Mr. GRAYDON:

I heartily agree with him that in the original instance these arrangements involving substantial changes in regulations and setting out government policy should be made in the House of Commons. We are at one in that thought. Not long ago I heard one minister in the cabinet make a statement which I thought was quite in order, and that was that while he did not want the House of Commons to become simply a bulletin board, in respect of everything to be announced, at the same time there is a considerable distinction between major changes in regulations and major changes in government policy. I am glad the government is accepting the responsibility on this occasion.

Mr. GILLIS:

In making this survey will the different labour organizations across Canada be utilized?

Mr. MITCHELL:

This policy was first decided upon after consultation with the national selective service advisory board, which is composed of labour organizations, farmer organizations, employer organizations, and ranking civil servants in the various departments of government most concerned. Then, as to appeal: of course the boards of referees are made up of representatives of employers and employees. I think I can assure the house that in particular industries there will be consultation with the labour organizations most directly affected. In the past they have proved very helpful.

LAY-OFF AT AIRCRAFT REPAIR LIMITED, EDMONTON [DOT]-QUESTION OF REEMPLOYMENT

On the orders of the day:

Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to

answer a question asked on Monday last by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), concerning the placement of employees laid off from Aircraft Repair Limited, Edmonton. At that time I was not able to give full information concerning the disposition of these employees. I have now received a report from selective service officials in Edmonton, giving the information for which the hon. member asked.

Between January last and May 23, 1944, there was a series of lay-offs at Aircraft Repair Limited, Edmonton, affecting 624 male

War Appropriation Bill

employees and 523 females, making a total of 1,147. I find that 31 men and 42 women were placed with Canada Car and Foundry Limited at Fort William; 150 men and 330 women were placed in high priority industry in the Edmonton area, and 220 men joined the armed forces. Of those who were not immediately placed in employment the men were farmers who were returned to their farms, and the women returned to homes away from Edmonton and would be placed in employment through their local offices. Edmonton office reports a total of 3,785 unfilled jobs, so that it is evident that there is no shortage of work in that area.

Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Minister of Fisheries):

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt

in my mind that canned flaked fish, mackerel, herring and sardines will be needed in large amounts during the coming year. My department has been pressing for a conclusion of definite arrangements whereby all such canned fish as are able to pass inspection can be procured for this purpose, and I hope that these definite arrangements will be concluded within the next few days.

Mr. STIRLING:

Mr. Speaker, may I draw the government's attention to the fact that this order was not forecast on Tuesday evening? Certain other business was forecast at that time, but we did not anticipate that it had been arranged to go on with this first.

Mr. CRERAR:

May I say that it should have been mentioned on Tuesday evening. However I understand that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) and the leader of

the C.C.F., at any rate, had expressed a willingness to proceed with this order this afternoon.

Mr. STIRLING:

The leader of the opposition was not in the house.

Mr. CRERAR:

That is true. The information was conveyed to me that the. leader of the opposition had expressed his agreement to proceeding with this order. Perhaps it was my oversight that it was not mentioned Tuesday evening. However the matter has been discussed at great length. I do not know whether hon. members wish to resume discussion.

Mr. GRAYDON:

Since my name has been mentioned in connection with arranging the agenda, perhaps I should say that prior to my leaving the house early on Tuesday evening I spoke to the Minister of Finance and indicated my desire not to delay the second reading of the bill. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) and other hon. members, however, understood on Tuesday evening that the second reading would not be proceeded with, because it was not mentioned at that time. Our arrangements have been made without taking that into consideration, because I thought the government then had decided not to go on with second reading. We left it at that.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Is there any

objection to going on now, or does the hon. member wish to wait until eight o'clock?

Mr. GRAYDON:

Perhaps in view of the misunderstanding, and the fact that the government did not mention this order of business on Tuesday evening, it should stand until to-morrow. I know some of the members were anxious to follow the government's proposal in this respect. I am sorry I happened to mention it to the Minister of Finance. It did not occur to me that what I had said would alter the situation.

Mr. KNOWLES:

May I offer a suggestion? While it is incorrect for the Minister of Mines and Resources to refer to me as leader of the C.C.F.-I am only the whip-it is true that I suggested to him after eleven o'clock the other night that I thought it proper to go on with the second reading to-day. I cannot of course speak for members of the official opposition. The suggestion I would make now, if they are not ready, is that this item be called at eight o'clock.

Mr. ILSLEY:

It is whatever the house wants to do, but I suggested the other night that we put it through then, and the hon. member for Yale said, "Oh, perhaps it had

War Appropriation-Mr. Knoiules

better go over." I thought there was a general agreement that it would be taken up at the earliest possible moment. If it was inadvertently left off the government list, it was because of the general understanding, and I am content to take it up under the present order.

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with some of my colleagues and I think perhaps we have no special reason for delaying the bill. Perhaps we had better consent to the second reading. But I want to make just one observation before that is done.

Last session there was some criticism made of members of the house with respect to the debate on the second reading of a similar bill. This criticism by the press and the public largely centred around the fact that a huge sum of money had been passed by parliament on the second reading of a bill with little Or no debate. I want to indicate to-day the importance of the country understanding that we have already spent some forty-seven days or parts of days debating these war appropriations. I think it may properly be said that diligent care and attention has been paid by the members of the House of Commons to the various items.

I think the time consumed in this debate is exactly the same time as was consumed in a similar debate last year. That debate occurred at a different stage of the house sittings, because last year the budget preceded the war appropriation resolution. But suffice it to say that approximately the same length of time was consumed. I should like to point out also that when we speak of time being [DOT]consumed I think that only the minimum should be consumed in a war period. I remember well in the first session that I was in the house, in 1936, there was a substantially heavy agenda of legislation, but we dealt with only one-eleventh of the appropriation now being voted by this parliament. However, in doing that we took up almost six months of our legislative time. So that one can understand, I think, the delays which sometimes come with such heavy war expenditures, eleven times what they were in a preceding period.

I rose only for the purpose of establishing our position with respect to the question of the speedy passing of the bill. There was an arrangement in the house agreed to by all parties and groups, under which, instead of the discussion taking place on the second reading or in committee on the bill, it would take place at the resolution stage. Having said this, I have no objection to the motion.

I fancy the government is anxious to get the bill into shape so that it may go to another chamber as soon as possible.