[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 15, to confer certain powers upon the governor in council during the national emergency following the war.
He said: This is the bill to which I made some reference in my remarks to the house on Tuesday night. It is in terms somewhat similar to the War Measures Act although more limited in scope. It is designed to remain in force for one year only unless parliament should choose to extend it beyond that period.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Has the bill been printed?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ALBERTA NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 16, to amend the Alberta Natural Resources Act.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to confirm the agreements between the government of Canada and the government of Alberta set out in schedules I and II.
Schedule I:: The agreement in schedule I of the bill provides for the settlement of differences which have arisen between the dominion and the province as to the effect of the natural resources transfer agreement and
Alberta Natural Resources

the ownership and control of three developed power sites on the Bow river lying within or adjacent to the Stony Indian reserve. The three sites known as the Horseshoe, Kananaskis and Ghost sites were developed by the Calgary Power Company Limited and are being operated under authorizations issued by the dominion government in the years 1909, 1912 and 1929 respectively, when they were under exclusive dominion jurisdiction prior to the transfer of natural resources in 1930.
The agreement in schedule I provides that the land and water power at the two sites in which the Indian interest predominates, namely Horseshoe and Kananaskis, are to remain under dominion jurisdiction, while the Ghost site, where the provincial interest is substantial, shall be deemed to have passed to the province at the time of the transfer of the natural resources. The Minister of Mines and Resources will issue all three licences which are to replace the existing authorization and will continue to administer the Horseshoe and Kananaskis developments, while the province will be responsible for administration of the Ghost development as soon as the final licence is issued.


Schedule II:: Under the Alberta Natural Resources Transfer Act, 1930, certain public shooting grounds and bird sanctuaries were preserved. Many of them have now dried up or are otherwise unsuitable for the purposes for which they were originally set aside. The agreement in schedule II provides that these reservations may be cancelled by agreement between the two responsible ministers concerned with the approval of the governor in council and the lieutenant-governor in council
Concurrent legislation by the dominion parliament and the legislature of Alberta will be necessary.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present to the house a bill to establish a department of government under a minister of the crown to be known as the Department of Reconstruction and Supply to which will be transferred the functions of the Department of Reconstruction and the Department of Munitions and Supply, and that

provision be made in the bill for the appointment of a deputy minister and officers, clerks and employees of the department.
He said: His Honour the Deputy Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That when this house adjourns this day, it stand adjourned until Tuesday the 9th instant.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. O. BREITHAUPT (Waterloo North):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence which is definitely related to a national housing emergency, particularly as it relates to returning service personnel.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. When a question is put on the orders of the day the hon. member is not allowed to make a statement. The question must be brief and to the point.


Louis Orville Breithaupt: I will put the question now. In view of the very serious housing situation in the city of Kitchener and other towns and cities throughout Canada, is it the intention of the Department of National Defence to adopt a policy of making military camps throughout the country available for urgent housing accommodation as and when these camps are closed for military purposes? What is being done in the case of No. 1 C.W.A.C. camp at Kitchener?


Mr. HUGUES LAPOINTE (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National ' Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sent to me in the absence of the Minister of National Defence a copy of his question.
The Department of National Defence is doing all possible to render army camps available for civilian housing, subject to continuing requirements of the army for demobilization. The district officers commanding have been authorized in the event of an emergency to place vacant army buildings at

Housing
the disposal of civil authorities. This measure is of a temporary and emergency nature only.
From the long term viewpoint whenever a camp becomes surplus to requirements this department takes immediate steps to declare the buildings surplus to the crown assets allocation committee, which has jurisdiction in the matter of reallocation of accommodation between government departments or agencies or for disposal through War Assets Corporation. At the time of declaration of surplus this department brings to the attention of crown assets allocation committee any requests for accommodation by civil authorities or private individuals.
With particular reference to the C.W.A.C. T.C. at Kitchener, the district officer commanding military district No. 1 has been instructed to make any vacant accommodation available to the city of Kitchener in the event of an emergency, as I have just mentioned.
The training centre is being disbanded at 31st October, 1945, and will be declared surplus to requirements immediately, and crown assets allocation committee will then be in a position to make any final arrangements for the future use of the camp, either directly or through War Assets Corporation.


Mr. MacNICOL:: May I ask the parliamentary assistant, if the answer he has just given the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Breithaupt), with regard to the use of government or war-time buildings for emergency housing in congested cities, or in communities in which housing conditions are acute, applies also to Toronto, where the housing situation is nothing short of appalling.


Hugues Lapointe: I was informed by the
officers of the department that the district officers commanding all military districts had been given authority to make available all vacant accommodation.



QUESTION AS TO PRIORITIES ON BUILDING MATERIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: The question I am about to
ask I do not expect to be answered to-day, because I did not have an opportunity to present it to the Minister of Reconstruction before now. It is a matter which has been raised before. I raise it with all deference, because we are receiving so many representations with respect to it. It has to do with priorities on building materials.
As a member of parliament-and I think this applies to all members of the house-I am receiving urgent representations from business concerns, suppliers of building materials and other individuals desiring to build, or to complete construction of, or to repair, their own houses. The chief source of grievance in these representations is that because of priorities in favour of Wartime Housing Limited, bottle-necks are being created in the building trades. The fear exists that unless some early and reasonable modification is made in the present code of priorities, the purpose of their existence will be defeated and will have the effect of shutting off large sections of private enterprise from the building field. In view of the urgency of this matter, I would like to ask the Minister of Reconstruction if not necessarily now but at the earliest possible date, he would make a statement to this house as to the advisability of making some reasonable modification in present building material priorities.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: There is a great misconception
about the matter of priorities. In so far as I am aware, there are no priorities in building materials. There seems to be a theory that we have large stocks of building materials frozen or tied up in warehouses.
I received notice a short time ago of a question. The question was not asked, but I had. the answer here. Perhaps it is typical of the situation. The question stated:
Approximately 700 houses now under construction by private persons or contractors of which 174 are for veterans. This is in addition to houses already completed. Meantime materials furnished for Wartime Housing will not be used for some months and are lying in warehouses while houses under construction by private contractors cannot be finished for lack of priorities on materials furnished for Wartime Housing.
That referred to Calgary. The situation was investigated. The situation regarding the Wartime Housing project in Calgary is this: The roofing, shingles, rock wool and mill-work have all been ordered and are in various stages of process and shipment. Four cars of lumber are on hand and sufficient rough plumbing to build the first twenty houses. Concrete is being poured at the rate of four houses per day. There is, therefore, no hold-up in the project, and the material on hand and in process is definitely not too far advanced for the progress being made.
In other words, Wartime Housing orders material for delivery to fit the completion of the work. No stocks of material are being held by Wartime Housing. Wartime Housing
Housing

deals on a mass production basis and buys its material in carload lots, which gives it an advantage over the private contractor. Of course it buys wholesale, which is not particularly popular with the local dealers. It has of course the advantage of building a large number of houses which are constructed from the same plans, and also the large-scale buying of a number of identical articles which arises out of that advantage.
I may say also that it is in the unfortunate position of furnishing an excellent alibi for those who do not plan as well as Wartime Housing in the carrying out of their projects, and of that fact advantage is being taken. I do not think there is a house building organization in this country which has not written me that it cannot carry on because Wartime Housing is building; but I think hon. members will hardly regard it as reasonable that Wartime Housing should modify its procedure on that account.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Is there actually no
priority in respect of veterans' houses over the private building of houses-in this city, for example?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are no priorities.


Major James William Coldwell: I have been told by
people who asked for lumber that they could not get lumber because of the priority on veterans' houses.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the case of lumber it is
wholly untrue.


Mr. TUSTIN:: I wish to ask a question
relating to the same matter. I have had several complaints recently from retail lumber dealers who claim that there is a priority operating in the wholesale market and that they cannot purchase these goods to distribute to retailers. Is there any priority given to Wartime Housing in the wholesale trade?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Wartime Housing does its
purchasing wholesale. It has the advantage of being a large buyer in the wholesale market which the ordinary house builder does not have. Wartime Housing has the advantage of buying on a large scale.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Unfair competition.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nevertheless I may say to
my hon. friend that I presume the purpose of all this is to get houses for veterans, and Wartime Housing is building houses for veterans.


George James Tustin: Only in some centres.
ITMr. Howe.]



MEAT RATIONING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I have two questions to direct to the ministry on subjects that have been raised before, but which I now with all deference raise again. One is to the Minister of Finance and the other to the Minister of Reconstruction. I would ask the Minister of Finance what changes in meat rationing have been recommended by the retail meat advisory committee, and what is the attitude of the government in respect to these recommendations.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I can read a statement in reply to the question. It is a bit long and I dislike reading long statements on the orders of the day, but probably there is no help for it.
In replying to the question of the hon. leader of the opposition, of which he was kind enough to give me notice, I .should like to say just a word, in the first place, about the position and function of the wartime prices and trade board's advisory committees. The board has about two hundred voluntary advisory committees across the country with which it consults from time to time on problems relating to their particular sections or levels of a trade or industry. It has always been clearly understood both by the board's officials and by the members of these advisory committees that all discussions and exchanges of views at such meetings are confidential. This is because premature or partial disclosure of suggestions relating to possible changes in board regulations would often be confusing or misleading, and also because the board must necessarily accept full responsibility for all administrative decisions reached.
However, in view of the considerable interest in the house and in the country in matters relating to meat rationing, it may perhaps be regarded as not improper if I make a brief statement in reply to the question asked by the hon. leader of the opposition.
I should like to make it clear that there are four or five advisory committees to the board which have a definite interest in meat rationing, from the primary producer right through to the retail meat dealer. During the past three or four weeks the board has been in renewed consultation with all these committees, and in addition the board has received a great many communications suggesting particular modifications in the rationing system. All the views and suggestions

Meat Rationing
have been carefully considered by the senior officers of the board and by the technical rationing officials.
Among its advisory committees the board has had for nearly four years both a national and regional retail advisory committees, but not a national advisory committee composed solely of retail meat dealers. At the conclusion of its meeting with the large retail meat dealers' delegation on September 19 the board invited the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada to nominate a special advisory committee of representative retail meat dealers with which the board could confer from time to time on matters relating to meat rationing. This invitation was accepted and the first meeting of the committee took place on Wednesday of this week.
I should like to make it clear that this was a meeting of the board and an advisory committee, and not a meeting with a delegation that came to present a case. The nature of the meeting was a review of the system of meat rationing in the light of three weeks' experience, and in the course of the discussions, which lasted through the entire day, many suggestions were made by members of the committee and many practical problems were fully discussed. On some of the points put forward there was fairly general agreement, on others there appeared to be a majority view; still other suggestions appeared to relate more particularly to local situations. And the same kind of discussions took place in the meetings with the other advisory committees mentioned above.
Perhaps the most generally held view among the retailers was that such cooked meats as bologna, weiners, meat loaves and jellied meats should be off the ration. The position of the board is that it is not possible to accept this suggestion and still stay within the target of 130-135 pounds per capita consumption. Under our earlier system of meat rationing two years ago most of these cooked meats were off the ration, with the result that during the ten months of rationing their current rate of production nearly doubled, from an estimated rate of about 100,000,000 pounds a year to a rate of nearly 200,000,000 pounds a year. If these cooked meats were off the ration, the board would have to place rigid and complicated quota controls limiting all production at the source, and would also have to reduce the so-called "red meat" coupon values in order to stay within the over-all meat consumption target. This would be even more objectionable to both the secondary meat processors and the retail trade.
The board is, however, taking steps to revise the coupon values of most of these cooked meats, and assuming that they cannot 47696-51i
be ration free, this appears the most accepts able alternative to all interested sections of the trade.
The next most general subject of comment by the members of the retail committee was that coupon values for some cuts of meat appear not to be accurately matched with consumer buying preferences, with the result that some cuts of meat appear less readily saleable. On these points there appeared to be a considerable variation in actual experience between individual butchers and between districts. Some members reported little difficulty along these lines, others reported a good deal of difficulty.
The board is carefully reviewing all these detailed suggestions, and while it will take a few days to work out the technical adjustments, I am able to say that the board will be making changes in the coupon values of several of these items which will go quite a long way in meeting the consensus of views developed with the retail advisory committee.
I cannot be precise as to the details or as to the date upon which these changes will go into effect. It will take a few days to work out the details, but I am informed by the board that they will be advertised in the press and in effect by the middle or at the latest the end of next week. Reprints of the revised and consolidated ration charts will be distributed as soon as possible, probably within a couple of weeks.
Perhaps I should add a word about the use of "tokens". The decision to make use of tokens was made in the light of very numerous and widespread expressions of opinion by the retail trade and consumers during the rationing period two years ago, when the need for some sort of "small change" for coupons became apparent. While there are some places where the use of tokens still appears to be something of a difficulty, I think it is now reasonably clear that retail meat dealers in most parts of Canada are finding them a very acceptable improvement in the mechanics of rationing.


John Bracken: I thank the minister
for this very full statement.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Last evening just before the dinner recess I was unavoidably absent from the house when questions were directed to the Minister of Labour. I took note of them, however, and would like to answer them now.
SOi
Labour Conditions

The hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) asked:
Can the Minister of Labour inform this house as to developments in the proceedings with respect to the strike at the Ford Motor Company plant at Windsor, and other threatened strikes ?
My reply is that there is no change in the situation. The union concerned has not altered its attitude towards the company's objection that its officers are not willing to enter a conference with union representatives and the ministers of labour for the dominion and the province, while the union persists in its policy of picketing the main office of the company and preventing its officers and clerical staff from gaining access thereto. The position of the company has been made known to the officers of the union, and the union's reply thereto was transmitted to the company.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) asked:
In view of the gravity of the strike situation at Windsor, will the government or the minister consider the immediate appointment of a controller to take charge of the Ford plant and resume production there pending the negotiation of an agreement between the parties?
My reply is: It is the opinion of the department of labour of the Ontario government, which is in the direct line of responsibility, as well as the Department of Labour of the dominion government, that the plan of bringing the parties together is the one which has the best hope of successful conclusion of the work stoppage.



THREATENED PACKING PLANT STRIKE IN VANCOUVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) asked:
Has the minister been advised of a possible packing plant strike in Vancouver, and if that is an imminent danger what has he done or what does he propose to do to settle the grievance before the strike takes place.
My reply to this question is: I have been informed of a feeling of unrest on the part of packing house workers in Vancouver because the regional war labour board for British Columbia has rejected an application for increased wage rates and a shorter work week. Proceedings on appeal before the national war labour board have just been instituted by the union.



FUEL SHORTAGE IN WESTERN CANADA-ALBERTA AND BRITISH COLUMBIA COAL MINERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. ROSS THATCHER (Moose Jaw):: Has the attention of the Minister of Labour
been drawn to the acute fuel shortage which is reported developing in western Canada? If so, is the department taking any steps to end the strike of coal miners in Alberta and British Columbia?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have been informed by Mr. Angus Morrison, who is secretary of district 18 of the United Mine Workers of America in western Canada, that, after a conference with the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Usley), he has been in touch with president Robert Livett of the mine workers in Canada, and the executive board is meeting on Monday in an effort to conclude the strike. I hope they will be successful.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Lorimer Ilsley: It will be necessary for me to ask the house for another instalment of supply on Tuesday next, that is, one-twelfth of the main estimates. It will be remembered that the house voted one-twelfth shortly after parliament assembled on September 6, and I indicated at that time that it would probably be necessary for me to come back at the end of the month for another one-twelfth. I hope therefore that the leaders of the other parties, and indeed the members of the house, will facilitate the passage of this additional one-twelfth, since it is necessary in order to meet bills that are coming due.


John Bracken: With respect to the voting of another month's interim supply-of the main estimates, I gather-


James Lorimer Ilsley: The main estimates, yes.


John Bracken: I may say that under the circumstances in which the house finds itself the official opposition will be glad to facilitate the passage of this measure in every way possible.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say something similar. I realize that the government must have money with which to meet its bills, and we shall not place any obstacle in the way of the granting of interim supply.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: The members in this group will also cooperate with the minister.

Demobilization-Air Services



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Lorimer Ilsley: Another matter I should like to mention is the date of the budget. I have given the question of an appropriate date some thought and it seems to me that the best date would be a week from to-day. I may say that I have arranged to make a trip to western Canada in the following week to speak in the interests of the victory loan, and I should like to present the budget before I go. On the other hand, our progress in the preparation of the budget has not been so rapid that I can advance the date much before, or at all before, a week from to-day, that is to say, on Friday. The question arises about the hour. I think it is important that parliament should adhere to the practice of evening budgets, the presentation of the budget at eight o'clock in the evening, and if the house would be disposed to consent to forgoing consideration of private bills, which might be ready for discussion between eight and nine o'clock on Friday a week from today, I will present the budget at eight o'clock one week from to-day.


John Bracken: With respect to the budget, which the Acting Prime Minister announces he would like to bring down a week from today, at eight o'clock in the evening, let me say that if he feels it is in the public interest that it be brought down at that time, we shall be glad to give way in respect of any private members' business in order that his proposal may be carried out.


Major James William Coldwell: As regards the consideration of private bills, I think we should do all we can to meet the wishes of the minister, who has important engagements elsewhere, and we shall be glad to cooperate in that respect.


John Horne Blackmore: The members in this group, Mr. Speaker, will also cooperate with the government in this regard.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: Yesterday I was asked a question by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) with reference to the weight of gift parcels being sent to England, which is limited
to five pounds. While we are now in a position where we can send parcels of eleven pounds to Belgium and France, the weight of parcels to England is limited by the British government to five pounds and we cannot do anything to correct this situation. The initiative must come from the British government. There is a good deal of misapprehension about this, so much so that I have to-day received a letter from the ministry of war of the United Kingdom with respect to the same question that was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. As I have said, we cannot do anything, but to the least expression from the government of the United Kingdom indicating that they desire to increase the weight to eleven pounds we shall at once respond.



WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, October 4, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures deemed necessary or advisable in consequence of the war-Mr. Usley-Mr. Golding in the chair.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Just before we proceed with this resolution, the minister last night suggested that it might be better if we took the items on the sheet that was distributed to hon. members in the order as listed there. If that is the wish of hon. members, we will so proceed. On the other hand, if any hon. members wish to have further discussion before we go into these items I think that they should be permitted to have that discussion. I believe we would make better time if we took the items as they are listed, but that is for the committee to decide.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In the course of his remarks yesterday the hon. member for Nanaimo made some reference to aircraft carriers. If Canada has aircraft carriers, has there been an effort made to transfer to the Canadian service the young Canadians serving on British aircraft carriers as flyers or pilots? I am informed that a number of them have been transferred, but that others who have been flying in the Pacific have not been approached and have not been transferred.
Demobilization-Air Services


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Minister of National Defence for Air):: In answer to that question may I say that I am not in a position to speak on behalf of the naval air service, as it comes under my colleague the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services. He will be dealing with that when he continues with his estimates.
Yesterday the suggestion was made that an over-all statement should be made concerning the three defence services. I should like to point out to hon. members of the committee that the estimates that are before the committee at the present time are very largely made up of expenditures that were incurred during the period of the war, and also expenditures incurred in connection with demobilization. The war has been over only a matter of seven weeks, therefore it will be realized that we have not progressed very far in determining what our post-war organization shall be. The atomic bomb was dropped something like eight weeks ago, and will possibly revolutionize defence forces hereafter. As a result, no very definite programme can be produced at the present time.
On the other hand I can well realize that the committee may want to have before it the defence programmes of the three services before passing on the defence estimates. I regret that the Minister of National Defence was called away yesterday and was therefore unavoidably absent, and is not able to be back to-day. I think it can be arranged for him to go on and complete his naval estimates next Tuesday, and possibly continue on from there to make his report in connection with the army, so that the committee will have before it the programmes of the three defence departments before coming to any final consideration of the estimates for each department.
It was suggested that perhaps the programmes of the defence departments were not carefully coordinated. I want to assure hon. members of the committee that estimates are not prepared in watertight compartments by the departments concerned, and have been correlated before being brought in here. In the first place, programmes are prepared in the various service departments. They are then outlined by the various departmental officials and are subject to revision by the defence council, which has on it representatives of the three defence services. That revised programme for each of the services is then considered by the defence committee of the cabinet, and finally approved by the government. Therefore in that way the appropriations of the three services are carefully considered and balanced before they are presented to the house.
rMr. MacNicol.]
In considering the air force estimates that are before the committee at the present time the question was asked yesterday, what purpose is served by the first column on page 551 of Hansard? The leader of the opposition said: "It is no good to us". The hon. member for Souris said: "It just tangles us up." I should like to explain as carefully as I can the reason for that first column. The heading of that first column is, "Amount already granted." That leaves us the additional amount required to see us through the remainder of the year. The additional amount required is $272,502,077, which is the amount that I am asking the house to approve in committee at the present time. It is quite true that the total amount granted has not been spent. I should like to make it clear that the amount that has been granted has been turned over to the air force. We have some of it on hand at the present time. But the amount that will be required in the final seven months of the year is the amount we have on hand plus the additional amount asked for, amounting to slightly over $272 millions.
I was asked if I would produce a statement showing the actual expenditures made in the first five months of this fiscal year. I have it here, and I shall read it to the committee so that it will appear in Hansard. The total expenditures amount to $238,081,440. They
are made up as follows:
Civil salaries and wages	 $ 5.478.570
Pay and allowances	 111,782.941
Travel, transportation and freight.	6,902,051
Construction, purchases, repairs and
operating expenses of properties.	4.689,630
Personnel supplies and services....	3,172.506
Communications	 2.545,032
Ammunition and bombs	 1,395,464
M.T. vehicles and marine craft....	660,659
Fuel cost for aircraft, M.T. and
marine craft	 7,069,861
Aircraft, engines and spares, including overhauls	 4,209,522
Miscellaneous stores and equipment	1.914,400
Flying training contracts	 429,706
Maintenance of overseas squadrons	87,291.529
Sundries	 539,569
Total	 $238,081,440
I should like to refer once again to some of the comparisons that were made in comparing the expenditures as shown in one part of the year as against another part of the year. I should like to make it quite clear that in making such a comparison, to use a homely expression, you might as well take a family budget where the bills come in during the early days of the month and are collected and probably paid toward the end of the month. If you average the expenditures day by day, in the early days of the month they will be low; then suddenly, on the day you

Demobilization-Air Services
pay the bills, the housekeeper will be accused of going haywire and running up terrific expenses in one particular day. That would not be sound. The only way to ascertain whether you are going behind one month is by comparing it with the previous month or with the same month in the previous year, to find out what the over-all expenses were for that period. Consequently it is fallacious to start comparing payments made in one month with payments in the previous month or the months just before that. I would suggest, if it meets the approval of the committee, that we continue to examine this statement item by item, so that any information required on an item may be given as we come to it; and I can assure the committee that the fullest possible information is available.


Mr. POWER:: Before we go on to an examination item by item I should like to say a word with respect to the creation of a fleet air arm and to lay before the two ministers concerned, the Minister of National Defence for Air and the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, certain factors which I believe should be considered very carefully before they embark upon any large undertaking in the way of a fleet arm.
I do not propose in any way to oppose the creation of such an arm. The naval air force did credit to itself, to its country and to the allies during the last war, but I think the attention of hon. members should be called to the fact that in creating a fleet air arm we will be creating a duplicate service. My hon. friend the minister may say that I was minister when the fleet air arm was brought into being, and I shall have to admit that my better judgment was coalesced into acquiescing, in the stress and strain of the war and probably because of the glamorous deeds of the flat tops and aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy. But here is what it means, and this was pointed out at the time. In all probability it means a double set of aerodromes, a double set of training schools, a double set of technical schools to train the technical men, a double set of staff officers to plan-and a great deal of planning goes on in the armed services. I notice the hon. member for Cape Breton South in his place. I am sure he and all his socialistic friends would be only too pleased to be members of the staffs of the armed services, because they spend a very great deal of time planning. It would mean a double set of planners and a double set of designers. I think it is fairly well known to hon. members that the design of the aircraft used by the fleet air arm is not the same as the design of the aircraft used by the army,
by the Royal Air Force and by the R.CA.F. There are perhaps reasons why they should differ in certain respects, but I would point out that the most famous raid made during the war, that of Doolittle on Tokyo, was made with army aircraft.
So it goes, all through the piece. But it means more than additional expenditures. I believe I am justified by the experience in the last war in saying that it means a certain amount of rivalry, a certain lack of harmony as between two very great organizations, the navy and the air force. It is not betraying any secret to say that it was notorious in the United States that the United States navy did not get on with the army, and that situation was particularly glaring with respect to their air services. There have been rumours that in Britain the high lords of the admiralty were even a bit sticky; and that the people of the air force, as perhaps befits a young and growing organization, were a bit cocky, so perhaps they did not get along any too well either. In any case Canada had to furnish training schools for the fleet air arm at Kingston, Aylmer, St. Eugene and I think one or two other places.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Was there not a school
at Collins Bay?


Charles Gavan Power: That is Kingston. The fact of the matter is that while there was a surplus of pilots in the R.C.A.F.; while thousands of them were kicking around Bournemouth in England and thousands more were being put on the special air crew reserve here, the fleet air arm was asking for new men to come in for training, because there seemed to be no coordination as between the R.A.F. and the fleet air arm. Without opposing the creation of this arm, I am pointing out to this committee-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did the hon. member
mean the R.C.A.F. or the R.A.F.?


Charles Gavan Power: The R.A.F., because a large number of our men were being trained for the R.A.F. My contention is that if some of the men who had been through their elementary and intermediate stages of training had been taken on and given the last phases of training which would be necessary to make them fleet air arm flyers, it would not have been necessary to begin training all over again. I fear that with two great organizations such as the navy and air force competing for recruits, both endeavouring-and this is a legitimate ambition on the part of those within these services-to build up a better organization, in this country we will have a lack of harmony which will not serve the purpose either of the nation or the forces themselves. So I suggest
Demobilization-Air Services

to the two ministers that before we get into the position of creating this fleet air arm; before the inevitable happens, as it will happen in this house and this country, and people say we are paying too much for the armed forces; before we create a duplicate service; before we do an injustice to those who may very properly embark upon a career in the fleet air arm, by perhaps axing them later on, after a few years, we carefully consider not whether we should have men flying from carriers but who shall be responsible for the organization.
In the last war it was possible for the Royal Air Force and the R.C.A.F. to organize observation units, as I think they were called. Hon. gentlemen who are more familiar with what happened overseas than I am will remember that the army desired to have artillery officers trained as observers. We thought it would be easier to take a pilot who had gone through a year and half or two years of flying training and train him to spot for the artillery than to train an artillery man to fly to the place he wanted to be. The discussion did not last very long, and the army won, but eventually, during the course of the war, those observation units came under the control of the	air force.	So whether it be	the R.A.F. orthe	R.C.A.F.	it seems to	me	it should be
possible to reconcile the training, the supply and the organization of men who will fly from battleships or carriers and men who will fly from the ground, without creating a very expensive organization.
If	I may do so I would	like	to suggest tothe	ministers that they	get	together the
officers of their departments, for there are excellent officers in both departments who know this whole story far better than perhaps anyone in this house knows it. Let them get together and put their cards on the table, because we are starting something new. That was done in the old country after the last war, where there was a controversy which lasted for years. Eventually the big navy people won and a fleet air arm was created; but before embarking on this policy let us give it careful consideration. I think the ministers could discuss it with their officers, and if they cared to have it, there are men in this house who could in an informal way give them all the advice possible. There are men on both sides of the house able to do that. Before any of us get into a controversial argument or wed themselves to a big navy or a navy air arm or a land air arm, let us have all the facts and give them serious consideration.


John Bracken: Mr. Chairman, we have all listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. I am not rising to comment on the subject he raised, but I am sure that with the splendid record he had as Minister of National Defence for Air, this house and the country will listen with respect to the statement he has made.
I am rising for another purpose. It is as to procedure in this committee. There is only the one resolution before us. It is asking that 81,365,000,000 be voted for war expenditures and demobilization. Any member may get up and discuss anything that may be included within the details of that appropriation. It seems to me that unless we arrive at some understanding and discipline ourselves, we may very well talk here for a couple of months. As leader of one party I want to say that we are prepared to discipline ourselves and to confine ourselves to a discussion of individual items when we come to them. However, before that time arrives I think a full discussion of the general situation should be open to any hon. member who wishes to apeak. I feel also after the experience of last night that I should say something more at this time.
The different ministers of defence have been asked to give us an over-all statement of their policy with respect to defence, but up to now such a statement has not been forthcoming. The Minister of National Defence for Air referred to this request to-day, and indicated that he was not in position to make any such statement except for an interim period. A good many hon. members will be disappointed that we have not heard more. However, he said that the Minister of National Defence-army and navy-would be here at a later time and might be able to supplement what he had to say.
Quite frankly when we reached these estimates last night I felt a good deal of frustration. The tables that were given to us a few days ago by the Minister of Finance either mean something or they do not mean very much. They were taken by me, and I think by most hon. members, to mean that the figures in the first column showed the amounts that had been allocated or voted for the first five months of this year, while the figures in the second column showed the amounts that would be required for the remaining seven months. The minister has now indicated that they do not mean that they have been allocated out of the $2,000,000,000 that was voted last year, but that the treasury board has apportioned the amount to each item. Is that correct?

Demobilization-Air Services


Colin William George Gibson: The
amount that has actually been received by the department concerned and that had been allotted to it during the five months' period.


John Bracken: But it was not apportioned out of the $2,000,000,000 voted last year?


Colin William George Gibson: It was the grant actually drawn; the proportionate amount of that $2,000,000,000.


John Bracken: As I remember it last night-


Colin William George Gibson: The
$2,000,000,000 has been allocated and granted to the various departments as shown in this table.


John Bracken: As I remember, last
night the minister intimated that a certain amount had been allocated, first of all for the first item in his estimates. He then went on to say that some treasury board had altered that amount, and that the allotted amount was the figure shown in the first column. What I am getting at is that that column does not mean very much to us. The minister has come along to-day and has given us the expenditures for five months- expenditures for the five months under each of these items. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East, however, that that information is not very helpful to us in considering these estimates.
As I look back over the last half dozen years of war I find that this house granted to the government large amounts of money without much question and without much consideration. Now the ministers are relating the present requirements to the amounts voted in the past. Our position is that these total expenditures increased too rapidly and are not decreasing rapidly enough. In view of the situation in which we find ourselves I should like to say something to-day which I had planned to say on an earlier occasion but which I was unable to say for reasons which the committee will understand.
The resolution before us has to do with war expenditures and demobilization. It asks that we approve the granting to the government of $1,365,000,000 for expenditures on these items over a seven months period. On Friday last the Minister of Finance presented to this house a statement in explanation of his request for this appropriation. When he got through we saw what the total was; in fact it had been intimated before. Since that time many hon. members of this house have spoken, including the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), 47696-52
the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and others. If I may say so, for moderation and tolerance and non-partisanship I doubt if those addresses have been excelled in this house at any time that I can recall.
A few days ago the Minister of National Defence presented another statement. It was with respect to naval expenditures. When he got through he intimated that he wanted $172,000,000, after indicating that the force would be reduced, if I remember correctly, to 10,000. Yesterday the Minister of National Defence for Air presented his statement in which he indicated that the air force would be reduced to 15,000 or 20,000, and he outlined his idea of what its interim organization should be.
I submit that the government has done itself less than credit in the case it has presented in asking for $1,365,000,000 for seven months. This leads me to deal with one aspect of this measure, the business aspect. The other day the hon. member for Vancouver South dealt with defence policy. He asked for an over-all statement from the government, and he volunteered some constructive suggestions. We are still waiting for that statement. The hon. member for Vancouver South was followed by the members for Lake Centre and Kamloops in criticism of the policy of carrying on, now that the war is over, by order in council under the War Measures Act.
There are four major aspects of the measure now before us to which we might give attention. One is what we might call the remnants of the war expenditures. Another is the welfare of the returning men and of the dependents of those who will not return. The third is defence policy for the future, and the fourth the business aspects of the whole matter. I shall not take more than two or three minutes to refer to the first three.
With respect to the remnants of the war expenditures, obviously our commitments must be met. But in saying that, I think we should also say that unnecessary expenditures and waste must be eliminated. I am sure that the ministers are endeavouring to see that that is done right now. I think also that the huge expenditures of the past should be brought under review, not in closed session, but in open session.
With respect to the welfare of the returning men and their dependents, this has been the subject of earnest consideration by a committee of this house in the past and will

Demobilization-Air Services

be again, as well as in the deliberations of this committee, and I am sure it will receive long and considered judgment by the members. We must try to see that the young men who fought in this war shall not be economically worse off for having done so. Physically they should be restored to the maximum of health that modern medical science can achieve for them. With respect to their adjustment from war-time to peacetime activities, we should see that they are given the training that they missed when they went away, and any additional training we can give them, and that they shall have work suitable to their capacity at reasonable rates of pay on their return.
With respect to the defence policy of the future we shall await a further statement from the government. The member for Vancouver South the other day made some suggestions which received favourable commendation from many sections of the house. Whatever we may decide upon in detail in our plans for the future, I think we must do two things: we must plan to protect ourselves against attack, and we must cooperate fully with other nations to try to see that we are not attacked.
Now I come to the phase of the matter with which I wish to deal in greater detail, the business aspects not alone of this particular measure but of the sum total of them all.
I think at the outset that we should take stock of where we are at to-day. Here we are in the middle of a fiscal year, and we have had no budget-meeting in the middle of the fiscal year with half of a year's money spent without the expenditures having had adequate consideration either by this parliament or the previous parliament; meeting in the middle of the year with civil estimates for six months already passed-five months last winter and one month for which we granted interim supply three weeks ago; meeting in the middle of a fiscal year with wrar estimates for seven months already voted without much consideration-with five months supply voted last winter and $400 million or the equivalent of two months' interim supply voted three weeks ago; and now' here we are meeting in a short session with insufficient time to give to these tremendous expenditures the full consideration they should receive.
It is a most unusual situation. In our judgment, Mr. Chairman, it is an inexcusable situation. It has never happened before, so
far as I have been able to learn. It should not have been allowed to happen now; it must never happen again. There is no reasonable

defence for our being in this position, discussing expenditures that reach the huge sum of $5,000 million a year, over half of which has been already spent.
What does -this measure aim to do? This is the first step in a procedure to make available $1,365 million for seven months for certain purposes. That is a lot of money-$200 million a month-$7 million a day. Since this measure was introduced a week ago $50 million of the Canadian taxpayers' money has been spent under this measure. And that is not all. The civil estimates were laid before us some time ago asking for an expenditure for the twelve months' period of more than $1,000 million. In addition to that there had already been voted last winter the huge sum of $2,000 million for war purposes, making a total of these three items of $4,388 million or the equivalent of some $12 mililon a day. But that is not all either, Mr. Chairman.
At page 565 of Hansard the Minister of Finance indicated that there were other expenditures not included in these amounts. He indicated that there were war service gratuities and reestablishment grants that would amount to $240 million a year, to be added to these other appropriations. On the same page he indicated that export credits and foreign exchange control expenditures would have to be added as well. He did not give the total amount, but he summed up by saying that the total would come to more than $5,000 million for the year in which we now find ourselves.
That figure is large, but it is not all we should be thinking about. What we should be thinking about as well is that this is the people's money we are dealing with, and that when we approve these measures we approve *the taxes necessary to raise the money, and we approve the debts necessary to pay for the deficits. It is important that we should realize the full implications of our action. It is only because I feel that these expenditures, which were increased to such tremendous heights under the patriotic impulse of war, are not being reduced fast enough that I have taken these few minutes to bring out some of these points to-day.
My general criticism of the situation in which we find ourselves may be mentioned under four headings.
The first criticism is the disrespect which has been shown to parliament by letting six months go without a budget, by permitting six months to pass without adequate consideration of these tremendous expenditures, and in bringing us here too late to deal adequately with them. Hon. members know very well the reason. Parliament was called to meet here

Demobilization-Air Services
last January 31. It met one day and prorogued the same day; it was called again for March 19, and sat for four weeks or until the life of that parliament expired; and it ended without a budget and without adequate consideration having been given to expenditures. Now, late in the year, with half the money gone, and very little time left to deal with the matter, we are here and are asked to consider and take responsibility for passing these huge amounts.
The second criticism I want to make, and I make it in all seriousness, is that in the manner of bringing these expenditures before the house the government has removed the most effective check it had upon the prevention of waste. We have before us one resolution asking for $1,365 million. When the civil estimates come down for $1,000 million you will have over four hundred different resolutions. When these resolutions pass, no branch of the service can exceed the amount voted under each item. It has not the power to do it, and the only way the government can get any additional money for any such item is by governor general's warrant. But what do we see here? The government brings in one resolution and has provided us with a breakdown to help us consider the total, but it does not carry the breakdown into the bill; so when we are through, the government for this purpose will have $1,365 million in one lump sum into which hundreds, yes, thousands of officials can dip, and the government is at once put on the defensive. The most effective means the government has of preventing waste has been given up by bringing in estimates in this fashion. The government has forfeited the help which might have come from the heads of five hundred or a thousand sections of the service, in each one of which it would have been some responsible official's duty to see that the expenditures were not increased. But now, everybody is against the government; every service there is will want more money; and in spite of the best efforts of the government its expenditures will be greater than they need be had they been brought forward in the way that ordinary expenditures are brought before parliament.
I realize the answer of the government. In war time nobody raised serious objection to the course it fallowed. But in peace time it ought not to be permitted. I think that is one reason why the expenditures to-day are as high as they are. As I said, under this plan nobody is helping the government to keep the expenditures down. On the contrary, practically the whole public service is against the government. There is perhaps not a service but thinks that its .work is good and wants to 47696-52J
extend it, so the whole pressure of the officials is against the government. Thus, in spite of the government's best efforts, its expenditures will be higher than they need to be.
The government's practice is not in the interest of the minister himself; it is not in the interest of the government; it is not in the interest of the taxpayer.
I have said that the expenditures are unnecessarily high. Let us take a little perspective of what we are doing.
We have no public accounts before this house. The last public accounts available come only to March 31, 1944, and therefore are eighteen months old. That makes it very difficult for hon. members, even if the expenditures of that time were warranted to pass upon these items now.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It makes it impossible.


John Bracken: But let us try to get a little perspective of the situation. In the year the war started this government spent $550 million, the next year $700 million, the next year SI,200 million, the next year $1,900 million, the next year $4,500 million, last year $5,300 million. I do not know exactly what it is this year, but the minister indicated the other day that it would be over $5,000 million. Thus the amount in the first year of peace is to be nearly ten times as much as in the first year of war.
Hon. members may not like it; the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) did not like it the other day when I mentioned it; it does not matter; these things must be said. In the last six years this government has spent approximately $20,000 million without adequate consideration by parliament. That is more than was spent by this nation in the whole period of its history up to this war. All of it was spent without any adequate checking up by the government itself or by this parliament.
Because of that huge growth in expenditure, taxes had to be increased. The war-time taxation in 1939 was $300 million, in 1940 $300 million, in 1941 $550 million, in 1942 $1,000 million, in 1943 $1,800 million, in 1944 $2,100 million. I suppose it is even higher this year than it was last year. Last year the total revenue from war-time taxation and other sources was $24,000 million, and that is more than the Canadian people paid in taxes during the first fifty years of the history of this country. Even this large amount paid only half or less than half our total expenditures last year. The balance was raised by borrowing, and how much did we borrow?
In 1939, the year war was declared, the total debt of this nation-in round figures- was $3,700 million, the next year $4,000 mil-
Demobilization-Air Services

lion, the next year $5,000 million, the next year $6,600 million, the next year $9,200 million, the next year $12,360 million. I do not know what it amounted to on March 31 of this year, the end of the last fiscal year, but it probably approached $16,000 million. As that is gross debt, it is not quite a complete picture. Perhaps a more accurate statement of the position is indicated by the net debt, but even that has increased very largely- from $3,100 million in 1939 to $3,200 million in 1940, $3,600 million in 1941, $4,000 million in 1942, $6,200 million in 1943, $8,700 million in 1944, and while we have not been given the figures, it is now probably in the vicinity of $11,000 million. In other words, in these six years we increased our total debt from less than $4,000 million to, I suppose, in the vicinity of $16,000 million, and our net debt from something over $3,000 million to approximately $11,000 million.
The other day the Minister of Finance, in presenting his statement, as reported at page 566 of Hansard, said that interest on the debt, together with one of the social services, family allowances, now came to more than half of the total expenditures in the civil estimates. You have them before you, $1,000 million. The minister said that these two items, interest on debt, and the cost of family allowances, came to half or more of the total figure, or in other words as much as the whole expenditure of the government the year before the war.
I mention these figures, Mr. Chairman, because I think we should have them before us when we are considering what we are going to spend from now on. I want to read two or three extracts from the minister's address in introducing this proposal. The first is on page 548. He says:
It will be noted that this amount-
That is, for war expenditures and demobilization.
-of $3,365,000,000 is $1,085,000,000 less than the total of the war and the Mutual Aid appropriations provided last year.
I do not know exactly why the minister mentioned that reduction. It is true it is a reduction in that item. Later he went on to say that there were almost as many additions to the budget as there were reductions in it. You will find reductions in the estimates for the department of defence for navy, army and air. The figures you will find on page 563 of the minister's address. But I wish to read one other item from the minister's address on page 565.
The amount which we estimate will be required for war service gratuities and reestablishment credits is approximately $240 million

which will, of course, be an expenditure in addition to the appropriation being requested under this resolution.
I simply want to bring together these different items in the government's proposed expenditures so that we can see the total. Further on, on the same page, he said:
To this must be added certain other cash requirements, particularly those for export credits and the financing of the foreign exchange control board which will bring our total requirements for the year above $5 billion.
Or only a little bit short of the total for last year, in this year, the greater part of which is after the war is over. I want to read another statement on the next page. It refers not to this year, which ends next March, but to the year that follows, the year that ends March, 1947.
During the year following this ninth victory loan, and for which it is expected to provide the moneys required over and above our revenues, our expenditures and other cash requirements, including the loans we propose to make to allied nations for reconstruction, will probably amount in all to about four billion dollars.
In the second year after the war is over the government is now anticipating an expenditure of $4,000 million, which is twice as much as in the war year 1942, three times as much as in the war year 1941, nearly eight times as much as in the pre-war years, namely, $3,500 million more than in pre-war days. And that is for the second year after the war is over.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend say the second month after the war is over?


John Bracken: No, the second year.
A little further on the Minister of Finance makes this statement:
In view of these large requirements I believe we must borrow something approaching two billion dollars for this period. This is a huge amount, even though it is much less than the totals we have borrowed in recent years.
And now listen to this. He continued:
Something on this scale is required, however, if the total reduction in our expenditures and cash requirements is not to be reflected solely in our borrowing.
What does that mean? It means that to the extent that they are short they are going to borrow; that in order to make any kind of reduction in taxation they will make it up by borrowing. No other meaning can be read into that statement. In other words, he says that if we borrow enough we can reduce taxation. Mr. Chairman, I have only one comment to make on that, and it is this. In peacetime, to the extent that we depend on borrowing for financing ourselves, we are not

Demobilization-Air Services
facing the issue squarely, and financing on borrowed money is a concession to the well-to-do.
However, the main point I wish to make is that the minister is obviously making it clear now that in order that there may be some reduction in taxation we shall resort to borrowing $2,000 million in the second year after the war is over.
But I must hurry on. In view of the fact that we have had no public accounts since March 31, 1944, I would ask the government to let us have two or three figures. What has been the total expenditure for the fiscal year 1945? There are only three questions; they are very simple. What has been the total revenue from taxation and other sources for the fiscal year 1945? What was the total indebtedness, gross and net, at the end of the fiscal year?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Ended March 31, 1945?


John Bracken: Yes. If the record were brought up to date it would be appreciated. The government may or may not be in a position to give it to the present date, but there is no reason why now, many months after March 31, we should not have the figures at least up to that time.


Colin William George Gibson: I did
not hear the third question.


John Bracken: The total indebtedness, gross and net, as at the end of the last fiscal year. I have outlined the situation. It is only a statement of facts. We either continue those expenditures at a very high rate or we reduce them; it is for the house to decide.
In talking about the $4 billion a year expenditure two years after the war is over, the Minister of Finance intimated the other day that about one-third of it would be for what we call the civil estimates. That is more than $1,300,000,000. As I see the picture that faces us, it will not be $1,300,000,000, it is pretty sure to be $1,500,000,000. When the minister intimates that there will be a total expenditure of $4 billion, and says he is to borrow $2 billion, I am wondering if we are not heading for a civil budget approaching $2 billion. When intimations of this kind are given to us I think it is time that we should take into serious consideration where the voting of these huge sums of money is going to lead us.
There is no use in pointing out a situation like this unless one makes some constructive suggestion. I wish to make some. I hope nobody in the government will take offence at them. We have a duty to perform here; we have to present these matters. We are not allowed to help the government to shape
policy; we are not allowed to share with them the responsibility of administration. Whatever other duties we have under the party system, one of them is to try to point out the errors the government is making, and, to make constructive suggestions toward correcting those errors. I have five suggestions I wish to make.
Parliament must meet on time in the future. There is not an hon. member in this committee but realizes that, with the other work the government has brought forward, we have not time to deal with this huge problem effectively.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask what limits our
time?


Mr. BOUCHER:: The Prime Minister.
M. BRACKEN: Yes, I shall tell you.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are prepared to sit here
in this session until next year.


John Bracken: You should have been prepared to come here months ago. As I said, parliament met on January 31 and adjourned the same day, then it did not resume its sittings until March 19, although the government knew that the end of the life of parliament was only four weeks ahead. That was where the first mistake was made.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It sat more days last
year than the British parliament.


John Bracken: It met on March 19 and prorogued on April 16. That is where the first error was made. The second error was made in not getting us here earlier for the session and now there is talk of having another session meeting shortly after the new year, and the idea is to hurry through this one!. No, the mistake was made by the government. There is nothing that we can do now to give us adequate time to deal with these matters.
The second point I wish to make is that there should be no more opening of the public purse for thousands to dip into. That is what this very policy is. When the government brings forward its civil estimates there is not one resolution but 426 or so; and no branch and no department can expend more than the amount that is within each one of these resolutions. The officials in charge of each branch are concerned to see that they do not spend more than that because they have to justify asking for a royal warrant to spend more. All that protection which the ministers and the government have is gone. I sympathize with the government. But its officials are thus all against it. They do not mean to do any harm to the
Demobilization-Air Services

state, but all the state's protection is gone. They are all against you when you should have five hundred or one thousand tried and tested officials there trying to see that these expenditures are not exceeded. By this procedure all that protection is gone.
Nobody raised that question seriously during the war, and I do not raise it too seriously now, although I think in the government's own interest they should have that protection. But I want to give the government fair warning that if it comes forward with requests for these huge amounts in this way next year we shall certainly use all the energy we have to see that it is done in a better way.
My third criticism is that the dictatorial powers allowed the government in war must be taken away in peace. We have had some discussion on that, and I need not go into it in any larger field than what is before us now. It is an easy way for the government to proceed, but it is not an easy way for the government to keep down its expenditures. The government has taken away from itself the best protection it had.
My fourth criticism is that consideration of public expenditures behind closed doors must end.
My last one is that the government must get out of its head that it is a dictatorship.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh. oh.


John Bracken: I know; my hon. friend may laugh. The government did not deliberately plan to become a dictatorship, but when it gets to be one it likes to hang on to it too long. I suppose we would be acting in the same way if we were over there, and if you were over here you would be saying exactly the same thing that I am saying to-day. If you were saying it you would be correct.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Exactly, we did before.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The time you took the buttons off.


William Henry Golding: Order.


John Bracken: The government must get it into its head that while a democracy will stand for a dictatorship in war, it will not stand for a dictatorship in peace.
We are going to look upon this government as the custodians of the people's money, the people's taxes. As representatives of the people, like any other hon. members, we intend to try to hold the government responsible for its trusteeship, and it is a very heavy responsibility.
I do not propose to keep the committee any longer. I rose to point out where the government's policies have led us. I did not criticize it too seriously during the war, although with proper controls these expenditures could have been kept down then. But I do criticize it when they are not going down fast enough now, and -when from all indications the prospects of getting them down very fast in the future are not bright.
We expect the government to justify these expenditures, and to justify the meagre measure of tax reduction they will bring in because of the size of the expenditures.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not propose to reply in detail to the remarks of the leader of the opposition, but in the absence of the Minister of Finance I think I should cover one point. He spoke of the requirements for 1947 being $4 billion. The Minister of Finance made it clear, I think, that this is a cash requirement and not a budgetary requirement. It would include the loans which will be necessary to countries that have been traditional customers of ours, particularly the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Holland, Norway and our sister dominions. A period will be required before the Bretton Woods agreement can go into effect, and before the international monetary fund can come to the rescue of the financial difficulties in converting currency as between one country and another. In that period we contemplate having to finance purchases in Canada of foodstuffs and other materials for these countries. The cost of such purchases is a cash requirement, but it is not a budgetary requirement. Naturally the money so furnished will be a debt owing by these countries to Canada, just as the bonds that will have to be sold to provide the cash to make the purchases will be a debt owing by Canada to the people of this country who will be the owners of the bonds. I believe that distinction should be made, because I should not like any hon. member to think the budget for 1947 will be $4 billion or anything approaching that sum.


John Bracken: Perhaps the minister
would permit me a question. Does he really expect that these credits or advances, or whatever they are, will be repaid?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I certainly do.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


John Bracken: I asked if the minister really expected that these credits or advances would be repaid, any more than the advances under Mutual Aid were repaid. He replies that he certainly does. I doubt if anyone else in the house will give that answer to the question.

Demobilization-Air Services


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry my hon. friend takes such a pessimistic view of the future of the United Kingdom and the great powers of Europe. Mutual Aid was a gift, and there was never any suggestion of a loan or of any repayment in that connection. The first billion dollars provided for aid to Britain was called a gift and was passed as such by this house. Other money was provided in the form of Mutual Aid, which meant that Britain would pay to the extent of her ability, and that the balance would be a gift. That was made clear to the house. Those moneys will not be repaid. To-day, however, we are making loans which call for repayment to several countries. All these are countries which have paid their debts through the ages; and this applies between Canada and the United Kingdom. I cannot be as pessimistic as my hon. friend, if he suggests that the debts now being incurred by these countries will not be repaid. If we take that attitude, I think we must take the view that the, world can never recover from this war.


Major James William Coldwell: I fully agree with one thing said by the leader of the opposition this afternoon. During the several years we have been discussing these war expenditures under a resolution and a bill I have suggested from time to time that we should follow the practice we adopt in connection with our other budgets and estimates; that is, attach to the bill a schedule which would limit the appropriations to the items approved. I understand the difficulties in that connection, and when this method was discussed with the Minister of Finance earlier I reiterated the objection which was raised this afternoon by the leader of the opposition and urged that as soon as possible we should get back to the normal way of doing business and see to it that the estimates were brought down in the usual way both for ordinary expenditures and for what we now term war or demobilization expenditures. I think the argument that has been advanced this afternoon, that the limitations placed upon the departments and officials by the house when the method suggested is adopted, is a valuable safeguard both to the government and to this parliament. We know there are difficulties at the present time, and for that reason we have been inclined not to press the matter during the war years. But now that we have emerged into the peacetime era I think the sooner we get back to the normal way of budgeting our estimates, the better it will be not only for the country but for the government itself.
The other day the Minister of Munitions and Supply said it was planned again to set up the war expenditures committee, to deal with war expenditures and war assets; and I believe that should be done as soon as possible.
I think these expenditures should be very carefully examined. The public accounts committee has a different function to perform; it is more concerned with the ordinary civil estimates and expenditures. I do not think there should be any further delay in establishing the committee to which the minister referred and which during the war we have always called the war expenditures committee, in order that we may go into the criticisms that are heard across the country, although sometimes I feel sure, unjustifiably, from what I know of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. The disposal of our war assets properly comes into a discussion of this kind, because those war assets account for a very large percentage of the money with which we are now dealing. In that connection I have just received a telegram which indicates the misgiving or alarm which some of our people are feeling. I should like to place on record this telegram, which comes from Toronto, Ontario, and reads:
Whereas the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is greatly concerned to hear that the federal government is planning to dispose of the nitrate plant at Calgary to private interest and contrary to proposals submitted by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture it is urged that no action be taken by government until a further meeting with the Canadian federation at which time full disclosure as to costs, markets, benefits to Canadian agriculture, etc., is made and future action planned.
That is signed by V. S. Milburn, secretary of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and I take this opportunity to bring it to the attention of the minister. There we have a concrete example. We have made very large industrial expenditures for war purposes, and many of our people are anxious that this house should protect the interests of the country to the greatest possible extent. Where we can use these new establishments for the benefit of the Canadian people they should be so used.
May I say just one other word along the line of what the minister was saying a few moments ago. The Minister of Finance has stated that the $4,000 million is a cash requirement. We know perfectly well that a large part of that amount will have to be used either for Mutual Aid or for loans, as the minister has said. I am quite sure the people of Canada realize that while we can set up all the security councils we like; while we can
Demobilization-Air Services

do everything possible in the way of rearmament among our own nations, still we may not obtain the security the world needs if we allow any of the nations who have been our partners in this war to sink into the mire of want and poverty. I believe the large amount involved this year in the way of loans to potential customers, to our allies during the war, will receive support throughout the country, whatever may be involved in the way of borrowing or taxation or other means of raising the money. But before the house is asked to go ahead and confirm these tremendous expenditures which have been made and are proposed, I believe the war expenditures committee should be set up and hon. members given an opportunity in public to go into all items of past expenditure. That is what the committee should do. Then as soon as possible we should return to the old method of going into the budget proposals item by item, having the details of our expenditures attached as a schedule to any bill or bills that may be required. As soon as possible we should provide for expenditures in the normal way, in order to protect this house, this country and indeed the government itself.


Mr. REID:: Without wanting to be accused of diverting the trend of the discussion, I should like to propound a question to the minister. This has to do with the control exercised at the moment by the R.C.A.F. over civil aviation. Just praise has been given to the work done by the Canadian air force and the commonwealth air training scheme, but aniy one who has read the history of aviation knows perfectly well that had it not been for those good citizens who kept aviation to the fore during the days of peace, who pioneered, shall I say, and laid the basis for the commonwealth air training scheme, the great success which was accomplished during the war by our air forces and the air forces of other countries might not have been so great. There are men on the Pacific coast who are anxious to enter into civil aviation, but information has reached me to the effect that at the moment the R.C.A.F. has direct control over civil aviation. Has the minister given consideration to this question of control by the R.C.A.F. on the Pacific coast and in other parts of Canada?


Colin William George Gibson: Civil aviation comes under the Department of Transport. Perhaps the Minister of Reconstruction could speak with regard to the hon. member's question.


Thomas Reid: Information has come to me that these boys have to receive permission 
from the R.C.A.F. in order to be permitted to fly so many miles over and around the airports.


Colin William George Gibson: The
R.C.A.F. would have control over the R.C.A.F. airports, but they do not control the activities of civilian flying clubs or civilian flying associations. That would be under the Department of Transport.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman,
there are only one or two references that I intend to make, one having to do with the statement by the leader of the C.C.F. that he thought a committee similar to the war expenditures committee should be set up. It was indicated the other day by the Minister of Munitions and Supply that it was the intention of the government to bring in a motion to establish such a committee. I speak now for myself, but I think I speak also for those on this side of the chamber when I say that if such a committee is to be set up, the day of secrecy is over as far as we are concerned.


Colin William George Gibson: And the necessity too.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to have the concurrence of the minister in that regard.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Perhaps the war will be over some day.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to have the assurance of the Minister of National Defence for Air that when this committee is set up, the question of security no longer arising, there will be no longer any justification for that committee sitting behind closed doors.
The other day when certain questions were placed on the order paper the Minister of Munitions and Supply asked that they be allowed to stand because this committee was to be set up. Let me say that I do not believe this country will consider that the setting up of a committee can be taken as a substitution for the responsibility of the minister to answer in this house for the activities of the War Assets Corporation. In other words, whether or not a committee is set up, we retain our rights to scrutinize thoroughly, by the means of proper questioning, what has taken place in connection with the War Assets Corporation "and to disposal of assets and plants. I notice the minister is laughing. He always laughs when any question is raised as to the necessity of his accounting to parliament.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I just said that the hon.
gentleman should pay an entertainment tax if he wants both.

Demobilization-Air Services


John George Diefenbaker: What was the
observation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I just said that if the hon.
gentleman wants to be entertained in two sessions he should pay an entertainment tax.


John George Diefenbaker: What that means
I do not know and I doubt whether the minister does.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend attempted to
interpret what I said and I told him what I said.


John George Diefenbaker: I always listen to
the minister courteously and do not interfere at all, but for some reason, whenever there is an assertion on the part of anyone on this side of the chamber that he as one of the ministers is answerable to this house and to this parliament, he immediately resents it and commences to make remarks similar to the one he has just made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a question of privilege,
I do not resent it.


John George Diefenbaker: Last evening the
hon. member for Nanaimo asked for an overall plan. That over-all plan was not given, nor has there been any endeavour to give such a plan to the committee. Dealing with the post-war plans, the minister made this statement, as reported on page 765 of Hansard:
No definite decision has yet been made as to the strength and composition of the post-war air force, as until the nature and extent of any commitments that we may have under international or regional agreements have been determined it is obviously impossible to reach any final decision.
First, the minister very pertinently used the words, "no definite decision," and again, that awaiting this definite decison, no "final decision" could be made on the part of the government. I wonder if the minister is in position to place before the committee and the country what the intention of the government is with respect to the contribution that Canada will make, first, to the common defence within the British commonwealth of nations. Have there been negotiations between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom with respect to the setting up of a British commonwealth air force or the continuation of the British commonwealth air scheme in the days of peace? Have there been negotiations among the various component parts of the empire which may lead to the setting up of a composite air force to be available in the event that war should break out?


Colin William George Gibson: There
have been no such negotiations.


John George Diefenbaker: As I understand
the situation arising out of the united nations agreement, Canada's contribution in the main will be an air contribution. Am I correct in that? I understand that the present plans of the government are that Canada's responsibilities under the charter will, either definitely or in substance, be an air contribution. Is the minister in position to answer that?


Colin William George Gibson: I have
no idea what contribution Canada may be called upon to make.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may be allowed to interject, I think it has been made quite clear that the reason we cannot prepare a comprehensive plan at this time is that Canada's obligation under the united nations security charter is undetermined. As soon as these obligations are known-and I assume they will be known within the next several months-we shall be able, I think, to announce our peace-time position.


John George Diefenbaker: Has any tentative plan been made? The reason I ask is that only the other day the high commissioner for Canada, speaking in Australia, was reported to have said that the Canadian government with a view to uniting Australia, New Zealand and Canada closer together purposed at the earliest possible date to establish an air service between Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Was he correct in that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is civil aviation. I think that is rather outside the point.


John George Diefenbaker: Was he correct in that statement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, it has been announced that the plans of Canada for post-war civil aviation include a service between Canada, Australia and New Zealand. But that is not a matter of defence; it is civil aviation. The structure of the post-war security council was laid at Dumbarton Oaks and was further discussed in San Francisco, but my hon. friend will appreciate that the respective responsibilities under the charter have not been determined. At least that is my understanding.


John George Diefenbaker: I quite agree. My question was simply this: Are there any tentative arrangements among the different part-s of the empire as to the contribution which the various parts of the empire may make to such a scheme? Has anything been determined along that line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.

Demobilization-Air Services


John George Diefenbaker: So that what Canada's contribution will be toward world peace so far as the air force is concerned has in no way been determined, either officially or unofficially?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Correct.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one other matter I should like to bring up at this time. It has to do with repatriation. The minister gave the figures last evening of the number that had been repatriated, 37,907 since V-E day. In the last few days-and I think this applies to most members of the house- letters are being received from our men overseas strongly objecting to the slowness of repatriation. Only to-day I received a letter in which the writer, a responsible man overseas in the armed forces, points out that there is a strong feeling of resentment among the armed forces overseas at the delay in repatriation. He states that during the last few weeks there has been an acceleration of repatriation on the part of the Americanis whereas, so far as Canada is concerned, within the last few days the men overseas have been advised that not only will the rate at which repatriation has taken place within recent weeks be diminished but that the bulk of repatriation has been hoisted for a period of eight weeks.


Mr. BENIDICKSON:: In order to make the rates relatively equal.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what the men overseas think. The men overseas feel that the rate of repatriation planned for the next eight weeks is such that there is unfairness to Canada in the allotment being made by the united nations' shipping pool. They have been advised that during the next month there will be available only two small ships for repatriation purposes. I bring this matter up at this time because two or three letters I have received are dated within the last few days and they all indicate a strong feeling of resentment. I would ask the minister to advise the committee just what is being done to ensure that Canada's share of the shipping available for repatriation is a fair one and that this feeling of resentment on the part of the men will be entirely removed at the earliest possible day by an official statement from the minister.


Colin William George Gibson: The shipping which is allotted to Canada to bring our service men and women home is dependent upon the allied shipping commission. The matter of repatriation is handled by the army, which allots space on the ships to the air force. The air force has been allotted its quota every month. We have received our

fair share and are continuing to receive it. The number of air force personnel to be brought back from April to June, according to the programme that was drawn up, was 15,001, and from July to September, 20,602, or a total of 35,603. That was the programme. Actually we brought back 37,907. From October to December next the number projected is 9,000; January to March, 9,239; June and July 1,496. In addition, those who were employed with our 8th Bomber squadron, came back by air. That was an additional number.


John George Diefenbaker: How many of all services are to be brought back in October?


Colin William George Gibson: I do not know. The figure I have given is for the air force, and that is the quota allotted. It has been worked out on a fair basis and as long as the shipping remains available those are the numbers we expect will be coming to this country.


Mr. PEARKES:: The hon. member for Quebec South advanced some very sound arguments in support of the contention which was made here the other day that we should be given a clear statement regarding national defence policy. While I realize perfectly well that it is impractical for the government to tell us their final policy over a long period after the war, yet from what has been said this afternoon it is quite evident that Canada will have to stand very much on her own during this interim period. The allotment of commitments to the different nations has not yet been made. Therefore I submit that it is of great importance that during this interim period we should be coordinating our own services for defence. However, I know that we shall not get such a statement from the ministry and I do not intend to labour the point.
The Minister of National Defence for Air was unable or unwilling when this debate started to say whether the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services was going to establish a fleet air arm. Might I ask the Minister of National Defence for Air whether he has included in these estimates any funds for personnel, aircraft or equipment of the Royal Canadian Air Force which might be serving on any carriers with the Canadian navy, should the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services provide such ships?


Colin William George Gibson: No such expenditures are included in the air estimates for the year.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: Mr. Chairman, in the last hour three hon. members have spoken about setting up the war expenditures committee. The only reproach that was made of

Demobilization-Air Services
the war expenditures committee which sat from 1941 to 1944 was that it sat behind closed doors. Perhaps a little history of the war expenditures committee would enlighten certain members who were not in the last parliament.
In 1940 the acting leader of the opposition, Mr. Hanson, suggested in the house that we follow the example of the British parliament in setting up a national committee on expenditures and that we follow as closely as possible the procedure in the mother country. In 1941 the committee was set up, composed, I believe, of twenty-four members divided among the different groups. When they met they decided to follow the practice of the committee in Britain, which always sat in camera. The reasons given were reasons of security and that, if the sittings were held in public, revelations might be made which might give comfort to the enemy. Those were the two reasons advanced for sitting in camera.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I think the minister will agree that only the government members on the committee approved that procedure.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member for Cumberland in 1941 was a member of that committee. It was subdivided into three subcommittees, and I do not recall that the hon. member absented himself from the sittings, although we had adopted sittings in camera. He regularly attended the meetings and was very helpful.


Percy Chapman Black: That is very true, but I did so under protest.


Alphonse Fournier: I know the opposition would not admit that we were right in taking that decision. They did protest. But they will also notice that what was said before those subcommittees was, in many instances, of a secret nature. We spoke of production, of what we were doing in munitions and supply; we got details from every branch of that department. We studied the three service departments; we discussed pay and allowances and the procedure of the service departments. We even got information as to numbers, formations, and all that. I am still convinced that we were right in hearing evidence of that kind in camera. Those sittings were held to give information to hon. members with a view to reporting to the house and to the government.
I myself do not like the procedure of sitting in camera, but during wartime I thought it was in the best interest of the state to do so. If a committee on war expenditures were set up this session. I agree with the hon. member
for Rosetown-Biggar that the sittings should be public and that all these expenditures should be inquired into and investigated. I do not believe there is anything to hide, or that any harm has been done. There would be at this time no reasons of security. I did not hear the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar complain about the sittings being in camera when meetings of subcommittees were held. Both of us were members of those subcommittees.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Just on that, I did. My view was that there were certain occasions on which a subcommittee had to sit in camera, but otherwise the proceedings should be open. That was the view I expressed throughout.


Alphonse Fournier: We did, if you recall, meet that objection because one of the subcommittees sat openly. I recall that the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) was a member of that committee. He refused to sit on it unless the meetings were public, and that subcommittee sat publicly. It was dealing with questions which did not affect the security of the state or information which would give aid and comfort to the enemy.
As to the setting up of the future committee, I believe the government agrees with what has been said. But I resent aspersions on the former committee. Hon. members sat for three years in and out of session on that committee. They gave valuable time to it; they acted from national and patriotic motives and I really resent suggestions from certain hon. members that the work was not useful or was not well done. I was a member of that committee from 1941 to October, 1942, when I joined the government, and no better group of men could have assembled to study seriously what was taking place and what expenditures were being made.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not think anybody suggested that the committee did not do good work. I believe it did good work, and I am willing to say so.


Alphonse Fournier: I am glad to hear that from the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. But when the assertion is made that we did not sit in the open to consider these matters, I must point out that certain information could not have been given had our proceedings not been in camera. I do not think hon. members should criticize that procedure. They themselves are aware that we could not let the people know exactly what was taking place in the armed services or in the Department of Munitions and Supply.
Demobilization-Air Services

Some of those who served on that committee are not now members of this house, and I wish to pay tribute to them for the time and. energy and talents which they devoted to that task.
Since this is a new house, and we are not in war time, even though it has not been so legally declared, I hope that the hon. members who will constitute that committee will do as good work as was done in time of war by those of the past parliament. I was so pleased at being on that committee and seeing how it was run, and finding that the government was doing its utmost to protect the public treasury, that were I not a minister I would insist upon being on the next war expenditures committee. I have no doubt it can do useful work and let the public know exactly what we have done with public moneys throughout the year.


The CHAIRMAN:: I wonder whether
hon. members, who have now had a pretty good discussion, will agree to take the items up as they appear in the list which has been distributed. I think we would make better progress if that were done.


Mr. MERRITT:: Before that is done may I ask one question. The minister said yesterday that he could not give any definite or long-term decision as to the size or composition of the air force. That of course is quite understood. But he did say that it would consist of about ten squadrons and about fifteen to twenty thousand men. Will the minister state now on what principles and for what purposes the figure of ten squadrons and fifteen to twenty thousand men was decided? Why, for instance, is it not fifteen squadrons, or five squadrons?


Colin William George Gibson: I did not say those were definite figures. I said we were planning on that basis. We are planning on the basis of what has been recommended by the advisers of the department as a balanced force, a force which would be capable of being extended in time of necessity in order to produce a strong offensive force and a defensive force. At the same time we would have in this country the nucleus of a force which would at all times be available if its services should be required at the time of attack, should this country be in the unfortunate position of being attacked. That is the basis on which the matter is being worked out.
I might say further that, under the programme which is being considered-it is not yet definite-the only expenditures for new planes will be on those in the nature of 
transport planes. We realize that it is necessary to have adequate transport planes. The type we are ordering and hope to secure is the new C-54. No steps are being taken at present to secure new bombers or fighters. It is felt that we have large stocks available which have been in service in this war. There will undoubtedly be very rapid developments in that type of aircraft, and while experiments and research are going on in those fields we do not consider it advisable to commit ourselves to the purchase of large numbers of either fighters or bombers, but believe rather that we should continue for the present with those we have available. These, of course, will also be available for the auxiliary squadrons as they are formed.


Mr. GILLIS:: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that to take the estimates item by item is perhaps the only way in which they can be disposed of. One might talk a long time on the thought-provokers which are on this sheet of paper which has been distributed. But I merely rise to ask a couple of questions which I do not think I could relate to subjects that are on the paper. Before I do that I should like to say that I listened with great interest to the leader of the opposition, particularly a statement that we spent more money the last six years than we had spent in the whole history of the country previously. While he was saying that I was thinking that, regardless of that fact, it did not affect the standards of living of the Canadian people.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is going to, though.


Clarence Gillis: Their standards of living were much higher than they were from 1930 to 1939. If government spending affects the economy of the country in this way it is not a bad idea to continue to spend government money. That could be elaborated on; it is merely a thought. The criticism that the money we have spent in the last six years affected the welfare of the people of Canada is not valid.
Second, the observation was made that we paid more taxes than we did in the previous fifty years. That, too, is an indication that the people had an income and were able to pay taxes. The fact that we were not paying taxes in the previous fifty years is an indication that we were a poor nation and had nothing with which to pay taxes. I hope that we continue to give the people purchasing power so that they may be able to pay taxes and advance the services of the country.
With respect to the national debt, it does not worry me at all. The only thing that worries me about the national debt is the interest we pay on it. The debt accumulated during the war should be free. There should

Demobilization-Air Services
be no interest on it. No one should sit back in a bond house or in a bank and extract interest out of blood money, because that is what it was. Investment in war should not bear interest but should be interest free. In my opinion, the hundreds of Canadian boys who laid down their lives have paid the bill, and when the war is over, the debt should be cancelled. There is no reason why when they come back and go into overalls, into plants and factories, they should start to pay tribute by way of interest to people who sat back comfortably and secure and invested their money. The national debt, apart from the interest, we owe to ourselves. It is not a liability but an asset.


Mr. FULTON:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he think that the soldiers, sailors and airmen who invested their money in war bonds should not receive interest on them when they come back?
Mr. GIiLLIS: The amount of money the soldiers, sailors and airmen invested is so small-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh no.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What about the war
workers?


Clarence Gillis: They are not worrying about it either. The war workers are not worrying about it. The soldier who was drawing the large sum of $1.50 a day-


Edmund Davie Fulton: One hundred dollars is a lot to him.


Clarence Gillis: -had a lot of money to
invest in war bonds. That is only an alibi; it is not an argument.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What about the war
workers?


Clarence Gillis: So that the whole story with
respect to the debt accumulated, and the moneys spent, as far as I am concerned, does not ring on me.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is the reason why you will never be in the government.


Clarence Gillis: That is all right. We may be there a lot sooner than you will. What I rose to say, Mr. Chairman, was this. There are two categories within the Canadian air force who in my opinion did not receive just treatment during the war. The first is the Canadian nationals serving in the R.A.F. A considerable number of Canadian nationals went to the old country prior to 1939 and became members of the R.A.F.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 1936.


Clarence Gillis: Yes. The question I should like the minister to answer is this. As regards Canadian nationals returning to this country who served in the R.A.F. during the war, are they entitled to the Canadian' gratuity and all the rehabilitation rights to which the R.C.A.F. are entitled? That is the first question. I think they should be. Second, we had. I understand, about five thousand R.C.A.F. personnel who were radar mechanics, and they served, mostly with the R.A.F., in practically every theatre of war. They were also largely isolated. During their period of service with the R.A.F. those boys were denied promotion. The Canadian government instituted, I understand, what was known as shadow promotion. They were promoted to the ranks that they would have held ordinarily if they were with the R.C.AE., but in the R.A.F. they were not allowed to put up their stripes, badges or insignia. During the period in which the radar personnel were with the R.A.F., when shadow promotion was granted, were they paid for their rank? I understand that this shadow promotion was discontinued in 1943. If it was, I think it was an injustice, because I do not believe there was a section of the R.C.A.F. that was under a greater handicap than the radar boys, who served largely as individuals on isolated stations with the R.A.F. groups. They should have been allowed to carry their rank and they should have been paid on that basis. If it was discontinued in 1943 it should not have been, and I suggest that the government should reinstate it and pay those boys for whatever rank they would have had ordinarily were they members of regular R.C.A.F. squadrons. I should like the minister to answer these questions because I do not see anything on the order paper whereby I might be able to relate this matter to a specific item.


Colin William George Gibson: With regard to the question concerning Canadian nationals in the R.A.F., there were a large number who went over and joined the R.A.F. prior to the war, and throughout the war a large number of Canadians were serving with the R.A.F. A considerable number decided to transfer to the R.C.A.F. and they were permitted to do so up until a certain date. It was published in orders as to the date when transfers would cease.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister will pardon me, but many of them could not be got in touch with, those far away on the Pacific ocean. Are they barred now from transferring?


Colin William George Gibson: Where
there were special circumstances such as those, extensions have been made. A large number
Demobilization-Air Services

did transfer to the R.C.A.F., but that is not the point. The rehabilitation benefits provided by Canada apply to Canadian nationals, those who were citizens of this country prior to the war. I am not sure of the exact date, but I think those who left Canada from 1936 on and served in the British forces may, on returning to Canada, if they return within six months of the date when they are demobilized -I am not tying myself down to whether these terms are the date at which the individual was demobilized or the date of the ending of the war, but within a fixed period-may be entitled to the difference between the Canadian benefits and any benefits they have received while serving with that allied force. So that Canada is looking after those Canadians who have served in the allied forces.
As regards the radar men, I have the greatest sympathy for that group and I agree very largely with what the hon. member has said about them. Early in the war we enlisted in this country the finest type of young men, men with scientific training, and got them into the radar branch. They continued in that branch and were scattered all over the world, operating radar stations throughout Europe and Africa, and they had very little promotion. The work that they were doing was not work that called for promotion. The result was that brilliant young men who joined early in the war, and who, if they had waited and gone to other branches, might have received greater promotion and even commissions, remained leading aircraftmen. I realize that they have suffered a hardship. On the other hand, they have done magnificent work. While I feel that they have been unlucky, yet they certainly have done a magnificent job.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They should not be
allowed to be unlucky.


Colin William George Gibson: The work they were doing was not work that called for the service of men of higher rank.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A radar man away up
on a remote island certainly deserves some consideration.


Colin William George Gibson: With
regard to shadow promotion, I never heard of it. It might have been brought in and discontinued in 1943. I shall be very glad to make inquiries concerning it to find out when it was brought in and when it was discontinued.


George Russell Boucher: I do not wish to delay the committee unduly, nor do I wish to open up a discussion on the war expenditures committee. The Minister of Public Works said that the only complaint against the war

expenditures committee was that of secrecy. We should have the record cleared up in that regard. I do not mean to say that the war expenditures committee did not do good work, but I do mean to say that there were many objectionable features in connection with it. The members of the opposition who sat on that committee did object to sitting in secrecy. While we had that objection, we did sit on it and we were very glad to do the best fve could in the circumstances. But the objections were more than the mere matter of secrecy. The objections were that in the war expenditures committee matters were dealt with in secret that did not warrant any secrecy whatsoever. I give as an illustration wartime housing and the operation of government corporations. They were dealt with. If the enemy heard all that went on in connection with these matters they would not , have heard anything of value. Then there was the inquiry into the price of boots and the purchase price of property and land. The evidence was given in secret before the committee. Even some of the evidence in connection with those inquiries was guarded by the departmental officials and was sometimes refused to members of the committee. I might also mention that members of the committee complained in the house that copies of the evidence were not supplied to members for their own personal use while they were sitting on the committee. Oh, there were many difficulties.
The Minister of National Defence for Air and the Minister of Public Works have gone farther than the promises made by the Prime Minister a few days ago in saying that the committee that will be set up will not sit in secret. I hope that they will take the matters I have mentioned into consideration too, and that when the committee is set up, not only will it not sit in secret but it will give the evidence untrammeled and unhampered by department officials. I urge that at this time.
I could go into a long discussion on this matter, but I do not wish to delay the committee. However, I believe that the people of Canada want a much closer scrutiny of and much more information on war expenditures than they have had in the past. I believe that the people of Canada feel that in the war expenditures committee many things were discussed in secrecy that had no right to be so discussed or investigated. The people want more information than was given to them in the past because of the secrecy.
When the new committee is set up to investigate war expenditures I hope no attempt will be made to have it sit in

Demobilization-Air Services
secret. There were other objections to the war expenditures committee of the past three or four years. I sat as a member of that committee for a year. I enjoyed it. I appreciated the energy and the efforts of the members of the committee, but I did not appreciate the little attention that parliament was allowed to give to their findings or to the total absence of discussion of the committee reports in the house. When this new committee is set up I hope that these objections will be kept in mind.


William Henry Golding: I hope that the members will now agree to take up the items connected with the department.
Mr. MaeNICOL: Show me the item on which I can ask further questions about the radar boys and I shall be quite satisfied to deal with the items.


Mr. HARKNESS:: Before proceeding with the items I should like a little better understanding of what this money will be used for. What proportion of these estimates will be regarded as demobilization expenses and what proportion will be used for the interim force? Can the minister answer that question?


Colin William George Gibson: Some of the items can be broken down in the manner suggested. What is being spent on demobilization can be broken down, but what is being spent on the interim force cannot be broken down into that force entirely. The interim force will consist partly of the occupational force in Germany and the occupational force in other places. It will consist partly of the force employed in Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When will demobilization be considered completed? What time will the interim force come into effect?


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot give the committee the date on which demobilization will be completed. According to the plan it will not be completed by March 31, 1946.


John Horne Blackmore: I have listened with a good deal of attention to the discussion and the questions ever since the war appropriation measure first came before us. One thing has impressed me as being singular, namely, that no member of the opposition has commended the government for the effort which apparently it is making to maintain a considerable force of fighting men and equipment in Canada in case of an emergency.
I should like to draw the attention of the hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party to the fact that it was their attitude between 1930 and 1935 which reduced the meagre defence of Canada to an intolerably and dangerously low level. This cheese-paring attitude, this worrying about the dollar, will start a similar attitude again in Canada.
I do not wish to be an alarmist; I wish to be a realist. Will any hon. member in this committee, if he asks himself the question honestly and sincerely, dare to say that the era we are now entering is an eara in which we can feel that we are safe? This is an exceedingly serious matter. I am not saying for a moment that all the money has always been spent wisely. I would say this, however, not desiring to commend the government over much, that all things being considered the government in going through this war is to be strongly commended for the high degree of efficiency and effectiveness which it attained at the price that had to be paid for it. When we want defence in this country we want it badly. We are likely to want it again, and that before very long; but whether or not that should be so it is a right, good, safe principle to keep your powder dry and be sure you have plenty of it.
I should like to encourage the ministers who are in charge of the exceedingly difficult departments of defence to do everything that lies within their power to keep the defences of this country at the very highest possible standard consistent with the conditions of the times through which we are passing. The money will be found. I notice plenty of evidence that our Conservative friends are still suffering from a money mentality. How long is it going to take them to realize that the power of the nation to fight, or to prepare to fight, or to do anything else, depends upon the productive power of the nation, the amount of goods and services it can produce? Money is merely a bookkeeping system to represent the capacity of the nation to produce and use goods and services. Does anyone in Canada think for a moment that we are less able to produce goods and services to-day than we were a year ago, or two years ago, or three years ago? Then the degree of defence of which we are' capable in this country certainly must depend upon the degree of production of which we are capable. As soon as we look at this whole matter from that angle we begin to see how unwise it is to emphasize dollars when the very existence of this nation and this empire of which we form a part might be threatened at any time; when all we have won
Standing Committees

and saved through the centuries of our history, including what we have won and saved in this war and the last one, might be lost because we have been indiscreet in the matter of taking precautions against eventualities.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On Tuesday we shall take up first the interim supply mentioned this afternoon by the Minister of Finance. Then we will take up bill No. 14, in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, the resolution preceding which was passed by the house yesterday. If we conclude with that we will continue with this appropriation bill, with the Minister of National Defence completing his statement on the naval estimates first and then going on with the army estimates.


John Bracken: We will pass over the air estimates entirely?



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Black (Yukon)
Bonnier
Boucher
Bowerman
Brooks
Brown
Charlton
Cleaver
Cloutier
Cote (Verdun)
Croll
Dechene
Dubois
F erguson
Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Gariepy Gladstone Grant Halle Hamel Hazen Healy Hlynka Laurendeau Lennard
Little
Lockhart
Macdonald (Halifax) MacLean
Matthews (Brandon) Matthews (Kootenay East)
May bank
Mayhew
McGregor
Murphy
Nixon
Parent
Picard
Probe
Richard (Gloucester) Rose
Ross (St. Paul's) Sinclair (Ontario) Sinnott Stokes
Townley-Smith
Webb
Whitman Wylie
Zaplitny-50. (Quorum 15)
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, until after the nary and army estimates are disposed of.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, October 9, 1945.