truss and, second, from the delay in operating. Then he was discharged from the army and his application for pension was refused. Since that time we have been trying to get some justice for that man, but it is almost impossible to obtain any definite record of what happened on the evening when he claimed he was injured, and the Department of Pensions and National Health will take only the medical record from the records which the army have.


James Layton Ralston: Are the officers or the noncommissioned officers or the comrades of the man available?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes, and a statement was obtained from them. But when the man wrote to the non-commissioned officers who were there at the time they said they were not allowed to make any statement to him on the matter, that according to K.R. and O. it was not permissible to make that statement. I must add this, that after he got out of the army, being unable to carry on properly, application was made through the rehabilitation department and he did obtain hospital treatment and underwent an operation, and there may be some slight improvement since that time. But under the circumstances it scarcely seems that justice was done in this case. I believe that the new regulations with regard to insurance may do away with some such incidents, and that there is consequently an improvement, but it does not help this particular case.
In two other cases I have in mind, I think the decision of the medical officer was scarcely in accordance with good judgment. In one case the man was suffering from heart trouble as the result of an attack of typhoid fever, and he was discharged from the army and was told, "After a few months your heart will be better and you will be able to resume work." But that has not been borne out in the event.


James Layton Ralston: The judgment of the
medical officer in prescribing for him, or not prescribing for him?


George Hugh Castleden: No. The medical
officers told him to report in about three months.


James Layton Ralston: Well, but I say, in prescribing for him and advising him what to do; that is where, my hon. friend thinks, the judgment of the medical officers was wrong?
War Appropriation-Army


George Hugh Castleden: I think that to discharge him from the army and tell him that after three months' rest his heart will be all right puts him beyond the pale so far as getting any redress for his condition is concerned.


James Layton Ralston: Has my hon. friend
brought that case up?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes. It naturally goes to the Department of Pensions and National Health when he is out of the army.


James Layton Ralston: But my hon. friend has something against the army, namely, the advice of the medical officer on which, I understand, he thinks the pension board are relying in connection with the decision as to whether the disability is due to service; is that true?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: But has the case been brought to the attention of my department?


George Hugh Castleden: No; I brought it to the attention of the Department of Pensions and National Health. But I will refer that case to the minister.


James Layton Ralston: I would appreciate it.


George Hugh Castleden: And I would also
appreciate some action with regard to the other case.


James Layton Ralston: Now, will my hon. friend permit me? The other case, as I remember it, and I think I have it in mind-was it not the one which began at Petawawa?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: As I remember it, we collected a sort of diary of the different dates on which moves were made, and finally got him out west. I think he received the truss out there, or did he receive it at Petawawa?


George Hugh Castleden: No, he received that in Regina.


James Layton Ralston: He did receive it in Regina?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think the feature of the case my hon. friend is bringing up now was drawn to my attention. The feature he is bringing up is whether our regulations and our practice are sufficient to ensure that the facts in respect of an accident are promptly gathered when the incident is fresh in people's minds. Was that point brought up before?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes. What I wanted to point out was that, had there been an investigation of the accident at the time of

the injury, the facts would be there wherewith the man could prove that his injury was a result of active service or in the line of duty, but without those records the pension department says, "We can give him no redress," and no pension is available.


James Layton Ralston: I have the name of that man somewhere; but will my hon. friend give me the name again?
Mr, CASTLEDEN: Yes; it is Gunner Robert Morrison, L10362.


Jean-François Pouliot: To make the record clear, I have taken the trouble to check the number of my speeches for the last two weeks, and it is astounding to know how little time I have taken. On May 17, three and a half pages out of 52; May 18, two and a half pages out of 52; May 19, three pages out of 23; May 20, one-half page out of 52; May 21, one-half page out of 51; total, 10 pages for the member for Temiscouata out of 230. One-twenty-third of the time did I take, and not the whole time. And this week: May 24, 13 pages-which is a lot, I admit-out of 54; May 25. five pages out of 51; May 26, none out of 30. For these three days, 18 pages out of 134; and to-day, twenty minutes out of more than five and a half hours. It could be worse; of course some hon. members have spoken much more than I did, and they were not blamed for that. I do not blame anybody. I think this is a free country, and when a member has something to say it is not for him to se joindre ses mains et fermer ses yeux-to fold his hands and close his eyes-that is, if he has something to say on behalf of his electors. And I have the more to say because there are several hon. members who are never heard to defend their electors and who seem to be afraid to do so.
I do not know whether on the 27th of May the Christmas tree is still in full swing. But I have a duty to perform here and I shall perform it to the last minute. I do not wish to cause any obstruction; I do not desire to interrupt any hon. member; I do not want to be hard on any hon. member, and when at . times I am, I regret it. But we have a duty to perform here and I try to do it to the best of my ability.
I have some cases of farmers, painful cases like those I have mentioned. It may be repetition, but if it is a repetition it is repetition of wrong and of evils for which I want redress; that is all. If there is repetition it is because there are numerous wrongs. If there are no wrongs in the county of the hon. member for Wellington North and he has extra farm help to dispose of, let him give me the names and I will pass along those names

War Appropriation-Army
to the farmers of my county who cannot get any help and who complain about it. If he has extra farm help, that is all right; the farmers of my county will be glad to have it to assist them with their crops.
Let me explain, sir, that besides the cases of farmers who are now in the camps, I have had at times to fulfil duties which should have been performed by the medical officers of the army. A number of them are incompetent, and everyone knows that, with a few exceptions, the medical officers in the army are the dregs of the medical profession. I do not insult anybody when I say so. When a boy comes to my office and speaks with difficulty, with his mouth round open, I ask him if he has a goitre, and sometimes he says, yes, although he has been classified A. I can quote such cases to the minister. I have sat and listened to these men. There are other boys classified in category A who suffer from rupture, and some from chronic appendicitis. Is it the job of a member to attend to such cases? Not at all, but the member of parliament has to do that work because some doctors are incompetent, and because some doctors in the army are under the impression that all these boys go there to play theatre, to enact a comedy, not to enlist. You remember, sir, the pathetic speech which was made by the Minister of National War Services when he was deputy minister of that department, at London, giving appalling figures about the health condition of youth in this country. He said himself that he was dumbfounded, that it was appalling. These things are said and we have tried to help these fellows. In my humble view, when a young man is not physically fit, when he is not in a condition to be an asset to the army, it is much better to leave him at home than to pay him soldier's pay and have his dependents given an allowance. Then he is a burden to the state and there is no reason why he should be kept in the army. But there is an obstinacy among soldiers who do their best to keep in the army, at the expense of the country, men who are totally unfit. I have the files. They are at the minister's disposal and at the disposal of every member of the house, and they show that in a great many cases insufficient care and attention had been paid to soldiers who were in bad health. Of course, it was my duty, not only as a member of parliament but as a citizen, to look into these cases, because those who were in charge, whose duty it was to do so, neglected to perform it, on the principle, as stated by a minister, that I was the last man to speak about fellows in
uniform at headquarters, who had never been in a theatre of war, because I had not been in the army myself. That is childish.
I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that boys from my county have tried twice to enlist because they wanted to get into the army, and afterwards they were discharged. It shows their willingness to join the army, and it corroborates what I have already said. For a time young men had to go a considerable distance for medical examination. They had to go from Riviere du Loup to Quebec city for that test, at their own expense if they were found unfit. But they went just the same. I saw one fellow who had what was called hammer-toes. The toes turned under the foot. He could not walk; it was very painful. In these cases the toes are turned under the foot just as the fingers might be on the hand, and it is impossible for such men to walk. Yet they are kept in the army. I had all sorts of descriptions of sore feet presented to me and these cases were pretty bad to listen to, but I had to describe them to the officials of the department. Very often the ailment caused something like paralysis of the leg. I am a layman so far as the medical art is concerned; nevertheless I had to look after these cases to see that the men would not be a burden on the army. Moreover, if the minister will look at some of the files he will see that some of his officers have rendered justice to certain fellows who have been called by telling them that they were right not to listen to the registrar. I agree with that, because in some cases the correspondence was so mixed up in the registrar's office. But they gave them an opportunity to stay at home.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether there is a quorum in the house?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There is just a quorum.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The quorum has just come in.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Members behind the curtains can be counted.


Jean-François Pouliot: Because they are heard, I suppose, there being no wall that separates us from them.
These are sad cases to which I am referring. Take a young man who is needed on the farm. He is kept in the hospital all the time at the expense of the country. I do not see the use of keeping him there when he is unfit, and afterwards the medical officers are bound to declare him physically unfit. Let me tell the committee what happened to one young
War Appropriation-Army

man. He was examined at Rimouski by the army doctor and the civilian doctor. He suffered from his heart. He was classified A, and seven or eight times they gave him certain treatment. He was at Rimouski for two months for basic training. He could not walk. At Valcartier he started advanced training. He would start to walk but could not finish with the other soldiers. After a month he got a re-board and was reclassified A and sent again to drill, but was on sick parade every night. He was sent to military hospital at Quebec and after four days returned to drill. He was then transferred to the Montmagny regiment the same as before. It was impossible for him to bend his back. He was examined again and passed, having been given X-rays. He has been notified that he will have to work according to his capacity. He did not want to leave the army, but it was impossible for him to drill. He wanted to be appointed as a clerk or on the guard. He was qualified to be a clerk, having had banking experience. He 'was kept there for a month and a half and afterwards sent back to Valcartier to do some commando work. He was sent finally by the major, who understood his case was painful, to a civilian doctor, who reported that he was not fit, and then he was sent to Doctor Stevenson, with another doctor. He was undressed but not examined. He has been sent to the commandos again. He was returned by the major, who suddenly became polite, and after that was examined again and found unfit.
I have numerous cases of this kind, and when I mention them I do so simply to prevent mistakes; to see that we do not pay money for nothing, and to save these boys the embarrassment of doing something useless when they could be useful somewhere else. The army should be very careful about the examination of these young men. What is the use of keeping them when they cannot do what all soldiers are supposed to do? For instance, here is the case of a young man who now has been classified E, but only after numerous difficulties. There were many doctors' certificates; he was very ill, and recently his mother wrote me to say that if he had remained in the army he would have died. Then how many young fellows are suffering from heart trouble who are told they have nothing wrong at all? There are certain kinds of illnesses that do not show on the outside, like rheumatism and so on. A man may be examined and X-rayed; I am not a doctor, but I accept what I am told and I believe it is impossible to discover in this way whether a patient suffers from rheumatism or certain other diseases, so that the doctors call these [Mr. Pouliot.l
subjective illnesses. It is very easy to discover whether a man suffers from heart trouble; there are many scientific instruments used by the doctors to discover such cases. But here I have several men who were suffering badly from heart trouble, who were classified A, and whose cases had to be submitted again to the attention of the medical boards in order that the men might be well and carefully examined. We ask no favours; it is not a question of protecting any pets, for I have no pets. The point is that when a man is sick it is unjust and unfair, not only to the man but to the state, to put him in the same class as the man who is totally fit. Some doctors were so stubborn that they said, "Well, the case of this man has been brought up by Jean Francois Pouliot, so this man is not sick." To his own shame that doctor had to admit later that the man was not well.


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend speaking of an army doctor?


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes, and I will tell the minister who he is.


James Layton Ralston: I should like to know.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will not bother the minister with these files now; but I have no secrets; I will send my files to his office if he wants to have them checked by anyone in his department. These are only a few of the files of boys who were ill and who have been treated badly by the medical staff.


James Layton Ralston: I should like to have
them.


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely; I will give the
minister all the files.


James Layton Ralston: I want to ask my hon. friend if he would mind dealing with this matter when we go on to-morrow. I should like to make an observation with regard to the case of the man with the wooden leg. I have sent out to the records office to get the file, and I should like to place the facts on record to-night if my hon. friend would permit me to do so.


Jean-François Pouliot: Certainly; and if I may say one further word, I do not wish to create any obstruction. I do not want to be disagreeable to the minister; I just want these cases to be examined1 carefully, and I shall be satisfied with that.


James Layton Ralston: The case mentioned was that of-I have the name here, but the hon. member gave it to me in private so that

War Appropriation-Army
perhaps I should not state it. This man enlisted on November 3, 1941; he was examined by the medical officers, and they reported that he was found fit for category C2. Then I find this on the medical report:
Special remarks when category lower than A: "Well functioning artificial limb on mid-calf amputation of left leg."
I rather got the impression from the hon. member that the amputation was above the knee.


Gordon Graydon: I do not think he said that in so many words.


James Layton Ralston: I rather had that impression. The file show's that this man was taken on through a misunderstanding on the part of the recruiting officer in Trail, British Columbia, who did not realize that in order to take on a man in C2 for special service he had to get the consent of national defence headquarters. That is the rule in connection with men of that kind who are recommended for particular jobs; special permission has to be given. Accordingly a letter was written on April 21, 1942, by the district officer commanding military district No. 11, in which he says:
Through a misunderstanding on the part of the recruiting officer in Trail, B.C., the marginally named man was enlisted in category C2 without prior authority having been attained from national defence headquarters.
Private 

 was categorized C2 by reason of amputation of the right leg, about lower third, as a result of a shotgun accident at the age of twelve years. It is however stated that he is in possession of a very satisfactory artificial limb. This man was attested on the 3rd November, 1941.
This man is employed as a wireless operator at No. 9 fortress signal company, R.C.C.S., and it is reported by the staff officer (signals) that he is quite skilled, and that it is in the public interest to retain his services in view of the definite shortage of skilled low category personnel of this type.
In view of the foregoing, may authority be granted to retain Private 

 in the service.
Steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of the misunderstanding by which this man was improperly enlisted.
That file came to headquarters. It was examined by the medical officers, and on May 16 this notation was made by the director general of medical services:
Assignment of category C2 concurred in. There would seem to be no objection to this man continuing in his present employment with the disability as shown.
In the second letter coming from M.D. No. 11 this statement was made:
In view of the fact that the marginally named other rank is a tradesman, and is employed as
such, it is requested that this be taken into consideration and that his retention in the service be authorized, as there is a very serious shortage of tradesmen suitable for employment by R.C.C.S.
In a word, the man was qualified to be enlisted in view of his special skill for this technical job as fortress signaller, provided he had received the prior approval of national defence headquarters. That approval w'as not applied for by the recruiting officer. Later it was discovered that this approval had not been obtained; evidently somebody was checking up on the medical documents. Application was then made for approval of his enlistment. Representations were made that the man was skilled in signals and that there was a shortage of skilled low category personnel of this type, and approval was given to his retention in the service. Finally, as I say, his amputation was about mid-calf; that is to say, about the lower third of the leg. When I come to read it I do not think there is anything unusual about this at all. I think the complaint of the hon. member was that the man had not received some treatment in connection with the leg. I shall have that looked into.


John Horne Blackmore: Is it a fact that this man has applied for treatment and his request has been refused?


James Layton Ralston: No; that is not shown here at all.


John Horne Blackmore: I understood the hon. member for New Westminster to complain that the man had been refused treatment.


James Layton Ralston: That was what I said I was going to look into, but I think what surprised everyone was the fact that the man W'as enlisted. I wanted to have the file here, in order to be able to tell the committee the circumstances under w'hieh the enlistment took place. I shall inquire into the matter of treatment.


John Horne Blackmore: I would have no objection to his being enlisted if he is useful in the service of the country, but I would have objection to his being refused treatment.


Mr. JACKMAN:: When the minister states that the application should have the approval of national defence headquarters, what is meant by "national defence headquarters"? Does that mean that the minister should himself, personally, approve the application?
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: The director-general of medical services and, if necessary, the adjutant-general, would be the ones who would examine the matter.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall the item carry?


Gordon Graydon: The item is about to be carried. There is, however, one reservation. A number of questions were asked by some hon. members in this party during the afternoon and evening sittings, and if the item is to carry it should be with the reservation that the minister will answer the questions asked.


James Layton Ralston: I will, as fully as I can.


Gordon Graydon: I should have said that they were asked not only this afternoon and last night, but during other parts of the debate. I should like to have them answered.


James Layton Ralston: I would say that no one will foe shut out by reason of having allowed this item to carry. No one will be shut out from receiving an answer to such questions. As a matter of fact, I have made notes of the questions asked.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned- at 11:05 p.m.