1. Did the government send a man to England to examine and report back on shoes for army purposes ?

2. If so, who w'as sent?

3. Was a report made? If so, of what nature was this report?

1. Yes. A committee was appointed and by the terms of reference the committee was to investigate and bring in a recommendation for the information of the Department of National Defence as to which was the best type of boot for the army and to advise in respect of any other matters regarding army boots referred to the committee.

2. A committee of three men consisting of Mr. A. O. T. Beardmore, president of the

Canadian Tanners Association; Mr. Louis Daoust, footwear administrator for Canada; Captain M. B. Steinkopf, R.C.O.C. chief supervisor of non-technical workshops (army boots are repaired and rebuilt in these workshops) .

3. Yes. The principal subject dealt with was the merit of high ankle as compared with low ankle boots for military use.

Final consideration of the report of the committee is deferred pending further trials now being conducted overseas.

Among other subjects dealt with are: (a) the merits of a stitched welt constructed boot as compared with boots of nailed construction; (b) the usefulness of clump soles; (c) the usefulness of heel plates and toe caps; (d) the advantages of leather soles as distinguished from rubber soles; (e) army boot repair systems; (f) salvage of used army boots; (g) the advantages of having uniform boot construction for allied nations.

1. What is the number and percentage of rejections on medical grounds, and the total number of applicants for enlistment in the army in each military district since the beginning of the war?

2. What is the number and percentage of rejections and exemptions on medical grounds, of those called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act, and responding, in each military district, administrative district, or province?

3. What is the . number who have responded to such call-up in each military district, administrative district, or province?

Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) asked if there had been any change in the regulations under the National Resources Mobilization Act with respect to the definition of students, or if not, whether any change was contemplated. May I say to the hon. member that there has been no change in the definition in question since the passing of P.C. 10924 of December 1, 1942. I shall be glad to send to the hon. member a copy of the regulation.

War Appropriation-Supplies

Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):

Did the minister answer the second part of my question, as to whether any change in the definition of students had been contemplated? I do not think he answered that.

Mr. MITCHELL:

At the moment the answer is no.

Mr. SARTO FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):

Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) or, in his absence, of his parliamentary secretary, who is also the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Abbott). Is it true that the people living within the limits of the city of Westmount are entitled to receive thirteen pounds of sugar, while those living outside the limits of that city receive only ten pounds?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order; this question

should not be asked on the orders of the day.

Mr. GRAYDON:

It is a very important question.