REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. MacLean.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern) presented the fourth report of the special committee on veterans affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
He said: There has been no difficulty about getting a quorum up to now. We have had attendances of from thirty to fifty, but it is proposed to begin this afternoon to sit while the house is in session. It is thought that this might enable us to proceed promptly and continue our deliberations while the house is in session.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Adamson (York West) be substituted for that of Mr. Graydon on the committee on external affairs.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to bring hon. members up to date on developments in the strike affecting the Ford Motor Company of Canada plant at Windsor.
Since reporting to the house on Tuesday of this week, I had a conference in my office with representatives of the Canadian Congress of Labour and the United Automobile Workers of America. At that meeting I was pleased to discern a more conciliatory attitude on. the part of the union representatives, and it resulted in the union representatives agreeing to recommend to its members a change of

Ford Motor Plant Strike
policy with respect to the provision of power house services and access to the company's offices.
The union delegation left immediately for Windsor and placed their proposals before the membership.
Early this morning I received a telegram from the union conveying the text of a telegram sent by the union to the company, which reads as follows:
At a well attended meeting of the membership of local 200 UAW-CIO held in the city market building 3 p.m. Thursday November 15th, the following action was decided upon by a substantial majority of the membership present: (1) that employees whose normal function is the operation of the power plant of the Ford Motor Company of Canada are free to resume their regular duties; (2) that the union has no objection to the accredited executive officers of the Ford Motor Company and their personal secretaries from having free ingress to and egress from the plant premises. The union believes that the aforesaid action constitutes a demonstration of good faith that should be of help in assisting to reopen negotiations for a collective agreement with your company. We are therefore requesting on behalf of our union that negotiations be reopened forthwith and to the end that a mutually satisfactory contract be consummated between your company and our organization. Trusting you for your favourable consideration and hoping for an early reply, a letter confirming this wire is being forwarded.
Upon receipt of this, I sent a telegram, to Mr. D. B. Greig, treasurer of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, which reads as follows:
Have just received from Mr. George Burt, Director of Region No. 7, U.A.W.-C.I.O., the text of the communication addressed to you by him conveying the decision of membership local 200 U.A.W.-C.I.O., to man the power house of the company and relax picketing, so that company officials would have access to their offices; also requesting a- conference with company management with a view to the negotiation of a mutually satisfactory contract. I desire to urge upon you and your associates favourable consideration of the union's request in order that way may be opened to a full resumption of company operations at the earliest possible date.
Just before noon a teletype message was received from Mr. Greig addressed to myself and to the Hon. Leslie Blackwell, Attorney General of Ontario, repeating the text of a communication addressed to the union which is as follows:
' Receipt is acknowledged at approximately 1 a.m. this morning of your telegram to Mr. W. FI. Clark, personnel manager of this company.
The company has considered your commuui-oation and is prepared to negotiate with union representatives upon the following conditions;
1.	The union, before negotiation proceedings open, to discontinue all picketing of the company's premises, and at once to cooperate with the company in putting power house back in permanent operation.
2.	The company, as quickly as possible, to prepare its plant for resumption of work.
3.	The company to return its employees to work as quickly as possible and without discrimination.
4.	The company and union, before negotiation proceedings open, to agree upon a reasonable limit of time during which negotiations shall take place; the company suggests ten days.
5.	The company and the union to submit points remaining in dispute between them concerning a new collective bargaining agreement to an arbitrator to be appointed by the Minister of Labour for Canada from among the judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario whose decisions upon the points in dispute and with respect to the wording in any particular of the agreement to be negotiated to be final and binding; save that all matter over which the regional war labour board for Ontario or the national war labour board has jurisdiction shall not be decided by or before said arbitrator.
C. Pending the conclusion of the new agreement to be negotiated as -above provided, the collective bargaining arrangements pertaining to the company's Windsor plants to be the same as those in effect on September 12, 1945.
In agreeing to negotiate with the union under the conditions set forth above, Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited, emphasizes that its action is motivated by a desire to remove the possibility of bloodshed inherent in the prolonged strike situation; by the need for again making jobs and wages available to' Ford workers, and by the necessity for providing new cars and trucks for home and export markets.
Last Friday and again last Tuesday, the company through Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, Minister of Labour for Canada, offered to submit all issues between the parties to arbitration. The company suggested arbitration instead of direct negotiation with the union because negotiations with the union had been proceeding for seventeen months prior to the calling of the strike on September 12 last. The issues debated during" those seventeen months are the issues to-day. The long-drawn period of fruitless negotiation between company and union has proven that the views of the two parties upon some points have been irreconcilable. In these circumstances, the company has adopted the realistic view that upon some issues negotiation is unlikely to succeed. For that reason, the company has suggested arbitration. Because seventeen months of debate ended in failure to agree, the company now suggests that the two parties should accept a time limit for negotiation prior to arbitration.
With a sincere desire to provide jobs and wages once more for its employees, and to resume work on civilian production, the company has, for the second time within a week, changed the policy it has formerly felt obliged to adopt toward strike mediation proposals.
, On October 27 the company, like the union, rejected an arbitration proposal.
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the arbitration proposal was my suggestion.
Last Friday the company conceded arbitration; in doing so it sacrificed the principle that an employer should not be expected suffer anyone outside of his business dictating the terms upon which he shall deal with his own employees. Now the company concedes negotiation with the union as a preliminary to

Ford Motor Plant Strike
arbitration, feeling that negotiation unassisted by arbitration cannot lead to a complete agreement.
The company still believes that immediate arbitration is the short-cut to achieving a new collective bargaining agreement; still believes that negotiation prior to the invitable arbitration will only consume precious time; still believes that, whle the new agreement is being written through negotiation and arbitration, Ford workers should not be deprived of their jobs and wages.
We sincerely trust that upon consideration of the above the union will share with the company the feeling that the entire situation is capable of speedy and satisfactory solution and that we may receive from you an early approval of the basis outlined.
It will be noted from the above that the company is not of the opinion that collective bargaining negotiations will be productive of any satisfactory result, and consequently, it repeats its previous offer to refer all matters in dispute to arbitration under a justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario appointed by myself. The only difference in the present offer of the company and that conveyed to me in Windsor last Friday is that collective bargaining negotiations over a period of ten days will be entered into after all employees return to work.
It is my opinion that the suggestions made by the men's organization are fair and reasonable and offer the basis of a settlement, and I would urge the company and the men's representatives to get together at the earliest possible moment in order that work may be resumed. In saying this, I feel sure that I am voicing the views of every member of this House of Commons.
The basis of our way of life is reason and the ability to give and take, leading to sound contractional relations. Both company and union have shown evidence of this during the past few days and for the sake of the city of Windsor and industrial peace generally, they should close the gap between them at once.
I would like to think that the company and the union are about to shake hands, but they have not reached out yet.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane) moved:: That the second report of the standing committee on external affairs, presented on Monday, November 12, be now concurred in.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs); I am compelled to move in amendment that this

report be referred back to the committee and that it have power to reconsider the recommendation expressed in the last paragraph of the report. The recommendation is in. the following form:
Your committee further recommends that it be empowered to consider matters connected with external affairs and report from time to time any suggestion or recommendation deemed advisable to the House of Commons.
This is one of the twelve standing committees which were set up on October 9 and with respect to which the powers were determined by resolution of this house on October 10 in the following form:
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie it was resolved:
That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.
The scope of the jurisdiction of the standing committees has been, in the practice of the house, always determined by specific reference. This recommendation would ask for general power to the committee to consider any matters connected with external affairs without specific reference from this house. If that were proper for this standing committee, it would be equally proper for all the standing committees of this house to determine themselves the scope and extent of the matters which they would consider and upon which they would make reports. That would lead to very serious disturbance of the order of business now provided by the standing orders.
These reports come in on motions. They are debatable under the rules of the house, and any report coming from a committee would give occasion for a debate in priority to any of the other business provided for by the standing rules of the house. That may be a good thing to do, but we have just recently set up a special committee to assist Mr. Speaker in revising the rules of the house, and I do not think there should be any anticipation, by concurrence in a motion of this kind, of such a substantial change in what has been the practice and rules of procedure in the house.
Then there is the further consideration that I am only acting in the capacity of Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I should not like any substantial change of this kind to be accepted by the house in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
This proposal of the committee would be very wide in its effect. It would allow the committee to investigate any aspect of any-

External Affairs
thing that could be comprised within the term "external affairs." I think that until there has been some general change, if there is to be a change, in the standing orders, the former practice should be adhered to. and there should be specific reference by the house to the standing committees of the matters which the [DOT]standing committees would inquire into.
My amendment is in the form provided for in paragraph 661 of the second edition of Beauchesne:
When the motion is proposed the report may be referred back to the committee for further consideration or with instruction to amend the same in any respect.
The terms I have suggested in my amendment are:
That the report be referred back to the said committee and that it have power to reconsider the recommendation expressed in the last paragraph of the report.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: The members of -the official opposition had not realized that this report would be under consideration to-day. I submit that the statement made by the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs is a very important one. It brings up matters which should be given the most careful consideration, and having in mind the successful operation of this committee in the months and years that lie ahead, we suggest to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs that he allow the discussion on his amendment to stand over until some time next week so that we may be able to review what he has just said and then be in a position to take a stand on the question.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I would support the
suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver South. This matter did receive a great deal of consideration by the committee, and the very point that is now raised was brought up. I suggest that further consideration be given it by hon. members.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	If it is the pleasure
of the house to postpone the determination of the motion and the amendment, I have no objection.


Howard Charles Green: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. MacINNIS:: On a point of order, can
a motion to refer to a committee be debated at all?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: You are also dealing
with the motion for the adoption of the report.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. SPEAKER:: Mr. Golding moves that the following bills, Nos. 94 to 160, inclusive, be read the first time.
Bill No. 94 for the relief of Royal Tessier.- Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 95 for the relief of Aurore Leblanc Proulx.

Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 96 for the relief of Margaret Susan Bradshaw Hodgkinson.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 97 for the relief of Lydia Donalda MacDonald Fletcher.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 98 for the relief of Charles Edward Varney.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 99 for the relief of George Louis Bush.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 100 for the relief of John Hall Jones.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 101 for. the relief of Madeline Daisy Harvey Bell.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 102 for the relief of Georges Moshonas.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 103 for the relief of Ann Agnes Hyson Kellogg.-Mr. Merritt.
Bill No. 104 for the relief of Anna Ostronoff Smilestone.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 105 for the relief of Doris Alice Davis Stackhouse.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 106 for the relief of Olive Maud Prouse Palmer.'-Mr. Maybank.	[DOT]
Bill No. 107 for the relief of Mary Mueller Pierotte.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 108 for the relief of Anthony Malt. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 109 for the relief of Roderick John Elder.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 110 for the relief of Francis George Dennis.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. Ill for the relief of Zenon Alary.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 112 for the relief of Gladys Muriel Watson Hooper.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 113 for the relief of Pearl Woodward McGregor.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 114 for the relief of Lily Bromberg Seidlitz.-Mr. Merritt.
Bill No. 115 for the relief of Clarence David Cowan.-Air. Black (Chateauguay-Hunting-don).
Bill No. 116 for the relief of Kathleen Helena Henry Bates.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 117 for the relief of William John Mitchell.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 118 for the relief of Nathan Labo-vitch, otherwise known as Nathan Labow.- Air. Emmerson.
Private Bills

Bill No. 119 for the relief of Fannie Bly Blanshay.-Mr. Cleaver.
Bill No. 120 for the relief of Annette Lea Marion Macnab.-Mr. Rose.
Bill No. 121 for the relief of Gerald Franklin.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 122 for the relief of Ivor Edna Nancy Mosher Clarke.-Mr. Cleaver.
Bill No. 123 for the relief of Mary MacRury Tait.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 124 for the relief of Ernest Stanley Powell.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 125 for the relief of Anastasia Stack Kormylo.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 123 for the relief of James Christie Miller.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 127 for the relief of Francis Needan Quirk.-Mr. Merritt.
Bill No. 12S for the relief of Virginia Wallace Knoiwlton Tousa-w.-Mr. May-bank.
Bill No. 129 for the relief of Elsie Pearl Craig Maclnnis.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 130 for the relief of Celia Calp Hccht.-Mr. Merritt.
Bill No. 131 for the relief of Joseph Marcel Rouleau.-Mr. Merritt.
Bill No. 132 for the relief of William Arthur Smythe.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 133 for the relief of Nellie Sapphire Tanham Herring.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 131 for the relief of John Guerin Bowles.-Mr. Cleaver.
Bill No. 135 for the relief of Molly Margaret Evelyn McCuaig Stead.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 136 for the relief of Robert Kirkpatrick Scott;-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 137 for the relief of Emma Hull Mack.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 138 for th-e relief of Kathleen Annette Rolfe McLaughlan- Mr. Benidickson.
Bill No. 139 for the relief of Catherine Winfred Howard Bailey.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 140 for the relief of Evelo Browning Couch Harvey.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 141 for the relief of Hazel Margaret Robertson MoLurnon.-Mr. Nixon.
Bill No. 142 for the relief of Marie Azilda Yvette Rowley.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 143 for the relief of Joseph Adelard Emilien Lemay.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 144 for the relief of Edward Arthur Robinson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 145 for the relief of Marie Marthe Fabiola Germaine Trempe Barlow.-Mr. May-bank.
Bill No. 146 for the relief of Thelma Ann Tongue Grant.-Mr. Maybank.

Bill No. 147 for the relief of Jean-Jacques Lahiere.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 148 for the relief of Edgar Thomas Lucas Graham.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 149 for the relief of Edith Pearl Roe Gardner.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 150 for the relief of Dqrothy Marie Christensen Korning.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 151 for the relief of Frank Edward Quartz.

Mr. Benidickson.
Bill No. 152 for the relief of Eileen Campbell Burfind Morris.-Air. Maybank.
Bill No. 153 for the relief of Elma Eva Inch Evans.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 154 for the relief of Gertrude Rheaume Marchild-on.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 155 for the relief of Godfrey John Kool.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 156 for the relief of Eric John Hollingsworth.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 157 for the relief of Pamela Sarah Atkins Berends.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 158 to incorporate Compagnie de Fiducie du Canada.-Mr. Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont).
Bill No. 159 to amend an Act to incorporate The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.-Mr. McGarry.
Bill No. 160 to consolidate and amend the acts relating to Alliance Nationa-le.-Air. Marier.


Air. GOLDING:: I a-m not having anything to do with the divorce bills.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: Air. Speaker, there are a number of divorce bills standing in the names of members other than myself, and I have no desire to take away from them the right to move first reading of those bills. On the other hand I am- quite prepared to move them all and have it tacitly understood that as chairman of the committee the duty of doing so devolves upon me; therefore-if it is agreeable I move the first reading of all the bills which stand either in my name or in the names of other hon. members. In the list appearing on the order paper there are one or two bills which are not divorce bills. I am not including these bills in my motion, because I do not think I have any right to do so.


James Horace King: Moved by Air. Alaybank, seconded by Mr. Alcllraith, that Bills Nos. 94 to 160 inclusive be read the first time.
Alotion agreed to and bills read the first time.

Private Bills-Divorce


James Horace King: Moved by Mr. Maybank that Bills Nos. 94 to 160 inclusive be now read the second time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Hon. J. L.- ILSLEY (Acting Prime Minister): Excuse me; I do not think that is quite right. The last number that Your Honour read is 160, and that includes two or three bills which are not divorce bills.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a formal protest against this manner of dealing with divorce. I think it is really a public scandal in this country that we should have this very large number of divorce bills before us for first and second reading. I know that in the future we are going to be faced with a grave problem, due largely to the war. In my opinion the time has come when this house, together with the provinces, should consider what can be done in order to remove these divorce bills from the 'House of Commons. It is true that they are considered by a senate committee, but we are called upon to pass judgment on, and to dissolve the marriages of tens and sometimes several hundreds of people. I believe these cases may increase as time goes on because of the condition to which I have just referred. Personally I do not feel like taking the responsibility of passing acts of parliament of this kind simply as a matter of routine, and that is precisely what we are doing. We are relying on a committee in the other place to come to a decision, and then we have to take the responsibility in this house of passing bills to dissolve marriages. I know that this has been going on for a number of years. It is an expensive and roundabout way of getting the relief which I think is sometimes warranted. I am not opposing the dissolution of marriages under certain conditions, but I do think that this way of dealing with this problem is, as I said before, a public scandal in this country. The time has come when the House of Commons and parliament generally should consider ways and means of removing these matters from the house, and1 of establishing a proper procedure, and perhaps even reviewing the grounds so that we may not be saddled with a responsibility which I personally dislike assuming.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Speaker, as the
mover of the motion to give second reading to these bills, may I be permitted to acquaint the house with certain circumstances relating to them. In the first place, all of these have been moved by me as a matter of duty which has been placed upon me as chairman of the committee. In the second place, I can associate myself with the remarks which
have been made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. Although I moved the first reading of these bills I concur entirely in the strictures he has made upon this system of granting divorces. As a matter of fact I very much dislike seeing laws passed in that way respecting individuals. I would much prefer to have each individual case examined; but I do desire the house to know the circumstances under which I move first and second reading of these bills. Being chairman of the committee I do it simply as a matter of duty.


Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (Labelle) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say
just a few words of endorsement about the remarks made by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).
Last year, fairly strong protests were voiced in this house concerning the manner in which divorce bills were passed, and a group of hon. members did raise strenuous objections. This year, the same procedure is being followed. Therefore, I wish-on my own account of course, because I leave it to my hon. fellow-members to do so if they like-to protest against the way in which the house passes divorce bills and breaks up marriage ties in a manner that could be termed scandalous, as was said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.
Of course, the sponsor of those bills is in no way to be blamed; he is doing his duty, but I think a formal protest in this house, is necessary at this time. That is all I have to say for the present.
(Text)


Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Speaker, I think I should say a few words about the observations of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well). Almost every year a protest is made by a leader of one of the opposition parties or by one or more private members against the existing system of granting divorces by act of parliament. Although I have heard these protests made on literally dozens of occasions- and they are always made solemnly and in such a way as to command the assent of nearly everyone who listens to them-I have never heard a real suggestion as to how the situation can be remedied.


Major James William Coldwell: Before the war we
placed bills on the order paper with regard to divorce, and we are prepared to do it again.


Mr. KNOWLES:: A specific suggestion has been made by the former leader of the Progressive Conservative party, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), as well as by members of this group, namely, that these cases be referred to the exchequer court.
Private Bills-Divorce


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not remember any bill having been introduced to turn the exchequer court into a divorce court, and I doubt whether the suggestion is a practicable one. The situation is just this: that a majority of the members of the House of Commons are not prepared to vote against these bills when they come before the house. They feel that they cannot go that far. On the other hand if they are not prepared to vote against the bills I do not know what procedure can be set up except that which is followed at the present time. I do not understand my hon. friend's suggestion. Is it that there should be a different procedure set up in this parliament?


Major James William Coldwell: No. I think this is a matter for a court to decide, not the House of Commons.	*


Maurice Lalonde: What does the hon. member suggest should be done in a province where there are no divorce courts?


Major James William Coldwell: I suggest that the
dominion and the province get together with a view to reaching an agreement.


Maurice Lalonde: Not in Quebec.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then is it the suggestion that a dominion court be set up to try divorces from one particular province? I want to get down to something definite. I have heard these suggestions year after year, but so far I have heard nothing definite.


Angus MacInnis: Was there not a bill introduced in this house some years ago setting up a divorce court in the province of Ontario? If it can be done for Ontario it can be done for the province of Quebec,


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is that the suggestion of the party to which the hon. gentleman refers?


Angus MacInnis: The minister asked for suggestions, and that is one.


Major James William Coldwell: And perhaps for Prince Edward Island as well.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All I rose for was to try to get something definite about these criticisms. There is no reason why the special committee that has been set up to examine the rules should not consider this question, because we all agree this is not a matter that can be taken lightly. The present situation is not satisfactory, but my main purpose in rising was so that these general criticisms might not be made year after year without some point being added to them.
CMr. Knowles.]


Maurice Lalonde: May I be permitted to add some words to the remarks-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. .


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: Before you put the question, Mr. Speaker, I believe I should say a word. For five years I was chairman of the private bills committee. We went into every case that was brought before us. * Some of the hon. members read the evidence which had been adduced before the senate committee. Other hon. members had knowledge of the procedure followed in the provinces where divorce courts have been established. You can take the evidence brought before the senate committee and compare it with any evidence brought before the courts in the eight provinces where they have these courts, and there is no difference at all. All these cases are heard ex parte or by default, and the evidence is very similar in all.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Oh, no; there is no default.


Alphonse Fournier: I am speaking of something about which I have knowledge.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Well, you do not know.


Alphonse Fournier: In certain contested cases of course the evidence is heard at length. If you go before the senate committee, which is composed of experienced men, you will see that the evidence is heard in full: Both parties and their witnesses are heard; and I think the judgments of the senate will bear comparison with the judgments rendered by the courts of the country.


Mr. IRVINE:: What provision does the senate committee make for the children of these people?


Alphonse Fournier: I am not discussing that aspect, of it; I am discussing procedure. To-day hon. members are complaining about the procedure in this house when divorce bills from the province of Quebec are brought in from the senate committee. The bills we are talking about come only from the province of Quebec. Everyone in this house knows that in Quebec a huge majority of the people are against the establishment of divorce courts. For hon. members from the other provinces to impose their will upon the province of Quebec in this delicate matter I think would be a very serious mistake. We can show that where you have established divorce courts in Canada the number of divorces has increased year in and year out.

Private Bills-Divorce
According to the Ottawa newspapers, for the coming term of court in this city I believe there are some sixty cases from this city alone. In all the province of Quebec, under the present system, there are about two hundred this year, and that is the largest number we have ever had.


Angus MacInnis: And would the hon.
gentleman tell us the number of annulments?


Alphonse Fournier: We have courts for annulments.


Maurice Lalonde: That is not divorce at all.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not understand why, just to save a little time of the House of Commons, people who do not belong to our faith or come from our province would wish to impose upon us a system of procedure which is repugnant to our people. That is what you would be doing in the province of Quebec. I am speaking for myself and not for the government; I am giving my convictions in this matter. I believe this procedure, while it may seem to be hasty, certainly can be compared with the procedure in the courts.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise because-


Alphonse Fournier: I am sorry; I was speaking of cases heard ex parte, where no defence has been adduced, and I applied the word "default." The correct, expression is "ex parte." I should like to make that correction.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am not one of those who for a moment would think of forcing a divorce court upon the province of Quebec if that province does not want it; I should like to make that plain. In view of what the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Ilsley) has said, however, I must add that I know of no way except the way we are proceeding here, so I can offer neither criticism nor approbation. We are just in that spot. I also know personally, because I was here for some months many years ago and attended a number of sittings of the divorce committee in the other place, as we call it, what the procedure is over there, and I agree with what the minister has said. The thing is done very carefully and the evidence is all gone into. The fact that here we appear to be a sort of rubber stamp does not mean at all that these matters have not been properly and judicially handled by experienced people in that other committee. I make these remarks so there will be no misunderstanding of my interruption of the minister's remarks.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I remember this matter was considered by the special committee appointed by the house last year to consider the standing rules and orders of the house, and a recommendation was made which will be found in the journals of the House of Commons for last year at page 152. They suggested a new rule, though this recommendation was not adopted by the house; I want to make that clear:.
That the following be added at the end of this standing order:
with the exception of divorce bills passed in the senate which shall be referred to the standing committee on private bills as soon as received from that house.
Under this new rule, divorce bills will come before the house only once. They will be thoroughly considered in the committee on private bills prior to being submitted to the house. They are now mentioned three times before their second reading: first, when the. message is read from the senate; secondly, on first reading and thirdly on second reading. The object of the new rule is to avoid this unnecessary procedure.
Your committee is of the opinion that divorce by legislation should not take place to such an extent that bills seeking it sometimes fill many pages of the order paper. The matter is not one that can be settled by standing orders. The whole question should be given full consideration with a view to eliminating divorce bills from parliament, and your committee strongly recommends that this be done as soon as conveniently possible.
That was the recommendation of the committee last year.
Motion (Mr. Maybank) agreed' to, and bills Nos. 94 to 160 inclusive read the second time.


James Horace King: Mr. Maybank moves that bills Nos: 94 to 157 inclusive be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and that bills Nos. 158 and 160 be referred to the banking and commerce committee.
Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (Labelle) Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of attention to- the remarks of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Ilsley), who asked for constructive criticism on this matter of divorce. I am sure it is difficult to arrive at a constructive solution of the problem, but I think- and no one can reproach me for doing that-* it is my duty to protest at the way these bills pass through the house. Within a few weeks the dominion-provincial conference will be meeting in Ottawa; and if the only solution to the problem is to change the British North
2t88
Private Bills-Divorce

America Act so that the divorce question may revert to the provinces, that will be the time to speak about it and to alter the constitution so that each province may deal with its own divorce problem. That is my suggestion, and I put it to the house, urging at the same time that federal representatives at the conference place the matter before the conference so that it may be carefully dealt with.


Mr. ADAMSON:: Did not the Canadian
Bar association go into this whole matter very fully at its annual meeting held last summer, and did it not recommend to the government that the whole question of causes for divorce and divorce legislation across Canada be reviewed?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not aware of any such representation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say one word in reply to the suggestion that our proposal for a federal court to deal with these divorce cases would involve imposing our will upon the province of Quebec. That is not our thought at all. The position we take is that Qpebec has the full right to say whether or not they shall have divorce courts in that province. They have decided that they will not, and that is the way the matter stands. But it is also true-


Maurice Lalonde: They cannot establish divorce courts in Quebec.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I recognize that, and wo are not suggesting that it should be done; that is why I make this statement. But I point out that although there is no divorce court in Quebec, persons of that province now have the right to come to the federal parliament, to get a divorce. Our proposal is that instead of the people of Quebec who wish divorces coming to the federal parliament, they should come to a federal court situated here in Ottawa. That is why we suggest the matter might be referred to the exchequer court, or that some other federal court might be set up, located, if you like, outside of Quebec.


Maurice Lalonde: But that means a change in our constitution, just the same.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


James Horace King: Order. The motion to refer to a committee is not debatable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But your honour has permitted debate. Why stop me?


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
(Mr. Lalonde.]


Mr. McCANN:: Mr. Speaker, in calling *these bills for first reading you included bill No. 159, one in which several hon. members are interested, and the second reading of which we would like to have deferred.


James Horace King: The motion before the
house is that bills Nos. 94 to 157 inclusive be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and that bills Nos. 158 and 160 be referred to the committee on banking and commerce. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to; bills Nos. 94 to 157 referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and bills Nos. 158 and 160 referred to the committee on banking and commerce.



ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. E. McGARRY (Inverness-Rich-mond) moved the first reading of bill No. 159 (from the Senate), to amend an act to incorporate The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. '
James Horace King: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.
Mr. McGARRY moved the second reading of the bill. .


William Irvine: I should like to know what this bill is about.


James Horace King: It is usual in this house not to discuss bills coming from the senate, as they have been printed and distributed. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed* to; bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



EXTRADITION OF CRIMINALS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the treaty for the extradition of criminals between Canada and United States of America signed at Washington, April 29, 1942, and the protocol annexed thereto which was signed at Ottawa, October 3, 1945, and that this house do approve the same.
He said: As I said yesterday, my suggestion is that this extradition treaty and protocol be referred to the standing committee on external affairs. It has. been suggested that

Extradition of Criminals
before it goes to that committee I should make a brief statement as to what the treaty implies.
First of all may I point out that there is a provision in the treaty that it will come into force only after ratification, and that before exchanging instruments of ratification the government felt it was -a matter of such importance that it should receive the consideration of the houses of parliament.
Extradition between Canada and the United States of America has been governed by a series of treaties all negotiated and concluded between the United Kingdom government and the government of the United States, and extending to all parts of the British empire.
The first in time was the Webster-Ashbur-ton treaty of 1842 which, although it dealt mainly with boundary questions, provided in article X for extradition in case of murder, assault with intent to commit murder, piracy, arson, robbery, forgery or the utterance of forged papers. By a supplemental convention in 1889, the scope of the extradition arrangement was widened and there were further provisions of a general character supplementing the very limited provisions of the 1S42 treaty. A further supplementary treaty was entered into between the United Kingdom and the United States in 1900, enlarging the list of offences for which extradition could be obtained.
If this series of treaties and conventions is put together it constitutes a fairly comprehensive extradition arrangement extending to a large number of crimes. The arrangements [DOT] were not regarded as adequate by the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States, and a new treaty was negotiated between them in 1931, but was not made applicable to Canada because at the time the statute of Westminster was under consideration and it was not felt that anything done by the United Kingdom authorities should apply to Canada without express action by ourselves.
In the meantime there had been important developments in the trade between the two countries, and negotiations were started for a special extradition treaty between Canada and the United States. The negotiations were protracted. The negotiations were started in 1931, and it was not until April 29, 1942, that they were terminated by the signing of a treaty to come into force upon the exchange of proper ratifications.
The treaty consists of fourteen articles, of which article III sets forth the list of offences which are to be made the subject of extradition. These fall into thirty-three groups. The
remaining articles contain the necessary provisions as to terms, procedure, proof of offences, and so forth. *
When the terms of the treaty became public, objections were taken to items 26, 31 and 32 particularly. Item 26 deals with using the mails to defraud. Item 31 deals with crimes or offences against the laws for the prevention of fraud, and item 32 deals with crimes or offences, if indictable, against the laws regulating public securities markets, or activities affecting such markets, and the registration or licensing of securities or of persons or companies doing business in securities or giving advice with respect to securities, and with investment or public utility com-, panies.
In May, 1943, a delegation of representatives of investment firms was heard by a committee of the cabinet, and it was recognized that it would be necessary to negotiate a protocol to limit the possible application of these items 26, 31 and 32. The matter was again under protracted discussion and it was finally found that the most favourable protocol -that could be obtained was that which was signed as part of the treaty on October 3, 1945.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: If the minister will permit a question at this point, was any assurance given to that delegation in May, 1943, that any amendments made would first be shown to them before being embodied in a protocol?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, and I must say to the hon. member that no such assurance could be given. It would be contrary to the comity of nations to undertake to make public the negotiations being carried on with a friendly nation for the purpose of concluding a treaty. What assurance was given was that efforts would be made to obtain a satisfactory protocol and that of course no arrangement could-come into effect until the treaty had been ratified, and it would not be ratified until it had been publicized and there had been an opportunity for considering all such objections as might be proper to be urged against ratification. It is for the purpose of allowing such persons as may feel they have an interest in opposing the ratification of the treaty to be heard that I make the suggestion that before debating the treaty and protocol it be referred to a committee where these persons may make their representations, so that when we come to debate the merits or demerits of the arrangement it may be upon the report from the committee which will include such objections as may have been submitted.


John George Diefenbaker: One further question. Regardless of what recommendations
Extradition of Criminals

the committee makes, the protocol arid the treaty must stand on their own feet, and there is no assurance that there will be any alteration of the protocol as between Canada and the United States?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There is no assurance that there will be any alteration of the protocol, but neither is there any assurance that there will be approval by this house of the resolution that is submitted. Ratification is no idle formality. One hon. member suggested yesterday that no minister of the crown should sign any document until he has been specially authorized by parliament to do so. If that were to be the policy adopted, parliament should repeal the statute dealing with the Department of External Affairs and set up a committee on external affairs to administer our external affairs. The procedure is for these matters to be entered into, in the form of treaties subject to ratification according to the constitutional processes of the parties concerned. Our constitutional process is to secure in advance the assent of the houses of parliament rather than to do something of which parliament would disapprove and express its disapproval by withdrawing its confidence from those who would have done it.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister would allow one further question-because it is rather an anomalous situation-would the government consider any vote that would not approve the treaty or the protocol, as a vote of non-confidence?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is a matter that would have to be considered when the time should come for considering it. The government recommends to the house the ratification of this treaty. The house will deal with it as it sees fit, and on the result of the decision of the house the government will then have to determine what course it will follow.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this matter was brought up yesterday by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), at which time he asked that it be referred to the committee on external affairs wdthout debate and without any statement by the minister himself. I understand that his desire was primarily to expedite the work of the house. With that objective we are in entire agreement, and as evidence of that I say now that we are prepared to forgo debate on the matter at this time. Yesterday the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) asked that it be stood over until to-day, because he had not had previous notice that the motion

was to be considered. I would point out now that we desire to help the government expedite its measures, but we think it is a bad precedent to establish to come forward with motions or bills and ask that they be sent to a committee without a statement by way of explanation from the government. We on this side will try to limit debate as much as we can, but we think that a precedent such as this would not be a good one; so when the Minister of Justice spoke to' me to-day I suggested that it would be better procedure, when these measures come forward, that some statement should be made by the government before asking the house to send them to a committee. I think I can speak for my associates when I say that we shall expedite the matter now before us on the understanding that we are not committing ourselves for or against the measure, and that we shall have the right to take part in any necessary debate upon it later on.
Motion agreed to for reference of extradition treaty and protocol to standing committee on external affairs.



PAYMENT OF PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES OF 1943 AND 1944

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It arises from the fact that in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta there has been a short crop this year, and farmers are., anxious to ascertain if it would not be possible for the government ,to make early payment of the participation certificates of 1943 and 1944. Is the minister in a position to give us a statement in this regard?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member for Lake Centre kindly informed me that he was going to ask this question this afternoon, and I would appreciate it if hon. members from the west generally would observe the answer, because I am quite sure that the matter is dealt with to a very considerable extent in correspondence from the west.
The Canadian wheat board has been unable, as yet, to close the 1943 crop account because of the necessity of tracing a number of shipments to their destinations, which have been diverted en route, thereby affecting the ultimate determination of the sales of wheat as either crown account or 1943 crop.wheat. The audit, of course, awaits the closing of the account. It is therefore expected that it will

Penitentiary Act
be June or July of next year before payments against 1943 participation certificates can be made.
Another difficulty has been that of cleaning up the balance of 1940, 1941 and 1942 crop participation certificates. Many thousands of these certificates still remain unpaid because the certificates have been lost. The board is doing everything possible to make these payments to those who are entitled to them, even though the certificates are lost, estates are involved, or the parties cannot be located. It is hoped that this residue of 1940, 1941 and
1942	crop payments will be reduced to very small proportions by the time the board is otherwise in a position to commence payment on the 1943 certificates.
It is obvious that the 1944 participation certificates will have to be dealt with after the
1943	payments are made.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: That will enable us to answer the letters we are receiving from the west.	t


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.



NINTH VICTORY LOAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. G. E. LAPALME (Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I use
the privilege which was granted to some hon. members in this house in connection with the ninth victory loan campaign. I know that I am out of order, but you have.been generous enough to allow these hon. members to draw the attention of the house to the result of the campaign in their constituencies, and I request the same favour.
Your position, Mr. Speaker, does not permit you to speak of your own constituency, but I think I should do it so that your numerous friends, in and outside of this house, may learn with pleasure that'Montreal-St. Mary, where you were elected, and whose unit number is 112, came first out of all units in the island of Montreal, subscribing 178-50 per cent of its quota. Such a result certainly deserves our congratulations. But however generous they may be in your constituency, I wish to say that it could not compete with mine. Joliette is but one of the three provincial ridings of which my constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is composed, and the Joliette unit, No. 173, finished first out of all units in the province of Quebec- including of course the island of Montreal- subscribing 198-16 per cent of its quota.



PENITENTIARY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved1 that the house go into committee on bill No. 92, to amend the Penitentiary Act, 1939.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-The penitentiary commission.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In the debate we had last night on the second reading of this bill, many constructive and helpful suggestions were made with respect to the administration of our penitentiaries, and I wish to express my appreciation to the hon. members who made those suggestions, and in particular to the hon. member for Kindersley for the very serious study of the matter which he evidently made to prepare the interesting discourse he delivered to the house as his maiden speech here.
There was however much said that seemed to arise out of an erroneous impression of what this bill purports to do, and to have given rise to an erroneous impression even to the gentlemen of the press as to what it was meant to do, because, on picking up a paper this morning, I saw a title, "Commission to study penal reform." That is quite erroneous. The study made for the purpose of bringing about penal reform was that accomplished by the Archambault commission, which made its report in 1939, and upon which report the'statute which it is proposed to amend by this bill was passed by this parliament in 1939 and sanctioned in April of that year. The purpose of this bill is not to set up a commission, and it is not to have further studies made. The purpose is to modify the terms of the statute passed in 1939 with respect to the commission which was provided for by that statute, and to appoint, or to have the privilege of appointing, one commissioner, before constituting the complete commission, to determine just as speedily as possible the practical methods to be adopted to bring about the implementation of all such portions of the report as can be implemented without the concurrence of the provincial authorities, and to make all such approaches to the provincial authorities as may be considered proper to obtain their concurrence for the implementation and the further recommendations of the report.
Of course, one can readily understand 1iow the erroneous impression to which I -have
Penitentiary Act
[Stage Direction]
referred would arise, because if one looks only at the bill before the house, this first section that we are on at the present time provides that there shall be a commission. But that is merely a repetition of what was enacted in 1939 and it is repeated in this bill only for the purpose of making the change that is underscored in the text as printed.
John George Diefenbaker: What about 4(a)?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That provision, 4(a), is a new provision to make it possible to proceed with implementing the recommendations -of the Archambault report before we are ready to appoint a commission of three persons to take over at once the administration of the penitentiaries. When I considered the statute passed in 1939 and found that it was, necessary that it be amended before being proclaimed, I also felt that it would expedite the implementing of this report if the government had the right to appoint, before being ready to set up the full commission with the full powers for which the act provides', one commissioner-the statute says one or more, but I had in mind one commissioner-who would do the preliminary things which the Archambault report so urgently recommends.
Some recommendations have been read into the record, but if we look at the conclusions which appear on page 362 of their report we find the following:
In making the recommendations contained in this report, your commissioners believe that the government should gradually embody the recommended principles in a well-planned programme. It is of first and immediate importance that legislation should be enacted to make provision for a prison commission and that the members of the commission should be appointed at once. Upon appointment, the prison commission should proceed to form well-ordered plans for selecting officers to fill vacancies. New men should be introduced into the service and the most promising members of the present personnel should be given a course of training.
It will be advisable to send a few men to the training .school at Wakefield, England, so that the British principles of administration which form the foundations of this report may effectively be imported into the Canadian system.
In one of -the specific recommendations, No. 10, on page 355, it is stated:
After careful study of the penitentiary staffs by the prison commission, all hopelessly incapable officers should be retired.
It may be that there are some hopelessly incapable officers, but I wish at this time to pay tribute to the work that has been done by those who during the war, and in numbers reduced by reason of the fact that many of them were allowed to obtain leave of absence to join the armed forces, have carried on the work necessary to administer the penitentiary system that we did have. They have done

valiant and efficient work, and I think it is only fair to them that it should be stated in this house that we consider they rendered during those years a service to the Canadian people.
The member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) last night said something which was so tersely reported that it may give a false impression. I notice in the newspapers a statement that it had been said here that practically the only difference between the penitentiary staffs and the inmates was that the staffs were allowed to go home at night. What the hon. member meant, what I understood, and what I am sure everyone here understood, was that he felt that the staffs were not treated by the government as generously as they should be, and that in the treatment accorded them they were not much better off than were the inmates of the establishments. .


Arthur Leroy Smith: Exactly.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sure that the hon. member fully agrees with me that on the whole these men have been doing an efficient job, which it was necessary to have done, under the trying conditions that resulted from the fact that many of their fellows had left their ranks to join the armed forces.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I agree most heartily, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Another point upon which I am sure there will also be general agreement is this. Our penitentiary system is not perfect-far from it; but on the whole the job done has not been bad. There are about one thousand tickets of leave granted each year, or have been for several years past, and our experience has been that only about four per cent of those to whom tickets of leave have been granted have again fallen by the wayside and had to be brought back before courts of justice and charged with criminal offences. That is not a bad record. But what I am asking the house to do is to permit me by these amendments to proceed at once-I intend to proceed with such reasonable dispatch as will allow for an ordered improvement in the system-without requiring me at the very start to find three suitable men for the penitentiary commission. I feel I shall be quite lucky if I can find at once one competent man.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister one in mind?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, and I shall be glad to receive suggestions from any hon. member of this house. I have asked the chiefs of the three armed services to make suggestions, not of army-discipline martinets

Penitentiary Act
but of persons who, having been in administrative jobs, would have the experience and also the temperament that would enable them to administer these institutions in the manner in which they should be administered. I shall be glad, I repeat, to receive suggestions from any member of the house, because I think that what is stated in a paragraph or two I am about to read with respect to the Borstal system itself is true also with respect to our penitentiaries. In a publication put out by the home office I find a warning which I should like to put on the record. It is as follows:
The BoTstal system has no merit apart from tht. Borstal staff. It is men and not buildings who will change the hearts and ways of misguided lads. Better an institution that consists of two log huts in swamp or desert, with a staff devoted to their task, than a model block of buildings, equipped without thought of economy, whose staff is solely concerned with thoughts of pay and promotion.
The foundations of the Borstal system are first the recruitment of the right men, then their proper training, and finally their full cooperation with one another in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual understanding.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The success of the Borstal system rests first, as the minister has just said, on the type of men in the Borstal institutions, but is it not a fact that in England they have in every community of any size organizations of people, workers, business men, and so on, who take these persons into their homes after discharge, entertain them, and find them jobs? Is not that perhaps the most effective part of the whole Borstal system?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the hon. member is quite right. I think there can be no better way of confirming those lads in the resolutions which they may have formulated during their period in the institution than by making them realize that when they come out they are regarded as human beings and are entitled to their proper place in a well organized human society.


Arthur Leroy Smith: And that they have a friend.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: And that they have more than one friend, and that no man's hand is turned against them. The preliminary work that is to be done by this one commissioner- and I think it will be more expeditious to have him not attempting to administer at once, but doing the things that are recommended as. the preliminaries in this Archambault report-will consist in going about and seeing if there are any incompetent men on the staffs of these institutions; if there are, seeing that they are weeded out; at the same time seeing
who are the members of these staffs who would get real benefit from a course of training, and indicating them as being the ones who should be trained!. I said yesterday that he might have to make some visits to institutions elsewhere. I still feel that may be necessary-not because I want to do again the work that was done by the commission, but that work was done eight or nine years ago. We have had a major war since that time which, though I have not been there, according to the little information I have received has brought about considerable changes in the United Kingdom. For instance it was suggested that a specialist be invited to come here; that an outstanding prison authority from England should be invited to come to Canada to counsel and advise on the things being done in the process of implementing this report. I do not know whether the gentleman suggested at that time is now available-


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Mr. Paterson.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes; or whether after this lapse of years he would be prepared and free to do this kind of work. In fact there are a great many things which have to be planned before they are done, and I have thought they could be planned more efficiently by one man, if I got the right man, than by a committee of three sitting around discussing and passing resolutions or drawing up minutes about what they are going to do. It may be that I shall come back to this house some time and say that the experience I have had' as to the administration of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has shown me that this is a pretty good pattern for the administration of a system and that it should deserve the confidence of the Canadian public. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has one commissioner; he has assistants whom he chooses and for whom he is responsible. Over the years the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has been efficiently administered.


Major James William Coldwell: Is there more than one commissioner in Great Britain?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes; I think there are three members on the prisons commission. If I or my successors are able to find someone for this kind of work who will be as efficient as those who have been commissioners of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, then perhaps that would be the proper set-up for the administration of those institutions.


John George Diefenbaker: I think everyone has been impressed by the minister's statement. He has given the matter full consideration. He savs he may come back to the house and ask that there be one commissioner.
Penitentiary Act

If these amendments are passed is the minister in a position to teil the committee what salary he will pay the man whom he appoints, and generally the type of man he has in mind who can qualify to take a position such as this? Anyone accepting this very responsible position will require not only experience but a degree of tolerance that certainly would not be possessed by one whose only qualification is membership in a disciplinary organization.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In my view the chairman of this commission, or the sole commissioner if there be only one member of the commission, will hold a position of deputy minister rank, equal in importance to the deputy ministerial position of any department. So far in th^ past appropriations the salary which has been voted from year to year for the chairman of the commission has been 89,000. When they started in 1939 I think there were only two deputy ministers with salaries of more than 89,000. Whether that will be sufficient or not I would not care to state definitely at this time. But I will say that I look upon the work which would have to be done there as equal to that which devolves upon any deputy minister, and that this officer should be dealt with accordingly.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister give the committee any idea with regard to the personnel now holding positions in the various penitentiaries? How many are there? How many guards are there? How many guards are simply holding temporary positions, because of having been appointed within the last two years? I agree with the minister when he says that the staffs have done as good a job as they could reasonably be expected to do, having regard to the fact that in certain cases enlistments were permitted; but if press reports are correct I do think that care has not been exercised in the appointment of some of these men. I know of one western penitentiary where, if my information is correct, they advertised for guards, and they got a couple of fellows who said they had had experience in penal institutions; they were on the staff for six months, and then it was ascertained that they actually had been prisoners at one time, so they were acquainted with the inside of a penitentiary anyway. This indicates to me there was not the care exercised in those appointments that there should have been. I think the minister knows the penitentiary to which I refer; an investigation was held within the last year, and it was definitely stated as a result that the problem in that penitentiary was more or less traceable to the circumstance I have mentioned.
I wonder if the minister would be prepared to give some indication with respect to the method whereby these employees are appointed, and a general statement with regard to conditions of discipline in the various penitentiaries throughout the dominion. There have been difficulties in one or more of them within the last year; that is generally known. What has been done to investigate any disorder that has taken place, or any breaches of discipline en masse; and what course is being followed to prevent the repetition of such things?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: All J can say to the hon. member is that there have not been many changes in the personnel of the penitentiaries during the last four years. Whenever we have had to obtain additional staff it has been with considerable difficulty that we have done so, because of the existence of these freezing orders in relation to the amount of remuneration that has been payable not only throughout the civil service but generally throughout the nation. There was some suggestion yesterday that these were political appointments. That may have been true in other times, when these positions were looked upon as desirable, but it has not been my experience that there is any competition to obtain them. Of course we were further hampered by the fact that we could not make permanent appointments to fill the positions of those who had obtained leave .of absence to join the armed forces. So on the whole the complexion of the staffs has not changed much in the last four years.
There have been occasions when unrest has developed. I remember one instance in which one of the grievances was the manner in which the food was prepared and served to the inmates, though I am not sure the disturbance was entirely attributable to that. There was no suggestion that we were not buying good provisions, but there was a suggestion that they did not reach the inmates in attractive form. That was taken care of by the appointment of a steward, who is still with us though I have not yet been able to find any method by which his position may be made permanent, and he is quite uncomfortable because of that situation. But the improvement brought about in the fare provided for the inmates coincided with a better spirit in the institution. In another case an improvement in the form of entertainment provided by radio or movies coincided with better morale in the institution. I say it coincided; these did not seem to be very important things, but after they were attended to the feeling was better.
One thing we had to do which was very distasteful was to ask the broadcasting corfMr. Diefienbaker.]

Penitentiary Act >
poration to refrain from including in its broadcasts information about disturbances in any of these institutions, because when they heard over the radio of a disturbance somewhere it created unrest in all the penitentiaries. The broadcasting corporation was reluctant to eliminate reports of these incidents in such institutions, and I confess that I was reluctant to have to insist that it be done, but the alternative would have been for us to eliminate radios from the penitentiaries. That kind of news created unrest with which we were not prepared to cope.
On the whole the administration of penitentiaries is not easy. The hon. member for Calgary West was quite right in saying that the inmates are not all Sunday-school children. There are many bad men in these penitentiaries. We are taking care of a population of about three thousand with a relatively small staff, and the staff has to be firm but just, and must have tact in order to avoid difficulties.


Major James William Coldwell: I was going to ask the minister what qualifications are required now for appointment. What I have in mind is this. I know the rates of pay are very low, and I realize that these men have been doing as good a job as could be expected of them. But in the past it usually.has been considered that a man of good physique and some little knowledge was able to act as a penitentiary guard. On seyeral occasions I have had the great honour, as I regard it, of discussing penitentiary affairs with one of the outstanding authorities in the world, I believe; and again and again he has impressed upon me that those qualifications are insufficient.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think they are.


Major James William Coldwell: To-day you need a particularly trained type of individual; and if we are to get that type, ^e has also impressed upon me, you have to pay much more, and provide them with decent conditions of security. When this commissioner is appointed for the purposes which the minister has outliiied this afternoon in all probability he will make some recommendations.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I hope he will.


Major James William Coldwell: And I hope this will be one of the matters with which he will deal. I agree with what the hon. member for Kindersley said last evening, that the Canadian penitentiary system is in a bad way. It is not up to date; it is out of date. I am hoping that with the report which was mentioned last night by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, and the later reports which were also mentioned last evening, we may
have a real inquiry by a competent person, who understands penitentiary matters, who is a penologist, into what is needed; and that then we may be able to see Canada with a penitentiary system which will not be regarded, as it is now by so many of the outstanding penologists of the world, as being very backward indeed, to say the least. I am hoping that situation will be remedied within the near future. I think that was the general tenor of the debate last evening; and if I may be permitted to say so, Mr. Chairman, I think that debate on this matter was a credit to the House of Commons.


Mr. REID:: As one who has visited penitentiaries frequently, and in whose constituency, that of the city of New Westminster, is located a penitentiary, I was interested in what was said last night, and particularly what was said about dealing with younger criminals, and their segregation. Speaking to older criminals, warders and prison attendants in the last four or five years during some of my visits, their statements to me have been-and these are their words, not mine-that they want protection from the younger criminals who are coming in, and that the situation is not as it has been described, namely one in which the younger criminal should be protected from the older. Some of these men have said to me, "Mr. Reid, we never saw young men like these; we do not want to be classified with them." And yet statements are made in the house and throughout the press that it is unfair to place these young fellows alongside the hardened criminals. The fact is that the hardened criminals are standing back almost in a state of horror at the attitude and the mentality of the youth. I agree with the hon. member for Calgary West when he says that many of these young men are not youth: they are men between the ages of 17 and1 23.
When on one occasion I visited the penitentiary and watched a line of convicts walking past for their meal, I was, struck by the fact that in that line one would find perhaps a man who had been a bookkeeper, who in a weak moment had embezzled some funds, for which he was serving a term o,f two or three years. Behind that man would be another who had been convicted four or five times for brutality and was at that time doing a long sentence for murder. My view in the matter of segregation is that the convicts could be segregated in the penitentiaries for the benefit of the. various classes who are incarcerated. However I have risen particularly to say a word on behalf of the older criminal, for whom I believe no one has spoken.
Might I refer briefly to what was said by the hon. member for Kindersley, who placed

Penitentiary Act
many figures . on record. I was impressed by his statement that perhaps the economic system had a great deal to do with the increase in crime in this country. I was impressed particularly by the fact that when he gave figures he was comparing conditions in England with those in Canada, and in offering those figures he attempted to show how well off they were in the matter of crime or crime prevention as compared with our condition in Canada. May I point out however that there is no comparison whatsoever between the standard of living in this country and the conditions found here, and the conditions in Great Britain.
There is something further which I believe is lacking in our system. In my view greater attention should be paid to parents. Instead of declaring numbers of children delinquents, I suggest the parents should be termed delinquent parents.


John George Diefenbaker: I believe the minister did not deal with one other matter I brought to his attention-the recommendation by the commission in 1938 that there be a revision of the criminal code. Secondly, I asked him whether anything had been done with a view to securing cooperation of the provinces, so that the penal institutions of this country, including penitentiaries and gaols, so far as possible could be -brought under a uniform system of administration. The third matter was that of adult probation. This was recommended in the report of the penitentiaries commission, where it was pointed out that offenders released on suspended sentence or on ticket-of-leave would be subject to supervision for a very considerable period of time, and given the benefit of advice and assistance along the lines indicated by the hop. member for Calgary West. He pointed out that one of the reasons for the success of the Borstal system in the old country was that the people made their homes available for the purpose of welcoming these young men, and giving them the benefit of their opinions.
The minister has said that so far our system has worked out fairly well. I am not one who has any sympathy with the recidivist, or the criminal who commits crimes of violence. Rather I am referring to the man or woman who may make a mistake, who may commit one offence in a lifetime, for which he or she may reach a penitentiary. It is to prevent such as they from again, by reason of the unfairness of society, being brought to a condition where the commission of crime becomes easier.
While the minister pictured a rather favourable condition, may I on the other hand bring to the attention of the committee the words of Mr. Justice McRuer in a very recent speech 
when, after reviewing the situation, not of the hardened criminal or the one who commits a crime of violence, but rather of the juvenile and the youthful offender who may commit minor offences, not offences of violence. He said:	[DOT]
On examination criminal statistics cannot help but disturb the most complacent and forces one to the inevitable conclusion that the present system of administering penal laws of Canada operates neither to protect society nor as an effective deterrent to the commission of crimes.
I should like to hear the minister say something on this matter of segregation.
I agree with the hon. member for New Westminster that in the crime wave found in this dominion to-day many of the criminals are young men. Many of the most desperate are young men; but I am not dealing with that type. I believe it was the hon. member for Temiscouata who said yesterday that many of these crimes are committed because men have been trained to kill during the period of war. But when we look at the records of the men who are committing serious crimes to-day we find that very few of them served in the -armed forces; most of them are persons who were in Canada and who, for one reason or another, failed to be in the armed forces. In that connection I make one plea, and it is this: Every time a man -who has been in the armed forces finds his way into court the first reference is that he is a returned soldier or an ex-service man. That should end. Too much, eifiphasis is being placed on the fact that a small percentage of service men are committing crimes. When people in other classes or other organizations commit crimes, no reference is made to the groups to which they may belong. If an ex-service man faces a charge, immediately undue publicity and reference is made to his military service.
I believe that the most stringent punishment, to act as a deterrent to those who are determined to flout the laws of society, must be handed out. This must be said, however, that it is those who have not served who are committing these serious crimes.


Mr. POULIOT:: I said w'hat the hon. member has just referred to, but I mentioned it as occurring on occasions.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not attribute anything else to the hon. member.


Jean-François Pouliot: I said that on occasions youth does -wrong tilings; but I also added that I was surprised to find that, in spite of those numerous occasions on which wrong is done, the youth of to-day is no worse than that of yesterday.

Penitentiary Act
While on my feet I would remind the committee that when the Hon. Mr. Justice Lucien Cannon was solicitor general, he was in charge of the administration of penitentiaries. Now the Solicitor General has to look after the remission branch, and I wonder if it would not be possible to transfer the penitentiaries branch to the Solicitor General, who could inspect the penitentiaries just as Mr. Justice Cannon did in his time, and then report to the house. When the commission to inquire into the penitentiaries was appointed there was no solicitor general because that portfolio was then vacant, but now that we have a Solicitor General perhaps my suggestion would be an easy solution. I am sure that the minister could find no abler man to supervise the penitentiaries than his colleague who is now in charge of the remission branch.


Mrs. STRUM:: I had not intended to take part in this debate because I thought the subject had been so well covered yesterday that little more could be said, but some remarks made this afternoon, by the hon. member for New Westminster I feel call for a reply.
We had an interesting condition develop in our provincial gaol in Saskatchewan a year or two ago, when we were so short of criminals that we had to hire labour on the gaol farm. That is, the people who ordinarily get into trouble were employed or were in the army; there was less temptation, and we were very happy to have to hire day labourers to take off the crop.
When we talk about crime and delinquency we must talk not only about juvenile delinquency but also about delinquent parents and delinquent society, because every time we examine crime we are forced back to the source and invariably we come back to slum conditions in the cities, towns and villages where human life has not had a chance to flourish. Crime has always been associated with poverty, disease and low wages, and we as employers are not free of guilt in that regard in this city of Ottawa and this House of Commons. When I scan the wage scales of some of .the employees of this house I wonder how the girls can afford morals.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Grade 1 stenographers.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: When we look at the family income of some of the people of this country we find there the basis of the stunted lives and blighted districts in the slums, where people who can pay only a very small rental are forced to crowd into a room or two and where there is no place for the children to play but on the street. I think we have a
very grave responsibility to provide recreational and social outlets for the natural energies of youth. When we are considering the problem of delinquents we must consider prevention as well as cure, and that brings us back to wages and family income and the whole picture of our national life, because it cannot be separated from these economic factors.


Thomas Reid: The hon. member has said that she rose to reply because of some remarks I had made. What I was trying to point out was this. The other evening the hon. member for Kindersley in a lengthy, statement placed on the record statistics with respect to crime in England as compared with Canada, and anyone who listened to his remarks could not avoid inferring that the comparison was very favourable to England. When I rose this afternoon I was merely drawing the attention of the committee to this fact, that if economic conditions have anything to do with crime, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has just said they have, why then has crime increased during the last three or four years in Canada and decreased in England? There must be something more, and that is what I was trying to point out to the committee so as to keep the record straight.


Mr. McMASTER:: Mr. Chairman, my only excuse for taking five minutes' time is that this is a subject on which I had definite ideas long before I ever expected to be a member of this house. I have listened to certain remarks as to what the attitude of the people should be toward our penitentiaries and whether a change or improvement should be made in them. My idea is that the important thing for us to consider is, what is the attitude of the potential criminal? Is he to be told that if he commits a crime bringing a sentence of two years he will be sent to a penitentiary where he will be taught a trade and things will be made easier for him so that he can rehabilitate himself? Rather I think, as the hon. member for Temiscouata has said, that the main idea should be to ' keep people out of penitentiaries. I am concerned that anyone should suggest a commission to look after the penitentiaries. Surely the penitentiary is not of such importance and is not going to have sufficient numbers in it to warrant a commission .in the future.
I would hope that a deputy minister could easily handle this matter and that in the meantime we should try to reduce the numbers in the penitentiary. I have been told in the past that the penitentiaries have been very much overcrowded. Maybe their cap-
Penitentiary Act

acity has been increased. I was told by the deputy attorney general of Ontario some ten years ago that nobody would remain in the penitentiary long because the pen, as he called it, would1 be needed for newcomers. The numbers in the penitentiaries should1 be reduced. Perhaps the length of sentences has been increased. I believe-and this is why I am on my feet-that in the first instance young people should be taught the danger and the, risk they take if they go wrong. The hon. member for Calgary West has said that every person who comes before a judge for the first time is given a suspended sentence. I do not think that should be the case. I think an investigation into the offender's past should be made and those with good records should be given a suspended sentence but those who from early youth have been incorrigible should be given punishment! I say that because in one case in which I was engaged professionally, where a man was guilty of a serious crime, it was found on looking into his record that he had been before the courts five times before on more or less serious charges and every time had been given a suspended sentence. By that very act of the court the man was given the idea that there was not much for him to fear. That is a wrong impression to give. Therefore I say that in the first instance young people should' be taught that if they make a mistake they will be punished. Unless that is done our penitentiaries will be full.	.
The hon( member for Calgary West also said that the idea in sending a man to a penitentiary was punishment, reformation and prevention. I would put it in this order, prevention, punishment and reformation; because if the punishment is certain, I am sure * that there would) be far fewer criminals.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There were five questions which the hon. member for Lake Centre submitted which I should like to answer briefly.
With respect to a revision of the criminal code, no definite plans have been made in that regard. We have been discussing the consolidation of the dominion statutes, which have not been consolidated since 1927, and that consolidation would include, of course, a consolidation of the criminal code. I would hope that when anything was done about the criminal code a serious effort would be made to bring about a greater degree of uniformity in the punishments provided for offences that have been dealt with in the code at different times. You can almost date the period when the offence was put into the code by the

severity of the punishment which might be imposed, but which hardly ever is. I think it will be desirable to try to have a graded system of punishments proportionate to the seriousness of the offences being dealt with in the various sections, and there will no doubt also be many other improvements made in the language used to express the procedure which is to be followed to apply the provisions of the code.
The hon. member asked if anything had been done with respect to the recommendation of the commission that the whole penal system be brought under a centralized control. There has been nothing done since I came to the department four years ago beyond vague statements to the representatives of she provinces that when we are together we should go into this matter of dealing with the penal institutions of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that on the
agenda for the next dominion-provincial
conference?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is not expressly on the agenda. The agenda has to deal with the concrete proposals that have been submitted by the dominion government. But when the provincial representatives were here, in conversation we agreed that if we could only get together and try to do something to bring about not only better'relations but more effective administration of public affairs for the Canadian people, the matter of penal institutions was one which would have to be dealt with. That is as far as it has gone up to the present.
Then the hon. member asked me about probation officers. Of course that matter would be dependent upon the degree of cooperation agreed upon with the provincial representatives: that is a matter which is a part of the educational system. Federal participation should not be in the form of federal interference: it should be along the line of cooperation with the provincial authorities, leaving to them their control of the matter as being an incident of education.
With respect to juvenile delinquency, I think the hon. member will agree with me that the penitentiary system has not very much to do with that. The subject was dealt with yesterday by the district governor of Rotary in an address here in Ottawa. He said:
Juvenile delinquency has become an acute, urgent and vital problem of to-day, and the root of all the trouble lies right in the home, *which has too often assumed the atmosphere of a hotel or fairly-respectable cafe.
The root does reach down into the home, it also goes through the soil of education, and

City oj Ottawa Agreement
the thing we have to call juvenile delinquency is not tied up with the manner in which the penitentiaries are administered.
The hon. member also asked about segregation. That is one of the most urgent of the problems which will have to be dealt with. The matter of keeping apart first offenders and hardened criminals who are teachers in the criminal profession is of great urgency and one of the things which, in the penitentiaries, is our responsibility entirely. I believe the occasions for contacts between first offenders and other criminals are much more numerous in the prisons than they are in the penitentiaries. But whatever be the Arrangements made or discussed with the provincial authorities, I think the federal government, because of its control of penitentiaries, has a responsibility, just as soon as it can discharge it, of doing more than has been done in the past to prevent contacts between-I will not call them boys-younger offenders and hardened criminals.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN:: Before we go on to the next clause, may I remind the committee that, according to the rules, speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under discussion. I understand that no one objects to a general discussion under the first clause, but I assume that under the clauses which follow, the discussion will be relevant to the clause.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Coming into force.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary Wes^):: I observe that section 84 of the act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
This act or any part thereof shall come into force... by proclamation.
I would ask the minister if this is not quite a new procedure?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I cannot conceive of any part of an act coming into force unless the act comes into force. That is a change from the old act. The old act came in holus-bolus.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	It may be new in
that form. What I asked the law officers to do was to provide that I could have sections 4 and 4A in force without having the whole act in force. Sections 4 and 4A deal with having one man do this preliminary work which I feel has to be done, and I suggested that they provide for sections 4 and 4A coming into force 47696-139
at once and the rest, of the act coming into force on proclamation; but they felt that it would be better to do it in this way.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have some doubt about the effectiveness of giving somebody power to bring in a portion of an act without specifying what that portion is. However, I merely raised the point; I am glad the minister had considered it.


Mr. MACDONNELL:: I wish to make one observation With regard to section 6, which has to do with the sections that are to be expressly brought into effect. I think several of us who spoke on this last night had the feeling, from reading section 4, by reading note 2, and also from what the minister said in his opening remarks, that there was perhaps not so much a feeling of urgency about this as we should have liked. I confess that when I first read section 2, which requires the commissioner "to consider," "to make inquiry," and "to report," it seemed that we were again faced with another period of inquiry which would put off action, perhaps indefinitely. The remarks which the minister has made to-day seem to have removed that fear. He spoke about definitely implementing the Archambault report; and the only thing I should like to do is to remind him that, through no fault of his own, he has about thirty years' arrears to make up. I earnestly hope that the period of inquiry will be extremely short, and earnestly suggest to him that there must be certain proposals in the Archambault report which so clearly need to be put into effect, and are so generally accepted, that they might be proceeded with after little or no further investigation, inquiry or consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed. .


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works) moved the second reading of bill No. 161, To authorize a certain agreement between His Majesty the King and the Corporation of the City of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Sections 1 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
Demobilization-Air Services


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, November 5, 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. Ilsley-Mr. Golding jn the chair.

William Henry Golding: The committee will remember that in the previous discussion of these estimates we had reached item 6 and were still on that item when the committee rose.


Mr. GILLIS:: Before we discuss the item specifically I should like to say a few words with reference to the debate that took place on this resolution when it was last before the house. A specific matter was raised by myself at that time, giving rise to considerable debate; and during the course of that discussion as well as subsequently, in newspaper editorials particularly, certain things have been said by reason of which I feel it incumbent upon me to take up some of the time of the committee this afternoon. Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I will not discuss the merits or demerits of the difficulties at Windsor. That matter is now one between the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), the Ford Motor company and the union. With regard to the minister's statement this afternoon, I think it indicated that the union has taken a fair and reasonable stand in the effort to bring about a settlement, and, second, the statement indicated to me that the Ford Motor company has taken an unfair and unreasonable stand. Without quoting the minister's statement, it meant this to me, that the Ford Motor company is prepared to do everything except to bargain collectively with its employees. It is not prepared to do that. I was quite pleased with the minister's attitude toward the stand the company is taking. The Ford company, in its proposal to the union committee at Windsor, merely suggests compulsory arbitration. The Minister of Labour this afternoon in his statement indicated to the house that he is not of that view, and anyone who has any experience with the labour movement and can either think back or read back over the last fifty years, knows that in the field of collective bargaining the trade union movement has fought compulsory arbitration because, once you are in that field, you 
are scrapping all the ideals of collective bargaining. I am not going to go any farther into that matter, but I wish to say this; as I see the dispute in that particular section it boils down to the right to profits versus the right of the worker to a living wage.
This afternoon I was interested in picking up a copy of the Ottawa Journal of September 18, 1941. This paper contains a statement of the Prime Minister on this particular matter, and I shall read one of the pertinent sections of a lengthy speech dealing with the matter of industry versus humanity. The Prime Minister had this to say:
Some years ago, I made a special study of the problems of industry, and of the principles upon which industrial reconstruction should be based if, after years of war,-
And he was referring to this period.
-industrial strife were not to follow international strife. At that time, more than twenty-two years ago, I reached the conclusion that there could be no permanent peace in industry unless the claims of humanity, in industrial relations, were recognized as superior to that of industry. In other words, it seemed to me that industry must recognize that it existed to serve the needs of humanity; not that humanity existed to serve greed of industry.
Any discussion that I have had on this matter in the house w7as based on exactly the principles enunciated by the Prime Minister in this speech. Despite that, I have been accused of making inflammatory speecnes, stirring people up, and all that kind of thing. Whether my talk was inflammatory or not I leave to the members of the house. I spoke to them and not to the people outside who made that criticism.
This afternoon I am going to make reference to a recent- editorial in the Globe and Mail. The editorial refers to me, and it is, to say the least, anything but truthful. That statement can be borne out by a reference to Hansard. I shall read just a short extract of the editorial. The editor of the Globe and Mail had this to say:
He lied -when he said the Ford strike "is the official demonstration on the part of industry in this province to smash unions and trade union agreements." He lied when he charged Premier Drew with promoting "civil strife in Windsor."
No matter how violently I disagreed with any of the viewpoints held by any other hon. member in the six years that I have been in the house, I think I can truthfully say that on no occasion have I thought for a moment that any hon. member was lying on any matter that he brought before the house. What the editor of the Globe and Mail dishonestly did in this instance was to take a few words out of its context and run them in this editorial to mislead the people of this province into thinking that the statement he

Demobilization-Air Services
made in the editorial is correct. When I say that the person who wrote that editorial dishonestly manipulated and misconstrued what I had to say I refer to what I said at page 1819 of Hansard of November 5. My statement there is clear. I had this to say, that the trade union movement across Canada viewed the Ford strike as the initial official demonstration on the part of industry in this province to smash trade union agreements and the trade union, 'movement. It was recognized as such by the union movement across the country. It was made known at that time. I was not lying about that, as the editor of the Globe and Mail suggests. In support of the soundness of that opinion I should like to call the attention of hon. members to the fact that since the police were sent into Windsor some thirty other organizations in that area took that stand also. Why did they do so? For fun? Not at all. Simply because the organized union movement in this province recognized the fact that what I said in this house was a correct assumption of how they, the movement, assessed the present dispute at the Ford plant. Only to-day I see by the Ottawa Journal that sixty Montreal locals vote for Ford sympathy strike. Are they taking that action in Quebec because they themselves are directly affected? Not at all. But they see that business in the city-


Humphrey Mitchell: May I say this to my
hon. friend to be fair and to keep the record straight? I do not believe that companies generally are out to smash the unions.


Clarence Gillis: I am not asking whether
the minister does or not. If the minister wishes to ask a question I am prepared to answer.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I say this to my
hon. friend-


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to take a
lecture from the minister.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Ford did say this
to me, that unions are here to stay and that he wants to deal with them. All I can say to my hon. friend is that I hope the Canadian company will take the same view.


Clarence Gillis: The fact of the matter is
that they have not. I am not arguing with the minister at all. Before he came into the house this afternoon I complimented him on his stand this afternoon.


Mr. MARTIN:: The minister is trying
to be helpful.


Clarence Gillis: He is not being helpful.


Humphrey Mitchell: Why would I not?
47696-139*


Clarence Gillis: I do not know. I am making my argument now against what I consider to be an uncalled-for editorial against myself in the Globe and Mail.


Humphrey Mitchell: If I took the same
stand as my hon. friend I should be talking every day in the week.


Clarence Gillis: No, you would not. To
my knowledge this is the first time that I have seen anything said in this house by a member deliberately characterized as a lie, and be called a liar by a newspaper of the country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would not worry
about that.


Clarence Gillis: I am not worrying too much. I think the editor of a newspaper who would write an article like this about a member of the House of Commons, no matter who he is, has very little respect for the House of Commons or what it stands for. I am going to say this to the editor of the Globe and Mail: he is either an old man in his dotage and completely blinded or prejudiced, or he is a very young man who is completely inexperienced and has no idea of the principles for which this House of Commons stands, or the attitude of the members of the house on any matter that comes before it.
I am now going to say a few words with regard to a statement made by the hon. member for Eglinton, who, I am sorry is not in his seat at the moment. In discussing this matter he told the house plainly that when I said that in this province there was not such a thing as collective bargaining legislation I did not know what I was talking about, that my statements *were founded on misinformation or lack of knowledge.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would not worry
about that.


Clarence Gillis: I wish to keep the record
straight. I am convinced of one thing, that if you had any kind of decent collective bargaining legislation in this province you-would not have had the Windsor dispute. In the final analysis, no matter what the minister thinks about it or what may be- the outcome of the Ford strike, you will need that legislation in order to avoid a recurrence of this trouble from time to time. That must definitely be recognized provincially. At page 1833 of Hansard the hon. member for Eglinton said that he was glad the hon. members in this section of the house were listening to him, and that in this province there was the
Demobilization-Air Services

best collective bargaining legislation in Canada. I want to point out that when I am talking about the province of Ontario in the field of labour I am not a stranger. I have held more meetings in this province on the particular question of establishing trade union legislation here than perhaps any other hon. member, and I have a fairly good idea of the set-up. There is no collective bargaining act as such in this province. If the hon. member for Eglinton will check his statutes he will find that during the 1943 session of the Ontario legislature-and mind you that was under a Liberal government-a collective bargaining act was passed. It was inadequate; it was quarrelled with, and all that sort of thing, but still there was an act in that year. That act was repealed in 1944 by the present Ontario government. In that session chapter 29 of the Ontario statutes, 1944, was passed making order in council 1003 applicable to all industry in Ontario and providing a labour relations board. Section 9 of that act specifically repeals the 1943 act, so that the hon. member for Eglinton did not know his statutes as well as he should. Definitely you have not in this province any trade union legislation in the matter of collective bargaining. You have taken P.C. 1003, which was passed by the present Liberal government, and made it applicable in the field of labour legislation in this province, but that order in council has to do only with union certification; that is as far as it goes. Matters of agreement, check-off and union security are matters in which provincial legislation is necessary, and you do not have any. Until you do get some definitely you will have this difficulty in this province from time to time.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the
hon. member suggest that legally the province has anything at all to do with it now?


Clarence Gillis: Certainly I do.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then what
about the War Measures Act?


Clarence Gillis: What about it?


Arthur Leroy Smith: It gives the federal government complete control of the whole business.


Clarence Gillis: In the field of union certification, yes, but not in the matters which brought about the present dispute, that is union security, agreements and so forth. Order in council 1003 has to do only with war industries, under the War Measures Act.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: We are still under
the War Measures Act.


Clarence Gillis: The Minister of Munitions
and Supply said that there were no longer any
[Mr. GiUis.l
war industries; that the war was over and that they were not classified as war industries any longer. So that if you give a strictly legal interpretation to it, nationally the order in council is not applicable. That is what was said by the Minister of Munitions and Supply just a few weeks ago.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It happens
that I hold exactly the contrary view.


Clarence Gillis: You may, but the facts speak for themselves.


Mr. RICHARD (Ottawa East):: Is the war
over?


Angus MacInnis: Not in Windsor.


Clarence Gillis: As far as industries are concerned. Go to Toronto and look for Victory Aircraft; -it is all finished. Look for John Inglis and Company;- it is all folded up. It is being retooled on a peace-time basis. The shell factories are out. In the field I am discussing you are up-against a brand new situation, and you want provincial legislation. They have it in the other provinces and it is working.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Chairman-


William Henry Golding: I must draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the hon. member who has the floor must not be interrupted unless to ask a question with his consent. We shall make better time if the hon. member is allowed to make his statement.	,


Clarence Gillis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no desire to hold up the committee, but I have listened to this debate: I have read these records, and I just could not take that editorial in the Globe and Mail, nor could I let the hon. member for Eglinton get away with the statement that Ontario had the best trade union legislation in Canada when the fact of the matter is they have none at all. I do not think that would be doing the working people of this province justice, because they have been struggling for this legislation for years. If we are sincere; if we are honest in wanting to prevent these things from happening in future, then we must understand the situation and do something about it. All the discussion in the house would be a waste of time unless we decided to do something about it.
The editorial in the Globe and Mail goes on to say that I was terrible when I spoke about Premier Drew. Well, if stating facts is terrible I am going to be terrible for the rest of my natural life, because in that case all I did was to state the facts. The provin-

Demobilization-Air Services
cial government of Ontario ordered provincial police into Windsor: then they got scared and appealed to the federal government to reinforce them with the mounties. The thing was peaceful before the police went in.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Are you stating a fact or an opinion?


Clarence Gillis: I am stating a fact. That is actually what happened. The provincial government sent in the provincial police; then they appealed to the federal government to send in the mounties.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You said, "then they got scared and sent in the provincial police."


Clarence Gillis: No, I did not. Read the record to-morrow.


James Arthur Ross: I suppose you are going to change the record.


Clarence Gillis: No. the record is there. I said that after they started the trouble they got scared and sent for the mounties to reinforce them, and that is what happened. I said in my first statement, and I repeat it, that the action of sending the provincial police into the strike situation in Windsor in the first instance promoted civil strife, I stand by that, and nothing else but. As soon as your armed police went in there you had a war declared, and you spread it across Canada. That is why you find thirty organizations in Montreal saying, "We will stand behind the Ford people." That is why I have wires from Nova Scotia telling me that if the situation warrants it, steel and coal will stand by. Sending the police to Windsor definitely focused the attention of members of the organized union movement across Canada on the Windsor dispute, and made it a national issue. If that is not promoting strife, I do not know what is. The matter could have been ironed out without that. That sort of action is obsolete: it is thirty years late, and one of the things we should forget. You cannot settle any of these disputes on that basis. You are making a lot of sore heads, and following the best possible way of organizing the union at Windsor. You might have been able to disorganize it before, but never again; they are welded down there to-day, because they have gone through a fight.
As I said before, I did not rise this afternoon to discuss the merits or demerits of this dispute. That is now in the minister's hands. The union has offered to put back the maintenance men, and to send their employees back to the power plant. This was the thing that was held up as threatening the plant. They were going to lose $35 million, and the
plant was going to freeze up. But the Ford Motor company is not bothering about that to-day, is it? The Ford company says, "Only on the condition that you go into compulsory arbitration." They are not in a hurry. That is a very good indication that they have been using ,that right along only as an excuse. If the situation were as bad as they said it was, why did they not accept this proposal and get the maintenance men back in the plant? Why not say, "Let us get arouhd the table and iron it out?" No; they will not retreat one inch in any direction, wishing to crack that union. The cause of settling that dispute by compulsory -arbitration is not recognized in the Ford organization.
I am sorry I had to take this much of the time of the committee, but I wished to straighten out the record with regard to myself.


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to rise in my place to discuss again air force estimates, following two or three days in which labour conditions have been discussed.
Before we proceed to any further consideration of the item, may I take this opportunity to give replies to certain questions which were asked on the last occasion the estimates for this department were before the committee.
The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) asked this: Is the wireless link between the Queen Charlotte islands and Prince Rupert being maintained by the air force?
The answer is that the wireless links from-Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlotte islands were maintained by the R.C.A.F. until V-J day. Since that time they have been placed on a care anxl maintenance basis, with the exception of one to Sandspit which provides services to the landing field which is part of the Amber Airway up the west coast.
Then the hon. member asked this further question: Is there an interservice bo-ard dealing with intercommunications, of which the deputy minister or other official of the ministry of air is chairman or has been chairman at any time?
The answer is that there never was at any time an interservice board of which the deputy minister was chairman. However, to initiate the plan for improving communications on the west coast a meeting was held in Ottawa under the chairmanship of the deputy minister on May 4, 1942, and a second meeting was held on the west coast under the deputy minister's chairmanship on May 12, 1942. Thereafter the supervision and coordination of the project were controlled by a liaison
Demobilization-Air Services

officer appointed by R.C.A.F. headquarters, responsible to the AOC Western Air Command and operating under directives issued by the deputy minister for air on behalf of the three services. On August 14, 1944, a board of officers of the three services determined that the programme had been completed in accordance with directives issued. Thereafter the R.C.A.F. under AOC Western Air Command assumed executive control of the system, being advised from time to time on changes in requirements by the joint communications subcommittee representing all three services on the west coast.
The joint communications committee of the three Services in Ottawa has not yet issued any instructions to the subcommittee in British Columbia regarding the disposal of this system, because no disposal action can be taken until the services are assured that all post-war requirements and possible emergency requirements will be provided for. This problem is in the course of active study, and recommendations to the chiefs of staff will be submitted by the committee in due course.
This further question was asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo, in the same connection:	Are there any plans for disposal of
equipment or services into remote British Columbia areas when the telephone system is no longer required for defence services?
The answer is that, although telephone services into remote British Columbia areas may not be used by the defence services from day to day, they are still deemed to be an essential defence requirement. Therefore the air force and the army are carrying on discussions with a view to having the army operate these services. This would provide a training ground ta maintain essential skills in the army, and guarantee instant availability of these facilities in future emergencies.
The next question:	What information was
sent from Ottawa to the telephone board in British Columbia regarding the disposal of telephone equipment of the Pacific network?
The answer is that there was none.
The next question:	Was British Columbia
Telephone given a contract to extend communications in British Columbia?
The answer is yes.
The next question:	What funds were paid
to British Columbia Electric for .maintenance and reconstruction, between Vancouver and Hope, and between Victoria and Port Alberni?
The answer is: No funds were paid to the British Columbia Electric company. An allotment of $332,650 was authorized by an acceptance of tender in favour of the British Columbia Telephone company, arranged by

the Department of Munitions and Supply. Of this, it is known that $305,069.67 was spent. This covered the Vancouver-Hope, Victoria-Port Alberni construction only. An annual sum of $54,860 is paid to the British Columbia Telephone company for the maintenance of these two sections!
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Colin William George Gibson: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was answering questions that had been asked at previous sittings.


Mr. PEARKES:: Would the minister permit a supplementary question following the reply he gave to me just before six o'clock?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: 
Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: I wish to say a word at this point in endorsation of *what the hon. member for Nanaimo has just said with regard to communicating with the Queen, Charlotte islands area. Some few years ago I had the privilege of living on the Queen
Demobilization-Air Services

Charlotte islands, so that I know something of conditions there. The hon. member for Nanaimo spoke of the logging and fishing industries. He couldi have mentioned two very large whaling stations situate on the islands, one at Langara harbour in the north and one at Rose harbour in the south.
Speaking of the Queen Charlottes, we are dealing with one of the outposts of the dominion; and in the winter season especially, when boat service is very infrequent, a communication such as has already been set up by the government would be well worth maintaining. I hope that something may still be done by the government, and that rather than give up or d'isposfe of the equipment which has already been placed there, it may be kept and maintained for the benefit of those who 'both work and live on the Queen Charlotte islands.


William Irvine: I should like to have the
minister's reply to the hon. member for
Nanaimo, and I want to follow it with some other questions.


Colin William George Gibson: The hon. member for Nanaimo has said that it would be to the advantage of the people of the Queen Charlotte islands to have this communications system'maintained. The Royal Canadian Air Force is of course not in charge of communications in this country; that would come under the Department of Transport; and while we have equipment there which is available for an emergency it is not being used for service purposes at the present time. It was suggested that it might be valuable training for our signals personnel, but I would point out that the Royal Canadian Air Force is taking over the communications system on the northwest staging route and that will provide a considerable amount of training for all the signals personnel we have in the air force undergoing training.
In connection with the other matter, the disposal of equipment on the telephone lines on the west coast, as I stated earlier this afternoon, negotiations are under way at the present time to have the army take that over from the air force, which is operating it at the present time. I shall be very glad to look into the question as to what the contracts are with the British Columbia Telephone company as regards the disposal of equipment after the lines are abandoned, but my understanding is that they are not likely to be abandoned at the present time. I will however, certainly discuss with my colleague the Minister of National Defence the question of having those lines made available to settlers along the line, wherever that is possible. I know that sort of arrangement 
is being made along the northwest staging route, and I would think it would be equally applicable on the west coast.


William Irvine: I wish to follow up the question put by the hon. member for Nanaimo with respect to these facilities, which were constructed during the war and which, presumably in the near future, will not be used by the military. In the Cariboo riding, particularly, means of communication are bad, and the people there feel strongly that these facilities should not be abandoned or that they should not be passed on to some private corporation, but should be used for domestic purposes.
I might say here that I have a resolution which was passed by the Vanderhoof board of trade and which is, I understand, similar to one passed by the Williams Lake board of trade. I think it will put their case better than I can do it, so that with the permission of the committee I will read the Vanderhoof resolution :
Whereas there is no telephone communication between Vanderhoof and Prince George, and whereas there is an urgent need for the same,
And whereas the Department of Transport maintain a telephone line between the airport at Vanderhoof and Vancouver, which line passes through the city of Prince George.
And whereas during wartime, it was understood that this line could not be made available for civilian use, the need for security is now over,
And whereas it is now suggested that this telephone line 'could be connected with the government telegraph service at Vanderhoof and at Prince George, thus affording a much needed telephone service, which could be extended to Vancouver as well,
Therefore be it resolved that the Vanderhoof and district board of trade go on record as strongly favouring such a service to be established in the near future, and that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Department of Transport at Ottawa . . .
That resolution, I think, will put the case for the whole Cariboo district. That is the same view as is held by the board of trade of the town of Williams Lake. I believe they are right in assuming that at the present time the -control of this means of communication is in the hands of the Royal Canadian Air Force, and I should like to ask the minister whether any consideration has been given as to the future use of this means of communication, and whether he can give any assurance to the committee that it will subsequently be used for domestic purposes to meet the needs of these communities.


Colin William George Gibson: Possibly the hon. member was not in the house this afternoon when I spoke on this matter before.

Demobilization-Air Services
I stated that discussions were being held at the present time to make arrangements for the army to take over this Pacific coast system, which they would use for training purposes. I shall be glad to put before the Minister of National Defence for consideration the representations of the hon. member for Cariboo when the army resumes control of that service.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: On November 2 when this item was under discussion we were dealing with the destruction of certain instruments at Penhold, Alberta. In answer to a question placed on Hansard on October 1, regarding the destruction of radar equipment, it was indicated that 256 tons of freight and twenty-three tons of express had been shipped from various stations, R.C.A.F. and R.A.F., all across Canada. This included seventy tons of radar and 209 tons of wireless equipment and instruments, and the last part of the question indicated that' there were four tons of radar equipment and nine tons of wireless equipment left. What we are interested in knowing is what instruments were sent there for destruction. What was the quantity of each? If they were of no value, as the minister intimated the last time, what was the purpose of paying express and freight on so many tons of this equipment going to the Penhold station merely to be destroyed? An explanation should be given. -


Colin William George Gibson: There
seems to be a 'misconception as to why the equipment was shipped to Penhold. At Pen-hold we had a repair depot to which technical signals equipment wag sent either for repair, or to find out whether it was repairable, and consequently such equipment from all over western Cailada would go to that station for examination and testing and to be dealt with either as not being fit to be repaired or as repairable. That accounts for the large quantity which was sent to Penhold during that period.


Angus MacInnis: How many tons of freight and express of that material went in, and after it was tested how much went out as useful or saleable?


Colin William George Gibson: That question would have to be narrowed down over a definite period, because the material would be coming in for a considerable time and going out when repaired during that period.


Angus MacInnis: Suppose we take the
period covered by the questions asked by the hon. member for Yorkton. How much would there be in that period?


Colin William George Gibson: The situation was that when this equipment was coming in, the Japanese war was still on. At the conclusion of that war a lot of the equipment became surplus and there was no further requirement for it. For 'that reason it was not worth while spending 'the time in repairing it. I shall be glad to find out what evidence we have as to the quantity of shipments that came in and the quantities that went out over that period. I do not remember what the period was.


George Hugh Castleden: It was from March 1 to September 1. Could the minister tell us exactly what instruments there were and the quantities of each? What were the instruments that were shipped there?


Colin William George Gibson: It was technical signals equipment of all kinds. Penhold was a repair depot for signals equipment.


George Hugh Castleden: Radar equipment?


Colin William George Gibson: Radar
equipment and airborne signals equipment.


George Hugh Castleden: What other instruments were included in that? Can the minister give some detail of the actual instruments that were destroyed at that time?


Colin William George Gibson: There are two different questions. If it is a question of what was destroyed or what was shipped in, I should like to get it narrowed down, because that is a depot where all types of equipment are received and from which they go out. If it is a question of what was destroyed, I can get a statement of the quantity.


George Hugh Castleden: That is what I wish to know. Were there any radio receiving and radio sending sets, and what radar machines were there?


Colin William George Gibson: The equipment that was destroyed was all airborne signals equipment. I was wrong the other day. I said that it was all of a type that could not be used except in the air, attached to the motor of an aeroplane. I find that there were some which,' while used in aircraft, could be used with a battery, and some could have been used to get ordinary bands if it were in service condition.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Is not this question to
be referred to the committee on war expenditures? If not, there are many of us who would like to ask some questions pertaining to it. If, however, it is to be turned over to the committee, it seems to me a waste of time to discuss it now.
Demobilization?-Air Services

Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton) West): I agree with that, because the disposal of surplus equipment comes under War Assets Corporation. The goods that were destroyed were destroyed on instructions of War Assets Corporation. While the air force carried out the work, it was on the instructions of War Assets Corporation, and as soon as the matter was brought to my attention I stopped any work of destruction unless representatives of War Assets Corporation were on the spot, so that they could personally supervise it. Although our air force personnel may be called upon to do the manual work, it is under the control of War Assets Corporation.


George Hugh Castleden: I understand, then,
from the minister's statement that he did not follow the ordinary procedure of declaring this material surplus, sending it to the war allocations committee, and from there sending it to War Assets Corporation. Apparently his department was acting on instructions from War Assets Corporation prior to the time when the department declared it surplus.


Colin William George Gibson: We had instructions that certain material which had no value was not to be sent to War Assets but to be destroyed on the spot.


George Hugh Castleden: In other words, the minister's department did not declare it surplus-


Colin William George Gibson: We
declared it surplus, but it was not to be sent down but to be disposed of on the spot.
Mr: CASTLEDEN: On November 2 the minister also said that he would give a statement with regard to the cost of establishing radar beams across Canada.


Colin William George Gibson: There were other questions asked by the hon. member. He asked what instruments other than signals were destroyed at Penhold. The answer is, none.
Another question was asked, by the hon member for Red Deer: Was Mr. J. H. Ross, vocational training, advised that Penhold equipment had an educational value? The answer is, not by the R.C.A.F. I do not know whether anyone else advised him.
The second question was this: Was the Calgary representative of War Assets Corporation consulted and did he investigate? The answer is: The R.C.A.F. did not consult War Assets Corporation's Calgary representative. Authority for disposal was obtained from the head office of War Assets Corporation.
The third question was whether Air Commodore Tackaberry specified that there was no ground equipment. The answer is, yes.
A further question was asked by the hon. member for St. Paul's: What steps have been taken to give schools, technical schools, universities, et cetera, surplus scientific equipment belonging to the R.C.A.F.? Crown assets allocation committee advised R.C.A.F. that no equipment was to be given to educational institutions of anv kind but must be referred to them for disposal, and that they had made arrangements to handle such requests and arrange for issue at nominal prices.
A second question was: What was the original value of equipment turned over to War Assets Corporation? The answer is, the original value was, as of October 31, $277,557,000.
The hon. member for Yorkton asked, what sum was spent for permanent signals equipment in 1944 and to date in 1945 and at what places? He also asked, has there been an-y installation of such equipment since V-E day? The answer to the first question is: During 1944 and early 1945 signals equipment to the value of $5,427,000 was obtained for installation at ninety-nine locations in Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador. This figure, which excludes lend lease, and contributions in kind by the United Kingdom to the air training plan, may be broken down as follows: aids to navigation, including a number of radio ranges installed by the Department of Transport with R.C.A.F. funds, $2,735,000; airways traffic control, an international commitment under the recommendations of the permanent joint board on defence, Canada and the United States, $1,620,000; and' point to point and ground to air communication service, $885,000. The facilities thus provided, in addition to serving British and American aircraft using the ferry routes through Canada, were used by R.C.A.F. operational and training aircraft from the aerodromes and seadromes. In answer to the question: Has there been an installation of such equipment since V-E day, I would say that no new installations have been commenced' since V-E day, but a few projects of lasting national or international significance are being carried to completion.
There was one other question of the hon. member for Yorkton. He asked: What is the number of aircraft on hand in the R.C.A.F. (a) training; (b) overseas, and (c) in stored reserve? I have not given the answer in quite that form, but it can be taken from the answer I give. We have in training aircraft in Canada -unit establishment, 661. We have in workshop reserve, under repair, 104, and in stored

*	Demobilization-Air Services
reserve 2,733; a total of 3,498. We also have in Canada aircraft pending disposal or allocation to the number of 3,877.


George Hugh Castleden: Has the minister the
types?


Colin William George Gibson: Not the types of planes. Overseas we have 217 aircraft. In addition, we have operational aircraft in Canada, as follows: unit establishment, 337; in workshop reserve under repair, 69; in stored reserve, 711; and pending disposal or allocation, 303.


George Hugh Castleden: Has the minister a break-down of the different types of aircraft? What are transport?


Colin William George Gibson: I have not that here. I have the breakdown for those overseas, but that is the only one I have.
Then this question was asked by the hon. member for Trinity: Is there any place in Canada that R.C.A.F. can purchase or have made the latest signals equipment? The answer is: All the major Canadian radio companies, including the crown-owned company at Toronto, are qualified to make the latest pattern signals equipment for the R.C.AE. In addition, national research council have manufactured small quantities of a variety of experimental equipment, chiefly of a secret nature.
The hon. member for Dauphin asked a question which I do not think comes under this particular item, but I might as well put it on the record at this time. His question is: What are the certain facilities referred to in answer to parliamentary inquiry in Votes and Proceedings, No. 9, page 3, re No. 7 bombing and gunnery school at Paulson, Manitoba? The answer is as follows: With reference to answer 1 (c), which states that "certain facilities of this school which disbanded on September 15, 1945, will be retained for R.C.A.F. use", it is meant that all facilities are intended to be retained by the R.C.A.F., with the exception of 'the following: There are five bombing ranges at this site and two are being disposed of as soon as the ranges are cleared of bombs.


George Hugh Castleden: Would the minister
indicate the number and type of aircraft which have been declared surplus to date and handed over to the allocations committee?


Colin William George Gibson: 
Colin William George Gibson: That
will be a separate lot.


George Hugh Castleden: I am speaking of the
ones passed over to date.


Colin William George Gibson: I shall get those figures and. let my hon. friend have them.


William Irvine: Has the R.C.A.F. taken
over the water pipelines between Charlie Lake and Fort St. John airfield; and if they are operating it now, have they had any application from the village of Fort St. John for permission to use some of the water for fire-fighting purposes and so forth?


Colin William George Gibson: I have
no knowledge of that situation, but I shall be glad to get the information and let my hon. friend have it.


George Randolph Pearkes: On November 2, the
minister said that there were two items in this estimate - for research work, one for $1,000,000 for aircraft designing and development, and about $434,000 in item 14 for sundries. That seems a very small percentage of the total estimates to be spent on research work and development. It is only one-half of one per cent of the total estimate.


Colin William George Gibson: I do not
wish to interrupt, but the hon. member is referring to item 14. At the present time we are dealing with item 6.


George Randolph Pearkes: I wish to ask the minister what he has included in item 6. I was merely mentioning what the minister had said was available for research work. I was going on to say that I do not' believe there is any field in which research work is more required than that of communications between aircraft on the ground and aircraft in the air, because in the last few months the speed of aircraft has been increased to such a terrific pace that some of the older types of communication would now be obsolete. While research work may be carried out very largely by scientists in the civilian field, yet I feel there is a definite place for the work of the scientist in the service in testing out certain equipment which may be contemplated for actual use in the service. Is there any item definitely earmarked, or any proportion of any item definitely earmarked for research work in the field of communications?


Colin William George Gibson: No,
there is nothing in this item covering research work. I would point out that the items

Demobilization-Air Services
which we are passing to-day deal largely with expenses that were incurred during the war. Probably when the new estimates are taken up at the next session, the estimates which are in course of preparation to-day, they will in all likelihood contain greater provision for research work than were possible during war time.


Mr. KNIGHT:: I am a little confused
about the matter of responsibility. War Assets Corporation has been mentioned here to-night. Just for my own information I should like the minister to give me the plain truth. If it is proved, as I believe it has been abundantly proved, that in this country material belonging to the air force has been wantonly destroyed at the orders of someone, whose responsibility is it? I do not mean material such as technical apparatus out of aeroplanes, or radio equipment or things of that kind, which, however, I do. not think should be destroyed; any hon. members who bought toys for their sons at Christmas time know the money value of little things like radios, but we shall leave those out. I presume the minister is directly responsible to the people of this country if it can be proved that material which is useful to the average citizen has been destroyed by the air force. Perhaps if I might cite one or two of these things I can make my position clear. Would the minister be directly responsible if it were proved that heavy wooden tables, the sort used for typewriters in offices, were cut from corner to corner with a buzz saw and thrown in a heap?
While I am on my feet let me say that I do not think there is anything so unpopular in this country as the waste of material or the waste of things. I fancy the government, the 'minister and the heads of the various departments having to do with war equipment have discovered this already. A woman who will quite cheerfully see SI,000 or $100,000 or $1,000,000-what is a few dollars among friends?-wasted in government departments will weep salt tears at the destruction of a frying-pan or some other useful article, and in that I think she shows good sense, because after a good deal of thought she has come to a determination as to what real wealth consists of. Those of us who spent the depression years in the west know how valuable things are and how difficult it is to obtain warm blankets, boots and such things. I do not know whether or not these rumours are true. I know I have seen a pit where certain stuff was dug up, certain axes, pails and things like that. I know about little things of that kind. To what extent this wanton destruction

has gone on I do not know, but I know the country is anxious that such actions should not be repeated. Therefore I should like to know who is to shoulder this responsibility. Is it War Assets Corporation, or is it the minister? Has this stuff been destroyed? Let us have the facts, and put a stop to such action.


Colin William George Gibson: The air
force is responsible for the property it has on its books; and until it turns over that property to War Assets for disposal the airforce remains responsible. From time to time I have heard rumours and stories of the destruction of valuable furniture and so on. Over and over again I have had investigations made in an attempt to get the details. On occasion I have come across instances of the destruction of furniture, but it was furniture that had been constructed by the men themselves from lumber they had picked up here and there around the camp. When the station was being closed this furniture, having no value, was reduced to scrap material. I have had no cases brought to my attention where valuable furniture of any type has been ruthlessly destroyed, as has been suggested from time to time. I would say that if anyone knows of any examples of that sort, not just from rumours but from first-hand information, I should be only too glad to get the information and to have these matters investigated. Certainly I do not want to have valuable property destroyed, any more than any other member of the community does.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to tell the minister that I doubt if he is going to get any such ready cooperation as he suggests. I thought these matters were to be referred to the war expenditures committee, but apparently they are to be discussed here.


Colin William George Gibson: They
certainly are to be referred to the war expenditures committee.


Charles Edward Johnston: I had occasion to visit an air depot, where I spoke personally to men from different parts of Canada. The minister has said he would like some first-hand information. These men were in uniform at that time, and are still in uniform. I remember one fellow had just come from Mossbank, Saskatchewan, where with other men he had been detailed to destroy flashlight bulbs. I have no intention of mentioning the name of this individual. At the time I asked him for written verification of what he had told me, but he refused. He said he had done that on another occasion, and he knew something about the pressure that could be brought to bear upon those fellows by their command-

Demobilization-Air Services
mg officers, while they were still in uniform. He told me he was detailed to deliberately smash thirty-four flashlight bulbs; I believe that was the number, and his partner had the same number to destroy. Further than that, I am informed that at another station good mechanical tools such as Stilson wrenches which are valuable and very hard to get, were cut in two with a blow-torch.
This is the point I wish to bring to. the attention of the minister. He may say that these are rumours, but these bfiys have personally told me these things. At the same time they have said, "We will not make these complaints because if we do we will get into an awful lot of trouble and things will be piled upon our shoulders by the commanding officers." On one occasion, however, a man told me, "I have actual photographs of some of this destruction, and as soon as I get out of this uniform I will give them to you." But as long as these boys are in uniform and subject to military discipline, you are not going to get that information. I am quite positive, and some other hon. members have indicated to-night that they are positive, that this destruction is going on. It will be rather difficult, I am afraid, for the minister to get any hon. member to come out and name a man in uniform who has given him such information, but I am as sure as I can be that this is being done. Not so long ago the hon. member for Red Deer brought up the question of the destruction of radar equipment at the Penhold airport near Calgary, and I understand that matter has been referred to the war expenditures committee where it will be thoroughly investigated. Instead of such statements as have been made to-night being idly made, these matters should be referred to the war expenditures committee, where men can be called to give evidence under oath. In that way I think we would get a little more satisfaction, and certainly these cases would be more thoroughly gone into.


Mr. QUELCH:: I would suggest to the minister that his department must accept a certain amount of responsibility for any rumours that may be going around. He will recall that last year Mr. Strang of the air force issued a press statement in which he said that very soon it would be necessary to destroy in enormous quantities goods belonging to the air force, mentioning socks as an example. He said that if all the socks in the possession of the air force were turned loose they would flood the market, and that therefore they should be sent back to the knitting mills to be unraveled and then
reknitted. So that I think his department should take some responsibility for these rumours.


Mr. SHAW:: Early in September and again early in October or November, I should say, the minister referred to certain airborne radio equipment, parts of which were removed and the remainder scrapped. I assume there is still a good deal of this type of equipment, namely, airborne radio equipment, to be disposed of, and because of that fact I think I should bring to the attention of the minister certain statements made by the Calgary branch of the institute of radio engineers with respect to this type of airborne equipment which is being destroyed. When the minister was speaking in the house he stated that this equipment consisted of 12 and 24-volt airborne radio equipment, which did not include the standard broadcast band, and the use of which depended upon power supplied from the aircraft for which it was designed. I do not know for certain from where the minister got his information, but I am of the opinion that his information was not correct. In that I am borne out by the opinion of the institute of radio engineers. Let me indicate to the minister what they say:
Anyone familiar with the problem of power supply for rural radios, especially transmitters, knows that any set operating from car batteries or lighting plant batteries, that is in the 6 to 32 volt range, is ideally designed. Moreover for mobile service, for example from cars, the light battery-operated airborne equipment is perfectly suited. Again when due to snowstorms, winds, fire or other case power lines fail the 12 and 24-volt battery-operated emergency sets are often the only means of communication. Think -what a marvellous network of reliable communication posts could have been formed at no cost to the government with the hundreds of sets admittedly already destroyed.
With respect to this standard broadcast band, may I point out to the minister that the transmitters do not cover the broadcast band. We know that. But this is no objection at all, because no transmitters other than broadcasting stations are allowed to use the standard broadcast band. Therefore that argument was not a good one.
Then the institute of radio engineers states:
Schools and amateurs do not require that parts be extracted. In fact they prefer to obtain the whole receiver, transmitter or radar indicator before it is dismantled. In other words this equipment could have been disposed of "as is" for prices better than the scrap metal will bring, and the air force would have been saved the trouble and expense (and heartbreak to those who know) of destruction.
Let me say at this point I am completely satisfied that prices received for much of this scrap were ridiculously low. I have figures and, incidentally, photographs, which would
Demobilization-Air Services

show this. Surely, as is pointed out by the institute of radio engineers, prices which could have been secured for this airborne equipment "as is", as they say, would have exceeded the prices secured for the scrap. The article goes on to say:
Any necessary repairs or overhauling would present no problem for an amateur, because 1 have never seen an amateur station that was not improvised or assembled from discarded equipment which he had repaired.
Then the article goes on to point out what happened about ten years ago, when all ordinary communications in western Canada were broken down, and the railways and others had to depend upon the facilities which the amateurs were able to provide.
I have discussed this matter, because I think the minister should see to it that if there is additional airborne equipment which they intend to dispose of-and I am sure there is plenty of it-the department should make inquiries into the marketing possibilities of the various units as they stand. I know we have set up a committee on war expenditures, and I have no doubt it will do a good job. But it will take a lot of time, and I was advised not long ago that the disposal is taking place to a value of almost $600,000 a day. It will be realized just*what every day means.
I have a keen interest in this matter, because I have received many communications, one of which is from our department of education, and others from school inspectors. These people are keen to secure materials which have been declared to be available. I suggest that they should be given an opportunity to acquire it.
In case there might be any misunderstanding owing to the fact that I have referred frequently to War Assets Corporation, let me say that I have had excellent cooperation from the men in that organization with whom I have had occasion to deal. I do not wish it to be thought for a moment that I have anything against any of them. I say, however, that the machinery for disposal has become so involved that it is breaking down. Hon. members will be surprised when they get the complete and correct picture of the manner in which this machinery operates. I believe the men who are endeavouring to administer it are up against a stone wall. Time is an important factor in this matter, because if the machinery is faulty heavy losses can be sustained bv the country in a very short time.
I had not intended discussing the matter this evening, realizing of course that the committee will deal with it. But because of its
urgency and, particularly, the urgency as it applies to airborne equipment, I would ask the minister in all kindness to give consideration to the statement made by the institute of radio engineers. I believe they know what they are talking about.


Agar Rodney Adamson: May I speak with regard to equipment which is considered obsolete and has no further operational value. I happened to be in Washington and to see in the Walter * Reed hospital-and I believe the same is being done in other hospitals in the United States- how they are using much of the obsolete signals equipment and other intricate equipment to help returned men who require therapy. It has been found in those hospitals that the process of taking apart and putting together the intricate bits of signals and radio equipment does much to help the veteran who is subject to physio-therapy. These are institutions similar to the one in Britannia we visited together the other day.
I suggest that there might be a use for equipment of this kind in that type of institution. I understand they have had great success in using such obsolete equipment in the United States.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thank my hon. friend for his suggestion. I have been through the Walter Reed hospital. May I say in regard to occupational therapy, for those who have suffered as a result of service overseas, that to-day Canada is as far advanced as any country in the world. As a matter of fact we have been for the last twentv-five years. After the last war we led other countries in the matter of therapy and equipment for it. However, I shall make investigations at once to ascertain whether we are short in any way or in any place of any type of equipment which would be advantageous and', in view of what the hon. member has said, we will take action if such action is necessary.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: In view of what has been said respecting the disposal of surplus equipment, it would seem that we have more of this type of equipment than we need. I notice that this item calls for an expenditure of $16,724,519 for communications, signals and wireless equipment. My question is this: If we have so much of this type of equipment that we find it necessarv to declare it surplus and have it destroyed, why are we asking for more than $16,000,000 to buy more of the same type? The minister said at page 1802 of Hansard of November 2 last, in answer to a question:
It was suggested that the instruments could have been used for instructional work in schools and educational institutions, but I am told by

Demobilization-Air Services
War Assets that they have plenty of these instruments in first-class condition that would be available if required.
If we have plenty of this type of equipment in first-class condition it seems strange that SI6,000,000 should be asked for under this item, and I think it would be well for the minister to explain in greater detail how this $16,000,000 is to be spent.
I should like also to pass on a suggestion to the minister that he might save himself and his department a great many headaches if in the future, when equipment is being declared surplus, a list of the items be given to the members of this house, so that they would know in advance what was being declared surplus and would then be in a position to know how much truth there was in any rumours they heard as to the disposal of such assets.


Colin William George Gibson: The hon. member assumes that because we are asking for $16,000,000 as the total cash requirements, we are spending it all this year; but as I pointed out on a previous occasion, we had a carry-over from the previous year of $21,000,000 of oustanding commitments. Some have been cancelled and the total requirement for this year is now reduced to $16,000,000.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Some of this is to pay for equipment that was already ordered?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: I received a letter from the minister of education of British Columbia in regard to equipment that might be made available by War Assets for school purposes. Does the minister know if there is such surplus equipment; whether school boards have made application for it, and, if so, what disposition has been made of it?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, war assets allocation, committee is looking after that equipment, and is in touch with the schools and is making it available to the schools at a very reasonable cost.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Just what action was taken by the R.C.A.F. when V-J day arrived to cancel orders for equipment and supplies through Munitions and Supply? Further, just when were those cancellations made and what method is used to make sure that all equipment which is surplus to the service is so declared?


Colin William George Gibson: After V-J day all contracts were reviewed and those that could be cancelled were cancelled. I go farther and say that the contracts were reviewed after V-E day. So that our commitments have been very much reduced during the year, both after V-E day and after V-J day. We have a special body within the air force reviewing our supply situation and declaring surplus everything that is surplus to the prospective needs of the force.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Who makes up that body and how is it constituted? *	[DOT]


Colin William George Gibson: They are officers of the air force.


Mr. BENTLEY:: When the air force has decided that certain equipment is surplus and that a certain part of it can be destroyed as having no more value, is that part of the equipment which is declared as having no more value made available to the public at a small cost, or even for nothing? I have heard on several occasions the declaration madie that certain equipment is of no more value, and I would remind the minister and the authorities that there are some very ingenious people in Canada. If the minister has seen some of the things that have been made out of the old Model T Ford car he will readily understand that some very useful articles can be made out of the bodies of aeroplanes. We have in our city one of these ingenious chaps, an enterprising chap who can take an old1 training plane and make almost everything from it from lawn seats to a variety of other things which he has on display outside his place of business just to show what can be done. Why not make this equipment available to people like that? If you are going to run over it with bull-dozers, why not let them have it even for nothing?	-


Colin William George Gibson: As I have repeatedly said, the air force has no power over the disposal of property once it is declared surplus. It must be disposed of by War Assets.


Thomas John Bentley: You cannot even give it away? Then I would recommend that War Assets be instructed to make it available. Somebody in the government has authority to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ammunition and bombs, $10,487,068.
Thomas Reid: Three weeks ago or more large quantities of live ammunition were found by school children at the mud flats close to one of the air stations known as Boundary Bay. The attention of the civic authorities was called to the matter when one of the school boys was injured in trying to pry a bullet loose from one of the live cartridges. The
Demobilization-Air Services

police started to make an investigation and discovered that almost every boy in the local school had gathered up some live ammunition and hid it somewhere. As a matter of fact, under one farmer's barn they discovered hundreds of live shells. According to the latest report the boy, by the name of Mitchell, who had the accident will lose his hand, and his life may be in danger. Severe measures should be taken against those who were guilty of such gross negligence in disposing of ammunition in that way. The statement may be made on their behalf that they were not aware when they dumped live cartridges into the water that the tide would go out and leave them high and dry. But apart from that, even if they were so ignorant of conditions in the district, long rows of live cartridges were also discovered in certain ditches where they had just been left for disposal. Many of these cartridges might have exploded, with serious results. I would ask the minister if a report has been made on the matter, because I can assure him that the people in the district view very seriously what they regard as neglect of duty on the part of some of the officials at Boundary Bay airport.


Colin William George Gibson: The matter was brought to my attention some time ago and I made inquiries to find out just what the situation'was. There was a certain amount of surplus ammunition, pyrotechnics, tracer bullets and other types of ammunition which do not have a very long life; but some types become dangerous the older they get. There was a surplus quantity at Boundary Bay to be disposed of, and it appears that some of this ammunition got into the hands of children [DOT] and others. A court of inquiry is being held at the present time to ascertain who is responsible for the handling o'f the ammunition and to find out if there was negligence in allowing it to get into the hands of unauthorized persons. If it is shown that there has been carelessness or neglect on the part of officers or members of the air force I can certainly say that disciplinary action will be taken.
It is customary to dump ammunition in the sea. I do not think the hon. member is quite correct in this case. As I understand it, it was not faulty dumping. Some of the material which was to be disposed of was taken out on the mud flats, and the explosion on detonating had evidently buried some of the ammunition without destroying it. Later on, with the washing of the sea, some of the ammunition which had not been exploded but had been buried, came to the surface and was picked up by the children. I have not yet received a full report on the matter, but

that seems to have been the cause of some of this ammunition becoming available to the children in the neighbourhood.


Mr. MacNICOL:: A pretty serious situation, is it not?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mechanical transport and marine craft, $2,451,532.
Mr. ARCHIBALD:: I should like to say a few words about this item. A considerable amount of money is involved in the present maintenance of mechanical transport, but what I am more interested in is the personnel around such departments as the M.T. section. For example, on November 3, personnel of the M.T. repair, No. 10 repair depot, Calgary, consisted of one flight lieutenant, one W.0.2, one flight sergeant, two sergeants, five corporals and four L.A.C.'s. That represents a terrific waste of money, because any officer or non-commissioned officer would be a fool if he did any physical work. The maintenance of the equipment and so on devolves on the "Joe". The point is this. Many of the men in the M.T. section want discharges; some of them, I gather, have very high points and are due for discharge, and they see men with fewer points in other sections being discharged. One can well understand why the costs go up.
I have here a letter from a man in the M.T. section who slept beside me for one year, and this is what happened to him. I will start at the point in his letter where he states that he was posted from Uplands to London. He says he "finally made it to London, so we had dinner, and then started out looking for No. 13 M.T. A.R.S. in London. It was not in the 'phone book, and information desk could not help us; so there we were, posted to No. 13 M.T. A.R.S. in London direct from maintenance command headquarters in Uplands, and nobody in London heard of such a place. So we bumped into a flight sergeant, and he told us that No. 13 M.T. A.R.S. moved to Aylmer over a year ago, and headquarters didn't know anything about it, as they still sent the mail to London. So we phoned the air school or something six miles out, and he said 'I think No. 13 is at Aylmer', so X says 'let's go out to Aylmer.' I did not want to go; I told him we should stay in London and wire headquarters at Uplands that there was no such place, but he didn't want to do it, so we went out, and when we got there we found that No. 13 M.T. A.R.S. at Aylmer had been

Demobilization-Air Services
closed also, so I don't know as yet what is going to happen, as most of the boys are posted to Toronto. So that is the situation."


John Ritchie MacNicol: Toronto is not lost.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: He goes on to say that he left home, that is Saskatoon; he was posted from Uplands to the station in London; he went on to Aylmer; when he went to Aylmer he found the station closed; and he asks, "what are H.Q. doing, anyway."
This letter has its amusing side, but realize the position of the "Joe". That lad wants to leave the army. His brother's health is all shot from being in the army; his old man is too old to work the farm; yet he cannot get a discharge. That is the sort of thing that is going on.
I should like to compliment the minister on the prompt action which was taken on behalf of the boys in the photo wing at Rockcliffe. Between two o'clock in the afternoon and eight o'clock at night seventy boys were discharged. That is what I call action. Special provisions to release them were made by the air force, with an officer carrying a blank clearance-something new in air force procedure-and they kept the office open until eight o'clock. This M.T. section is directly related to all other sections; for instance, those with station wagons and so on that officers use. Let us see what is going on at Rock-cliffe. We have a section there known as the test and development section. There are roughly eighty-four L.A.C.'s, I think, including a corporal. They are confined to a room, a smoke-room the size of my office, the better part of the day. They have nothing to do; they are not allowed to use . their talents in hobbies or amusements, but they have to appear busy. Here is an example of how it is done: On November 14, ten men were delegated to put up five storm-windows. They spent one hour at it in the morning and all the afternoon, so as to keep busy during the C.O.'s inspection. But I have gone all through this before. Again I would like to say that it is amusing, but- the boys in that section are on the point of open revolt, and the information given to me is that the only thing which is holding them down is that they are scared of losing their gratuities. That is the whip hand or the club which is used to keep them in line. I would like the Minister of National Defence for Air to investigate that section and meet the men without the benefit of the officers and senior N.C.O.'s, and see what answers he gets. How many officers are out there compared with the men in that section? There is one commissioned officer and one senior N.C.O. for
every three men. As I have said, the men are confined in that smoke-room all day; they are supposed to keep busy and they are not allowed to play. But the officers are out shooting rats on the Rockcliffe dump; they can amuse themselves, but the "Joes" cannot. Many of those boys have jobs to go back to but cannot get their discharge. Yet the Minister for Air saw to it by special provision that seventy men were released all of a sudden in one day. Why cannot these others -have the same treatment handed to them?
I have thought it my duty to bring up these matters. Ordinarily I would have taken up such personal complaints with the minister, and I have no doubt that he would have cooperated in , solving them. But the point I make is that we are going to add expense to expense unless this question is solved. If discharges are allowed to remain in the hands of permanent force officers it will not be solved. It is to their interest to keep the men in the force, because they have a meal-ticket to look after, a status to maintain, and the way to do this is to have a certain establishment under their command.
I would suggest that a committee of this house be set up to investigate these complaints. I have had letters all the way from Patricia Bay to Nova Scotia on this matter, and the writers are "burning up". You will not be able to hold down this situation forever. They will "blow", just like the navy did in Halifax. You can only stand so much and then you take the law in your hands. As one boy pointed out, to me, "I don't want to see this, but it seems the only sort of action which will bring the thing to public attention."
It may be that all this is hot directly in line with the subject of fuel costs for M.T, but the trucks are servicing the men, and the men are doing nothing. It is a vicious merry-go-round; I suppose that some people lose on the swings they gain on the roundabouts. I put the matter before the minister for his consideration. I would especially like to see this situation at Rockcliffe cleaned up, and I hope his attention will extend to other stations in Canada.


Colin William George Gibson: The incident which my hon. friend has just given proves, of course, that the Royal Canadian Air Force is not perfect: however, I think we have been doing very well. When you consider that over 30,000 men a month have been demobil-
2216 .

Demobilization-Air Services
ized for the past two months it will be realized that a big shake-up is going on in the various stations. It is not easy to employ men at each station in their own trade and keep them busy while this process is going on. There will [DOT] undoubtedly be a hiatus between the end of the war period and the time when we get on a permanent peace-time basis of training again. Everything is being done to keep the process of demobilization as smooth as possible and I think we have been more or less successful.
There was. one thing I forgot to mention to-day and I would refer to it now, because one hon. member some days ago when discussing the question of the war loan suggested that "the amount of money that soldiers, sailors and airmen invested was so small." I do not think he intended to cast any reflections upon the men, but to suggest that they were not able to invest very much. It will be of interest to the committee to know that the air force in the war loan reached 375 per cent of its quota, and the members of the air force in this loan contributed $24,340,050. When you consider that the members of the 'air force have contributed to eight victory loans-they were not called upon to contribute to the first one-well over $100 million, I do not think anyone will feel that that is negligible.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I wish to ask a question or two with regard to marine and aircraft engines, and that will constitute what I have to say to-night on these items. A few years ago, in the days when the Hon. Wesley Gordon was in charge of this line of equipment, I brought a delegation from Toronto technical school on Harbord street and the government gave to the school some old-fashioned aeroplane and marine engines. After the receipt of those engines they were able to largely increase their work in the school they had on Bathurst street, from which I may say there resulted the magnificent job which the technical school in Toronto did during the war in connection with aeroplane and marine work. All I wish to ask is this. A good deal of this equipment will be left over, both marine and air engines, and out of respect for that magnificent job done by that great technical school throughout the whole of the war, and prior to the war, in training a multitude of young men who played a prominent part in the war, will it be possible for the Toronto board of education for that school to obtain some of these marine and aeroplane engines and parts and
tMr. C. W. G. Gibson.]
perhaps a couple of completed aeroplanes as well, for use in the schools for which they now have room for the education of the youth of the country? We never know when their services may be required again.


Colin William George Gibson: I have
answered that question twice to-night. The air force has nothing to do with the disposal of these supplies, but I understand that war assets allocation committee is arranging to make this material available to schools, and applications to that committee will be dealt with.	.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I asked the minister a
few moments ago exactly what type of board or what means the air force employed to make sure that all assets which were declared surplus were in fact surplus, and the minister referred to officers of the air force. I wish to know whether an effective job is being done in scouring the various assets which the air force has and which they are not likely to use in another war, if we had one. I want to know in detail. I am interested in this not primarily from the point of view of the minister's own accounts which are before us but from the point of view of War Assets Corporation, which is subject to a committee of the house. Will he let me know precisely the set-up of the committee? Is it just a few officers who for the moment have nothing to do pending discharge? Has he his top officers, chiefs of staff or chiefs of technical staff? Generally I should like to have a picture of exactly what means are being taken in the air force to make sure that surplus assets are so declared.


Colin William George Gibson: In the
set-up of the air force we have various commands across the country. We have the Eastern and the Western Air Command; Nos. 1 and 2 Air Commands and the Northwest Air Command. In addition we have a maintenance command which looks after supplies within the service. While within each command they have a record of the supplies on hand, the maintenance command is responsible for all the equipment and for declaring surplus any that is no longer required or that is surplus to requirements. That is a command within the service, a part of the service, and its function is to look after supply and maintenance of equipment.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Does air-sea rescue come under this item? If so, what is the department doing with regard to air-sea rescue?


Colin William George Gibson: Air-sea rescue equipment comes under item 11.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What does marine craft
cover?	,

Demobilization-Air Services


Colin William George Gibson: It covers such craft as aircraft tenders, crash boats, dinghies and other harbour craft.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
' Fuel costs for aircraft, M.T., and marine craft, $24,347,379.
James Arthur Ross: Why is there an increase of $4,500,000 from $19 million to $24 million for fuel costs for aircraft?


Colin William George Gibson: I gave an explanation of that when my estimates first came up. The reason is that at one time we were securing gasoline on lend-lease for the training programme in this country. Later on, that method of securing gasoline was changed and we had to pay for it, so that last year our expenditure was considerably higher than vie had budgeted for, and this year again it is higher than in the estimate of the previous year. .


James Arthur Ross: AVould there be much of that increase during this current year?


Colin William George Gibson: No. What we are budgeting for this year is for actual requirements after our estimates had been revised two or three times subsequently to V-E day and V-J day. All provided for will be required this year.


James Arthur Ross: I am not clear on that yet. That is hardly a satisfactory explanation of the increase.


Colin William George Gibson: I can show it in this way. The gallonage of gasoline used in 1944-45 was 170,907,400 gallons valued at $57,042,031. The requirement for this year, instead of 170,000,000 gallons, is 66,278,800 gallons, and the value is down to $24,347,379.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What are the specifications of gasoline and fuel for aircraft? Is it based on .the octane rating? Are those ratings published? I imagine there must be special specifications, one for training aircraft, one for service aircraft and one for motor transport.


Colin William George Gibson: There are two types. We have the gasoline that is used in motor transport, called motor transport gasoline and oil, and aero gasoline and oil under two separate items in the estimate.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What are the octane
ratings?


Colin William George Gibson: I have not the information here, but I can get it and let the hon. member have it.


Mr. McKAY:: Has the minister a breakdown of the fuel cost for aircraft, M.T. section and marine craft?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes; I have the M.T. and marine craft together, $1,007,780, and for aircraft, $23,345,599.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Aircraft, engines and spares including overhauls, $71,881,105.
Eric Bowness McKay: I should like to bring to the minister's attention something which I think deserves some explanation. When I was in Moose Jaw last summer at the R.E.M.U., I noticed a 'number of Canso amphibian aircraft. At the time I was on the station there were some twelve or more located on the apron strips outside the hangars. On inquiry I found they had been flown from the Pacific coast to the Moose Jaw station for storage. The hangars were full of, equipment and aircraft and so they were left outside in the weather. From the look of them I do not think the weather hurt them very much; nevertheless, they were left outside. We know that the cost of bringing those aircraft from the Pacific coast to Moose Jaw would be no mean item. What is the particular object in flying those aircraft from the Pacific coast to Moose Jaw for storage? What is the ultimate objective in so far as the disposal of those aircraft is concerned.


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot give all the reasons but I know that we do have difficulty on the coasts w'ith the effect of salt air on the engines. It means that the engines require a great deal of servicing, and if the planes are not to be used immediately it is advisable to move them inland if possible where they will not be subject to the salt air. I am not prepared to say what ultimate disposal will be made of the Cansos. Some of them will certainly be kept. If any are surplus they will be disposed of.


Eric Bowness McKay: They are being brought there for repair and overhauling, not for dismantling and ultimate destruction?


Colin William George Gibson: They certainly will not be destroyed if they have any value or if they can be used. If not required, they would be declared surplus to War Assets. I think I have seen Cansos much farther east than Moose Jaw. They are being stored where storage space is available. It is difficult to find sufficient storage space for all the planes we have in this country, and we certainly cannot get them all into hangars.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous stores and equipment, $6,245,000.
Agar Rodney Adamson: Could the minister give the committee a statement about air-sea rescue and what is being done in regard to that?

Demobilization-Air Services


Colin William George Gibson: There are ;wo items in this, parachutes and the air rescue equipment, $215,000, in the programme for this year; also air dinghies and spares, $2,500.


Agar Rodney Adamson: No air-sea rescue craft?


Colin William George Gibson: No, no new marine craft.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I should like to make a little statement before I put my question. I had a visit from a couple of air force personnel who were discharged about two weeks ago. These two boys wanted to start in business, but they were not able to procure the goods that they needed. They knew there were some of the particular goods that they needed at. an airport that were not being used. They were surplus at that airport but they had not been turned over to War Assets Corporation. Is there any way whereby these goods could be made available to these boys so that they can start up in business?


Colin William George Gibson: Not until the goods have been declared surplus. While some of this material may not be required at that station, an over-all survey must be made to find out if there is any requirement for them at another station. Some of the equipment may be required by one of the other services, namely, the army or the navy. They have to be given a chance to determine if they require it. If it is not required by the other services it is then declared surplus.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: What action would
these boys have to take to find out whether the goods could be made available to them?


Colin William George Gibson: They
would have to find out if it is being declared surplus, and then they should put in their offer to buy it through War Assets Corporation. If my hon. friend will let me have any information he has concerning the articles that these young men desire, I shall be glad to look into the matter and find out if any of that material is available for them.


Mr. BURTON:: Has the minister or his department given any consideration to providing discharged personnel with a priority rating?


Colin William George Gibson: If a priority can be given to discharged- personnel-* and I certainly would like to see it-it would have to be done by War Assets Corporation. We cannot do so in the air force ourselves.


Joseph William Burton: Has it been given any consideration?


Colin William George Gibson: It certainly has been discussed, and representations 
have been made by the legion and other bodies that returned service personnel should have priority in buying war assets.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to proceed one step farther with the air-sea rescue matter.. A great deal of our operations must of necessity be done over large bodies of water. I am thinking of the service flown on the St. Lawrence and the service flown in Nova Scotia, and also on the Pacific coast. Surely there must be some method whereby aircraft which have become waterborne can be rescued, and whereby aircraft forced down on frozen ground orfrozen lakes can be rescued as well. Is it not the responsibility of the service to see that some rescue organization is provided to save these men? If there is no service organization set up especially for rescue work, particularly in winter time when men may be forced down at out-of-the-way places, we are likely to have a great many more casualties than needs be, even under peace-time operational conditions.


Colin William George Gibson: Of course we have surface marine craft in the service which are used for rescue purposes. We also have aircraft equipped with rubber dinghies and parachutes to be dropped to anyone who has crashed. We have no helicopters. As to the question of air-sea rescue, that is not being neglected; it is being taken up now by the navy, the air force and the mounted police, so that we shall have combined services which will be responsible for providing rescue craft should any plane be forced down, or should a ship be in distress. The three services are working on a plan to provide that service.


William Irvine: I wish, to ask the minister
about the road grader which is in the hands of the R.C.A.F. at the village of Dawson Creek. I believe it is to be declared surplus and passed over to War Assets Corporation. The village is anxious to purchase that machine, and wants to buy it directly from the R.C.A.F. before it is declared surplus. They have what they think is a very good claim to an opportunity to purchase it before it is removed from that area. The military have been doing a great deal of travelling over the streets of the village and have crushed them up pretty badly, so that the village would like a chance to buy that machine, and I was wondering if the minister would' care to say whether there was any possibility of that being done before it passes into the hands of War Assets Corporation and is perhaps moved out of town and sold somewhere else.


Colin William George Gibson: We have not the right to dispose of this material our-

Demobilization-Air Services
selves, but we can recommend to War Assets that rather than, move it away they dispose of it where it is at the present time and where it is required. I would be glad to take the matter up and see if any arrangement can be made on that basis.


William Irvine: Thank you very much.


Colin William George Gibson: The hon. member also asked whether the R.C.A.F. has taken over the pipeline between Charlie Lake and Fort St. John, and also whether an application has been made to us for the use of some of the water from that pipeline. At present the pipeline between Charlie Lake and Fort St. John is operated by the United States forces and used by the R.C.A.F. There is an understanding that the air force will eventually take it over.


William Irvine: My information is that the Americans have abandoned it and that the R.C.A.F. have taken it over already. Is that not so?


Colin William George Gibson: I do not
understand that we have actually taken it over yet, but the air force is to take it over eventually.


William Irvine: When that is consummated
does the minister think there would be any hope of the village being able to obtain sufficient water for use in case of fire?


Colin William George Gibson: That is
a matter I shall have to take up with the department, and I will let my hon. friend know if it can be arranged.


William Irvine: Thank you very much.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Flying training contracts, $1,000,000.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should1 like some information about the operations of the Northern Saskatchewan Flying Training .School Limited. It may take the minister a moment or two to turn this up, because I should like some detailed information. This was a station which operated No. 6 E.F.TE. at Prince Albert; it is now closed down. I understand it operated there almost all through the war. I wish to make some inquiries about the funds made there as a profit, and as to their disposal. This was an air company, I understand, that had a contract with the government to train fliers. If I am wrong I hope the minister will correct me, because I find it easier to do it in this way than to ask separate questions.
I should be interested to learn, although I am not so very much concerned about this, what were the terms of the contract between the government and the company. I am only
interested in this because I wish to find out something about the disposition of the funds. The basis of the set-up of the company and the services it performed I already know. I discovered in the press an item which stated that $366,019 was returned to the dominion government after operations at that station ceased. First, I should like to know what was the total profit made by the Northern Saskatchewan Flying Training School Limited during the whole period it was training fliers for the government or performing other services. Then, as to the disposition of those profits, I find some handsome sums of money being handed out, I have no doubt for estimable purposes. As I have said, some $366,000 has been returned to the dominion government. I do not know where that was obtained, except perhaps through profits of operation. I am not very clear why it should be returned to the government.
I find, too, that there was a benefit fund. I should like to know how the fund known as the station benefit fund was made up, out of which moneys were paid to the Saskatoon and Prince Albert air cadet squadrons, and what was the disposition of the money left in that fund. I find, for instance, that the Saskatoon air cadet squadron was a beneficiary-that is a good word-to the extent of $2,946, which was stated to be ten per cent of that fund. The Prince Albert air cadet squadron also received $2,946, and then it was said the balance . in the benefit fund of $23,571 was returned to Ottawa for the R.C.A.F. benevolent fund. I find, too, that as beneficiaries, named by the Minister of National Defence for Air under the flying school contracts, the Saskatoon flying club received $11,700, and the Prince Albert flying club, $11,700, making a total of $23,400. I should like to know from what funds this money was paid.
I am interested, too, in the fact that we had a number of men in charge of this company, the directors. I should like to know the names of those diriectors and whether they received any money from the company. It would hardly seem reasonable that these men should give their services for the whole duration of the war without remuneration. I should particularly like to know what sums of money, if any, d'ere received by each of these directors. If such sums were paid, were they paid as salary or expenses; and, if as expenses, was it as estimated or actual expenses? I admit there are some difficulties in that connection, but I do not know how to get at the information in any other way.


Colin William George Gibson: I can get those answers, and let my hon. friend have them. I believe I can get most of them. May
Demobilization-Air Services

I point out that we had contracts with various flying clubs to run elementary schools and train our pilots. They worked on contract. Later on, it was found that in some cases large sums of money had been made by these clubs, with the result that all these contracts were renegotiated and the profits were turned back to the government, the flying clubs being left with only a very small amount, to enable them to continue their operations after the war.
The hon. member has referred to the benefit fund. Those were funds belonging to the men themselves. They are canteen profits and items like that. Some of them were used, I understand, for the station benefit fund, and the balance went to the R.C.A.F. benevolent fund, a fund set up under the Companies Act. It is a private non-profit organization which holds these benevolent funds for the benefit of the airmen and their dependents. However, I shall get the information for the hon. member.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Do I understand the minister to mean that the profits from these canteen funds will go as a grant to cadets. I approve of cadets, but I should like to know if those funds came from the pockets of air personnel. That must be so, if they are profits from canteen operations.


Colin William George Gibson: They are profits from the sale of goods in canteens. It is felt that the money belongs to the men and that it should be disposed of in some way, instead of its being turned back to the government. These are canteen profits. Many of the men who put money in have left the camps. Generally they decide in what way they want to use it. Evidently in this instance they elected that some of it should go to other funds.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Could the minister answer my question directly, in regard to whether the directors of that organization received any money in the form of salaries or expenses or services during the four or five years in which they were engaged with the company?


Colin William George Gibson: I do not know about the directors. There is, of course, a civilian manager who would be paid. But whether the directors received any directors' fees, I cannot say. I shall have to find that out.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Will the minister obtain that information for me?


Colin William George Gibson: I shall, if I can get it. If it is available I shall obtain it; I think the records will show it..


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Why is it that this money is returned to the dominion government in respect of a company organized to train fliers? I take it that those men were trained at so much per head under contract. Why should that money be returned? I am not objecting to its being returned; I am simply asking for information.


Colin William George Gibson: It was found that under the original agreement the clubs had made more money than' the government felt they were entitled to keep. They were organized, not for the purpose of making profits, but for the purpose of doing this work to help the war effort. In each case the matter was taken up and negotiated with the companies. It is to the credit of these civilian companies that they agreed to turn back their profits, retaining in each case only a very modest sum with which to carry on operations.


George Hugh Castleden: Did the companies do this voluntarily, or upon the order of the government? Did the government audit their books?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: Then an order was made that so much be returned?


Colin William George Gibson: No, it was not an order; it was a case of negotiation with each of the companies.


George Hugh Castleden: What was the total
amount returned from such flying clubs across Canada?


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot
say. This arrangement has been going on for several years. However, the amount can be ascertained without difficulty,. and I shall let the hon. member have it.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to have
that retujn tabled, so that we may have an accounting of that amount.


Colin William George Gibson: (Hamilton West): I can get it, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maintenance of overseas squadrons, $129,018,451.
George Hugh Castleden: May we have a breakdown of this amount?


Mr. McLURE:: How many Canadian air
force men have been posted overseas to the British air force search bureau, for missing air force personnel? I do not know whether this is the appropriate item under which to ask my question, but I could not find any other place.

Demobilization-Air Services


Colin William George Gibson: I can find out how many men there are. A missing persons bureau is operating in Europe at the present time; I am not sure how many we have attached to it, but I shall find1 out and let my hon. friend know.


Howard Charles Green: What is happening to the
Canadians who are in the R.A.F.? Are there still any who are serving with that force, or what is being done?


Colin William George Gibson: (Hamilton West): Does my hon. friend mean members of the R.C.A.F. attached to the R.A.F., or Canadians serving in the R.A.F.?


Howard Charles Green: I mean men who enlisted in Canada with the R.C.A.F. and then went to serve in the R.A.F.


Colin William George Gibson: I understand that practically all the members of the R.C.A.F. who were attached to the R.A.F. have been withdrawn, and those who are still with the R.A.F. will have been withdrawn in a short time.


Howard Charles Green: Is any obstacle put in the
way of their transferring back to the R.C.A.F.?


Colin William George Gibson: They have never transferred from the R.C.A.F. 1'hey are still members of the R.C.A.F. _


Howard Charles Green: Well, what about their
being posted back?


Colin William George Gibson: They do
come back to the R.C.A.F.


Howard Charles Green: Is it government policy to
get them all back to the R.C.A.F. as quickly as possible?


Colin William George Gibson: As soon
as their services can be dispensed with by the R.A.F. they automatically come back to the R.C.A.F.. and are demobilized in the same way as other members of the forces are being demobilized.


Howard Charles Green: And the department is trying to get them back to the R.C.A.F.?


Colin William George Gibson: It is not
a case of coming back.


Howard Charles Green: The minister does not understand me. Is it the policy of the government to draw back all R.C.A.F. men who are serving in the R.A.F., to have them actually back with the R.C.A.F.?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, we
are getting them back as rapidly as possible.


Howard Charles Green: What is the present situation with regard to air force personnel in the occupation forces in continental Europe, so far as numbers are concerned.


Colin William George Gibson: The personnel in the occupation squadron is roughly 8,000; but we have another 2,000 in England at the headquarters and repatriation depot, and on administrative work.


Howard Charles Green: How are the personnel of the occupation force chosen? Are they all volunteers for that service?


Colin William George Gibson: In the first instance certain squadrons were detailed for this work. Then, from those squadrons were removed the men with the longest service, who could be repatriated. Others are being brought back as their point score is reached. We are bringing them back from overseas on the point system, as it applies in the army. The men who volunteer for the interim force in this country may eventually go over to replace others who have not volunteered for the interim force and who wish to come home to be demobilized.	[DOT]


Howard Charles Green: Is it the policy of the government, then, to have the occupation force made up entirely of members of the interim force?


Colin William George Gibson: It would be eventually to have them all interim force or permanent force. Anyone who joins the interim force now is entitled to remain in the permanent force, if he so desires.


Howard Charles Green: To date, what has been the progress in recruiting the interim force? As I understand it, there are no recruits being taken on yet for the permanent force. A man who wishes eventually to go into the permanent force can enlist now only with the interim force.


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: What progress is being made in recruiting that interim force?


Colin William George Gibson: Progress was slow at first because the men felt that they did not have enough information, and they did not want to take a chance of perhaps being kept on for two years and then let out. Consequently some very good men were inclined to go into civilian life. Then we gave them an opportunity of staying on for two years with the option of staying on if they so desired, and since then, application^ have been coming in much more rapidly. I have not the exact figures, but up to the present time roughly 4,000 aircrew and 4,000 ground-crew have volunteered for the interim force.


Howard Charles Green: A total of S,000?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes. In addition, wnen we screen those, and pick out
Demobilization-Air Services

those that are accepted, if we need more for our permanent force or for the interim force we can start recruiting to fill up the ranks.


Howard Charles Green: How large an interim force
is it intended to recruit?


Colin William George Gibson: Up to
15,000.


Howard Charles Green: I suppose that of the 8,000
applications now in, a large percentage will not be accepted. About what percentage of those applications will be accepted?


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot
say yet, because the screening has not been completed; it is now in the course of being done. There would be a certain percentage not accepted. I might say that in addition we are accepting into the interim force on a special engagement certain personnel who will reach the age limit within a year or two. They come, in on the distinct understanding that they will be retained only for a two-year period.


Howard Charles Green: What type of personnel would that be, officers or groundcrew?


Colin William George Gibson: Officers or airmen who are just about reaching the age limit for retirement.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: In the interim force how many men will be flying personnel?


Colin William George Gibson: It depends on the ratio between the flying and non-flying establishments. I would say roughly fifty per cent.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Would it be fifty per cent, as high as that? I understood that it took nine men on the ground to keep one man in the air.


Colin William George Gibson: I am
wrong. It would be considerably less than fifty per cent.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Would the minister not know that? The whole air force would be based on what the flying personnel was to be. That would be the foundation of the force, the starting point. Surely the minister has that information.


Colin William George Gibson: The establishment will be laid down for each group, including officers and N.C.O.'s, in air and ground trades. The establishment will set out the numbers required in the various ground trades.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I quite understand what the minister says, but it seems to me that the very basis of an air force is the flying personnel and that all the rest is built around
(Mr. C. W. G. Gibson.]
it. I may be entirely wrong, but it seems to me that the minister ought to be able to tell us how many squadrons we are to have and what the number of flying personnel in those squadrons will be.


Colin William George Gibson: I have
already given the committee the information as to the post-war force, and I think that is what my hon. friend is now discussing.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Yes, the interim
force.


Colin William George Gibson: The permanent force that is planned at this time is on the basis of ten squadrons in this country.


George Hugh Castleden: How many men are there in the overseas' squadrons at the present time?


Colin William George Gibson: About
8,000.


George Hugh Castleden: You are bringing them home as quickly as possible?


Colin William George Gibson: No, they are with the occupational troops, and they will be there until their services can be dispensed with. There is no definite assurance just when they will come back.


George Hugh Castleden: All the overseas men now in the air force are with the occupational troops? They are not just waiting transport home?


Colin William George Gibson: Some are.


George Hugh Castleden: How many?


Colin William George Gibson: How many are actually overseas at the present time?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes.


Colin William George Gibson: The number overseas, as of November 15, was 25,118.


George Hugh Castleden: How many of those do you intend to leave there until their work with the occupational force is completed?


Colin William George Gibson: About
10,000.


George Hugh Castleden: You will be bringing back the other 15,000 as quickly as possible?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: Does this department or the army arrange for their transport?


Colin William George Gibson: The army arranges for transportation and allocates to the air force the proportion to which we are entitled.


George Hugh Castleden: Then you want this $129,000,000 to maintain the 25,000 you. have

Demobilization-Air Services
now overseas, some 10,000 of whom are to remain with the occupational force and the others return?


Colin William George Gibson: The
amount asked for here is not to maintain the 25,000 men over there; it is to cover expenses incurred since the beginning of the fiscal year.


George Hugh Castleden: I understand that. I have another question. You have a number of men who served in the far east, Burma and Asia. Are any of these men still in southeastern Asia, or where are they?


Colin William George Gibson: We did have three R.C.A.F. squadrons out there, but they have been withdrawn. A mission went to the east, and there were also personnel attached to the R.A.F.


George Hugh Castleden: What is happening to those? Are they being brought back to England?


Colin William George Gibson: They have been coming back.


George Hugh Castleden: Some have arrived probably within the last month from Burma and from India, because I happen to know some of them.


Colin William George Gibson: We had a coastal' unit in Ceylon and two transport squadrons in Burma. They have been back for some time. There might be some ground administrative personnel left, but they are coming back now.


George Hugh Castleden: About 15,000 are to be retained with the ocupational force in Europe, the minister said, and the rest will be returned to Canada as soon as accommodation can be arranged' for them. Is that it?


Colin William George Gibson: That is correct.


George Hugh Castleden: One other question. Is any recognition contemplated in the form of a ribbon or other decoration for the men who served in the far east?


Colin William George Gibson: There is a Burma star, but I do not know what the qualifications are for it. It is awarded to the members of the forces that saw service in Burma, and I should think those squadrons that served in the east would .be entitled to it.


George Hugh Castleden: What is being done with the equipment of the squadrons overseas. They are supplied with Canadian equipment, are they not?


Colin William George Gibson: No; many of them have been supplied with R.A.F. uniforms.
We are replacing them with R.C.A.F. uniform, which is of a somewhat higher quality, before these men are demobilized.


George Hugh Castleden: How about other equipment, such as station waggons, engine equipment, hospital equipment?


Colin William George Gibson: That is chiefly R.A.F. equipment for which we pay rental.


George Hugh Castleden: What is being done with that?


Colin William George Gibson: Any aircraft or engines we are interested in retaining we crate and bring out to this country, at our expense; otherwise it is returned to the R.A.F., if rented; if owned, it is declared surplus and transferred to the R.A.F. for disposal.


George Hugh Castleden: Not through Canadian War Assets Corporation?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, as agents for Canadian War Assets Corporation.


George Hugh Castleden: But through their office overseas?


Colin William George Gibson: Through their office overseas, yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I ask the minister if the 10,000 men of the occupational force are in addition to the regular force of ten squadrons which are to be retained in Canada, because it is uncertain as to the time during which those occupational forces will be required there?


Colin William George Gibson: No; they are not in addition to the ten squadrons that will be retained in Canada. Some of the* squadrons serving overseas will undoubtedly be disbanded on their return to Canada. They will not necessarily form part of the permanent force of this country.


George Randolph Pearkes: If the 10,000 men are required for the occupational force for an extended period of years-we may look to that, perhaps, because the British army was on the Rhine for ten years after the last war -would the permanent force in Canada be reduced then to approximately 5,000?


Colin William George Gibson: I must say that we do not expect to have our occupational force there for such a considerable length of time as that, so that we have not been planning on that basis. I would hope that we would have them back within, possibly, the next year or two anyway.
Demobilization-Air Services


George Randolph Pearkes: Have any of the interim force who have enlisted here in Canada been sent over to relieve the personnel who are now with the occupational force who do not wish to remain there but wish to be demobilized?


Colin William George Gibson: If so, only in very exceptional cases, where the particular man's services are required, because while we have 15,000 men still waiting to come home there would be no use in sending additional *men overseas to swell the population of Great Britain.


George Randolph Pearkes: One final question: when might we expect to hear the terms of service for the permanent force?


Colin William George Gibson: The Minister of National Defence announced that they would be available by the 31st March, for the three services.


George Randolph Pearkes: That would apply to the R.C.A.F. as well?


Colin William George Gibson: For the three services, yes.


Mr. SKEY:: I should like to ask the minister if the R.C.A.F. are certain that all the personnel still overseas have been given an opportunity to volunteer for interim: service, because I understand that this volunteering carries with it a certain amount of agreement to retain them in the permanent force if their services are desirable, and in my experience I know there is one particular group which was difficult to reach, namely, those R.C.A.F. members who are serving with the R.A.F. I should like to be sure that all of them have been covered by the R.C.A.F. in offering that opportunity to volunteer for this interim force.


Colin William George Gibson: It has been given, very wide publicity; and I will say this, that no member of the air force will be demobilized without having an opportunity of learning of this force and being given every opportunity of submitting his application for it.


Mr. CASE:: I understand that the former air minister, the hon. member for Quebec South, had a system of promotion based on length of service. Is that still effective?


Colin William George Gibson: That is in effect, provided that the member of the- force meets the various standards required for promotion to the trade group to which he is to be advanced.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Will that be the policy of the administration with the interim force or the permanent force?
[Mr. C. W. G. Gibson.)


Colin William George Gibson: I am not prepared to say that at the present time, because the conditions of the permanent force are Ibeing considered. A new set-up for the permanent force is at present under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sundries, $4,132,067.
George Randolph Pearkes: At the request of a large number of residents and farmers of the Saanich peninsula, I asked the minister about a month ago if he could open the highway which runs up the West Saanich peninsula and which was closed for a space of about 500 yards during the war. Now that war activities are over, the residents of the peninsula ask if that highway may be opened, because it will save them a distance of five miles of travel.


Colin William George Gibson: I must apologize to my hon. friend. He asked me that before, and I iwas going to let him have a reply to-day. I will check on that again, because I should like to help in that regard if it is at all possible.


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: What use has been planned for the eastern passage airport at Halifax, iwhich has been used during the war by the R.C.A.F. and also as an Atlantic terminal of the Trans-Canada Air Lines? What I particularly want to know is, will it be open now for private flying and local air lines?


Colin William George Gibson: My hon. friend is speaking of Dartmouth?


William Chisholm Macdonald: Dartmouth, yes.


Colin William George Gibson: That is one of our continuing operational stations.


William Chisholm Macdonald: Will it be used now for private flying and for local air lines, or do you count on having it used exclusively by the air force and by Trans-Canada ?


Colin William George Gibson: That will depend on what arrangements are made with the Department of Transport and what other facilities are available in that area.


William Chisholm Macdonald: It is a
question which has arisen there in the last few days.


Colin William George Gibson: I will look into it.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I do not know whether this is the right point in this discussion to bring

Privilege-Mr. Coldwell
up what I want to say, but you can correct me, Mr. Chairman, if I am wrong, and I shall be glad to wait.
Although I do not altogether agree with what the hon. member for Skeena has implied in his attitude toward the air force, I do agree with him in what he said about the men who are unwilling to volunteer for either the interim or the permanent force, that they should be either employed or discharged.
I wish to place one or two observations on record. On November 2 I drew the attention of the committee to the report of General Marshall of the United States, and mentioned at that time that his report must have been the product of the United States military general staff. Since November 2 another report has been published in the United States. It is the report of a civilian bombing survey committee. This committee was established by President Roosevelt and presided over by Mr. Franklin D. D'Olier. AH I want to do here is to make a comparison, for what it may be worth, for the use of this committee, between the reports of the committee of the United States general staff and the reports of a civilian committee on the air force. I submit that this applies to us here in every way as much as it does to the United States air force.
The military command from which General Marshall drew the knowledge for his report worked from the theory, strategy, and tactics of warfare and from the experience of the past. This civilian committee went into Europe, went among the peoples and factories there and the government bodies and consulted all the records. It judged the impact of warfare from the bottom up while the air force judged it from the top down. Here are its conclusions: that in aerial combat the victory of the allies was complete; that the air force, combined with naval power, brought an end to the enemy's greatest naval threat, the U-boats; that the air force, combined with the ground forces, turned the tide overwhelmingly in favour of our armies; that the invasion of Europe was made possible. by the superiority of our air power. This is the final conclusion, that the imprint that our allied air forces left on the German people will be lasting.
I am calling the attention of the committee to these facts and suggesting that we are discussing the estimates for the future. Before concluding, I should like to say that the United Kingdom during the war devoted as much as. fifty per cent of its productive effort to the air force, and will undoubtedly devote forty to fifty per cent of its peace time defence effort to the air force. The United
States devoted thirty-five per cent of its productive effort, and we are now passing estimates of approximately thirty per cent of our defence appropriations for the air force. Although this is my service, I do not think I am doing my country or this committee any disservice by pointing out that this is about the lowest we can with security ever allow our estimates to go in percentage, because both General Marshall's report, going even so far back as George Washington, and now this civilian committee in the United States, agree on one thing, namely, that the best way to win a war is to prevent it from occurring. And the best way to prevent war is to support a strong, alert .and able defence force.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. COLDWELL
Major James William Coldwell: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that we are going into committee of supply on civil estimates, but just before we do so may I raise a matter which affects the privileges of the house. A notice has been sent round this evening to at least the leaders and the whips of the various groups, which reads:
Cards will be available at the whips' offices for the members of the house who desire to bring their waves and daughters to the House of Commons on the occasion of Mr. Attlee's address.
Each member will be entitled to bring his wife and one daughter, who will be placed in the members' gallery and the ladies' gallery.
The doors will be open for them at 2.30 o'clock. The general public will only be admitted after the wives of senators and members will have been seated.
It has also been intimated that applications should be made before eleven o'clock tomorrow. Many members are in the city, without wife or daughter, and I believe that many hon. gentlemen would like to invite a male friend or a lady friend as the case may be, because there are some bachelors in the house. I suggest, therefore, that further consideration be given this matter, so that tickets may be allotted to members to be given to whomsoever they will. I bring this matter to the attention of the leader of the government in order that it may be discussed with the Speaker. It is one that concerns the house, and it ought not to be decided by officials of the house without consultation at least with the members.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I anticipated the observations my hon. friend has just made, and I intended, when making the announcement as to the business of the house at eleven o'clock, to say that, each member will be entitled to
Supply-Agriculture

bring his wife and one daughter or friend. There will be no difficulty, and I shall be glad to get in touch with the officers of the house and meet the wishes of hon. members as far as possible, because members and their friends should have precedence.


Major James William Coldwell: And the general public should receive some consideration.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Afterwards, yes. SUPPLY



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $136,035.
Mr. SENN:: Before we proceed with the discussion of these estimates, perhaps it would be wise to have a clarification of the arrangement made last night. At the close of last night's sitting the Minister of Veterans Affairs made the following statement:
After the conference of the various parties in the house the suggestion was made that once She estimates of the three defence services were approved, the measure might be adopted on the definite understanding that the rights and privileges of all hon. members should be reserved and preserved and that particular items under discussion and on which discussion might be desired would be open for the fullest debate on the corresponding items in the civil estimates.
I would point out that under war appropriation there are certain estimates for which there are no corresponding items in the civil agriculture estimates. There is $101 million to be voted mostly for the activities of certain boards that have been set up, but there are no corresponding items in the civil estimates few those boards. There should be some discussion because it is by far the larger item of the two. I would suggest that it be, definitely understood that at some period in the course of consideration of the agriculture civil estimates an arrangement be made to that effect.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The suggestion I made last evening was as a result of certain discussions with various leaders in the house, with a view to expediting the work of the session. I understand that on Monday we shall take up Munitions and Supply and the Department of Labour, but there certainly must be a definite understanding that an item like the one to which my hon, friend refers will be debatable when the civil estimates come up.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is it the understanding that there will be discussion of these agriculture estimates under war appropriation, or are we to discuss them now under agriculture?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The understanding is now, as far as I am aware, that on Monday next we shall take up Munitions and Supply and Labour and then adopt the war appropriation estimates, and any items which any hon. member wishes to discuss, which are under war appropriation, can be discussed on civil supply with the fullest possible rights. That is the understanding.


Angus MacInnis: Did I understand that the parts of the waf appropriation dealing with Munitions and Supply and Labour will be brought up on Monday?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: The other departments^ are in pretty much the same position as the hon. member for Haldimand has pointed out with regard to agriculture. There are items in the war appropriation that are not in the civil estimates.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: I imagine that many of us would like to discuss some of them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The rights of all members will be completely reserved and protected.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: I have been looking over the war estimates hurriedly. If the understanding is that when the item concerning dairy products is up, anything having to do with dairy products under the war estimates should be discussed at that time, I doubt very much if there is any estimate here that cannot be discussed. I would take it from the statement that that is the understanding.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: If that is the understanding I fail to see where there are very many items, if any, that cannot be discussed as we go along with the general items. If there are any I would suggest that they be discussed at the end of the general discussion of the civil estimates.	.


Mark Cecil Senn: A number of boards have been set up under the war appropriation. Those boards have certain definite functions. As I understand it, the agricultural food board is responsible for subsidies on farm products among other things. I see no item in the civil estimates that deals with that particular matter. It has to be dealt with more or less en bloc. I suggest that that might be discussed under the item of administration in the civil estimates.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was going to suggest that that was the proper item under which
to discuss it.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: The boards referred to have to do with marketing. There is an item here on marketing which covers all the marketing activities of the department. It consists of the same people who are on the boards that cover the question of .marketing as related to the war. Items 22, 23, 24, 25 and all the way down have to do -with that. Subsidies come under item 25; subsidies come under cold storage, and there are subsidies under the others. I would suggest that it would expedite the discussion if we tried to conduct all our discussions on marketing under the marketing items, even where it covers boards which are concerned with marketing; . otherwise we shall discuss it two or three times.


Mark Cecil Senn: What about the activities of the agricultural supplies board? Would those come' under production, or where? We want to have a definite understanding; that is all.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the items of the supplies board would properly come under production, but I might say that I do not think it would foe possible for me to suggest that items having to do with dairy products in the supplies board could not be discussed when we are discussing dairy products; the items are so closely interwoven I do not think it is possible to discuss one without the other. All our activities during the war relating to the production of dairy products have been associated with the agreements which were made by the supplies board in the early part of the war, or by some subcommittee of the supplies board.


John Bracken: Has the minister given
consideration to making a general statement with respect to these estimates? I am not raising any new policy. Some pf the ministers have made such a general statement, and I was wondering whether the Minister of Agriculture was going to do the same thing. .


James Garfield Gardiner: I was not considering
making any long general statement with regard to the estimates. I have found by experience here during the past ten years that when one does that he usually has to make ten other speeches covering different parts of his estimates as he goes along. I am quite prepared to make a speech at any time, and could make one on agriculture now if necessary, but I hope it is not necessary.
I should like the members of the committee to feel free to make 'any suggestions they wish and any speeches they wish and to ask any questions they desire, and I shall try to answer them if at all possible.


Mr. CHARLTON:: I should like to make
a few general remarks while we are on item 1. First of all, I should like to congratulate the farmers of this great dominion upon a most difficult job well done. During the past two years I believe that most farmers have been fairly well satisfied with prices of farm products, thanks to the subsidies paid through the minister, the officials of his department, and the Commodity Prices Stabilization corporation.
At the beginning of the war farmers, remembering what had happened during world war I, had their hopes built high that they might have an opportunity to get back a few of the dollars they had lost during the nineteen-thirties. But what happened? In the fall of 1941 all prices were frozen at a very great disadvantage to the primary producer, because the commodities and services used by farmers had already risen considerably. I should like to quote a few figures from the Economic Annalist to verify those remarks. The wholesale prices are taken as of 1926 at 100. In 1937 the wholesale price of all commodities was at 84-6; in 1941, 89-9; and as of the last available figure including everything, 103-0. It will be noticed that there is a great variation in all these figures with the exception of one. In 1937, farm products were only 87-1. In 1941 they had dropped to 71-2, at the very time when these prices were frozen. The relation of farm produce prices as of the 1926 figures, taking 100 as the base, was 87-1 in 1937 and 71-2 in 1941. The last available figure for May, 1945, showed that it had risen to 104-6.	.
Let me take field products. In 1937, they stood at 88-3; in 1941 they were 56-5. There is a great reduction there; yet that price was the basic price when prices were frozen in the fall of 1941. What about animal products? This is the one exception. In 1937 the price was 85; in 1941 it had risen to 95-8, while in May, 1945, it had reached the figure of 121-1.
We now come to the cost of living. These figures are based on the average from 1935 to 1939 and the base is 100. The urban living costs in 1937 were 101-2; in 1941, they were 111-8; and in May, 1945, they had risen to 119. Farm living costs based on the same figures show that in 1937 the average was 102-9. In 1941 it had risen to 114-2. The last available figure for May, 1945, shows that it stood at 125-5.
We now come to the commodities and services used by farmers, and comparing the two figures, again the average of 1935 to 1939, we find that in 1937 it stood at 105-4; 1941, 114-1; and in May of this year it had risen to 142.
Supply-Agriculture

In view of these figures, I believe every hon. member will agree when I say that the farmers of Canada had a legitimate complaint. But even then it was only by repeated efforts on the part of the federation of agriculture, which embodies practically every farm organization across Canada, and because of the obvious demand for greater production that these various subsidies were paid. I might say here that I was surprised and disappointed that apparently the minister did not know the correct name of that great organization which has done so much for the farmers of Canada, because at pages 529 and 918 of Hansard he referred to it as the farm federation.
With regard to subsidies, as I see it, these were a means of adjusting our economy in order that the producer might receive a reasonable remuneration for his labour without causing an appreciable increase in the cost of living. The government is to be congratulated upon its price control measures. Whether they have been worth the terrific cost will become apparent only in the future. Many of these subsidies are paid directly to the producers, and because of this fact are termed producer subsidies. This is causing considerable misunderstanding on the part of the public, who do not realize that they are also benefiting directly by a like amount. The two cents a quart subsidy on milk, for instance, commonly called a consumer subsidy, is paid to the distributor but is a direct benefit to the consumer, in that he pays two cents less for milk than otherwise would be the case. I therefore maintain that while the producer receives quite a large proportion of the moneys expended in this way, the processor, the distributor and the consumer also indirectly receive a benefit, in that the cost to the consumer is not increased to any appreciable extent.
The situation, however, is quite different in regard to producers of hogs and beef cattle. Here a ceiling price is set over which a packer or butcher may not charge. There is no floor price for the producer, however, and consequently when there is a heavy run of cattle or hogs there is invariably a drop in price. There is no protection for the producer and the result is apparent. That, result is not seen in connection with beef cattle as yet, because cattle coming to the market now are the product of a breeding programme commenced probably two or three years ago. Many cattle must be marketed at this time every year because of a shortage of stabling accommodation. Hog marketings in 1945, however, will be one-third less than in 1944. Why? Partly because the income tax department considers the money received from the sale

of all breeding stock as income, not capital; but mainly because the farmers are tired and fearful of what the future may hold for them. Most certainly they cannot keep on working twelve and fourteen hours every day simply to give more dollars to the dominion treasury.
There is something I know very well most farmers cannot understand; that is, the wide variation between the selling price to the packer, for instance, or the price which the producer receives for a sow and the price he pays in the retail butcher shop for the bacon from the same sow. I should like the minister to explain that. In January, 1944, the premium on hogs was raised ^to $3 on grade A and $2 on grade B-l, and it is interesting to note the increase in quality since that date. The percentage of A-l carcasses as of 1944 was 41*1 per cent in the 55 to 65-pound class, which is by far the largest class, and the total percentage was 70-6 for all grade A-l carcasses. In the first nine months of 1945 the percentage of grade A-l carcasses in the 55 to 65-pound side weight class jumped from 41-1 to 49-8, and the percentage total was 77-8 as against 70-6 in 1944. This may not be entirely due to the increase in the premium, but certainly that had some effect.
I think every one in this country realizes; at least I am sure all farmers do, that for the hog producers to live we must procure at least a certain. portion of the British bacon market. It is interesting to note in a digest taken from "Agriculture Abroad" published by the economics division of the Department of Agriculture, which deals with the production goals of the present government in Great Britain, that they hope to increase their hog production by 870,000 over the 1944 level. Just what that might mean to our market there is hard to figure, but undoubtedly it will mean something. In order to retain even a part of that British bacon market we must do two things. Undoubtedly we must produce the quality of Wiltshire sides the British market demands, and in the second place we must be able to guarantee that market continuity of supply. That has been one of our greatest handicaps in connection with that market; we could not guarantee a Steady supply. Some time ago we listened to quite a lengthy debate on bill No. 14, to carry into effect the agreement for a food and agriculture organization of the united nations, between Canada and certain other nations and authorities. I should like to quote from the preamble to the constitution of the organization:
The nations accepting this constitution, being determined to promote the common welfare by furthering separate and collective action on their part for the purposes of:

Prime Minister Attlee
raising levels of nutrition and standards of living of the peoples under their respective jurisdictions,
securing improvements in the efficiency of the production and distribution of all food and agricultural products,
bettering the condition of rural populations,
and thus contributing toward an expanding world economy, hereby establish the food and agriculture organization of the united nations, hereinafter referred to as the "organization", through which the members will report to one another on the measures taken and the progress achieved in the fields of action set forth above.
The government of Canada has pledged itself to this organization.
A campaign speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture in May, 1945, carried this headline, in the Toronto Daily Slur: "Farm prices up to end of 1946." This would lead us to believe that subsidies were to remain until that time. During this session a floor price has been set on wheat at one dollar a bushel f.o.b. Fort William. Port Arthur or Vancouver. That is only sixty-two per cent of parity.


James Garfield Gardiner: But that has not been done.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is for 1946.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not even done for 1946. The floor price is $1.25, and it has never been changed.


John Alpheus Charlton: In view of these facts I would strongly urge some definite statement from the government at the earliest possible date as to its plans for the future of agriculture; and I would humbly suggest that two very important facts must be kept in mind: (1) producer prices must be maintained at an adequate level, and (2) consumer prices must be such that will allow the purchase of an adequate supply of the essential foods to maintain the health of the nation.


James Garfield Gardiner: In the few minutes
remaining before the hour of adjournment I should like to make only a few comments respecting the speech which has just been delivered. Before turning to the subject matter of the speech, however, I should like personally to welcome to the house the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Charlton). I believe it was his grandfather, or some ancestor-and if it was not, then I apologize for relating the name-who at one time sat in this chamber. When I was quite a young chap I remember reading speeches made by John Charlton who, I understand, came from the same part of Canada, and was a relation of the hon. member who has just spoken. If I am incorrect, then I can only say that his speech reminded me greatly of the kind of speech John Charlton used to deliver.


James Arthur Ross: It runs in the blood.


James Garfield Gardiner: In those speeches there was always considerable in the wav of statistics and those statistics always pointed most effectively to some conclusion.
May I say that I appreciate the attitude the hon. member for Brant has taken toward the estimate now before the committee, and more particularly his attitude toward the work of the Department of Agriculture during the period of war. When I have more time at my disposal, and when we are discussing these estimates on another occasion, I hope to discuss more fully the points he has raised. This evening I shall content myself with making these few observations, and by saying that I appreciate the manner in which the hon. member has introduced the subject, and particularly his reference to the farm organization and the efforts they have put forth. When I refer to the farm federation of Canada I am treating the name in a manner somewhat similar to that in which we treat names of bills. Occasionally I like to use short titles, and I think all hon. members understand that I mean the farm organization of Canada.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move the adjournment of the house until 4.30 Monday afternoon. The house will meet informally at three o'clock to hear the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and then it will meet for business at 4.30 o'clock in the afternoon.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned UBitil Monday, November 19, at 4.30 p.m.
Monday, November 19, 1945.