Mr. ABBOTT:

I cannot see the slightest objection to giving the information. I do not have it before me at the moment but I assume it is easily obtainable. I will get it and give it to the committee. On the question of casualties, my hon. friend has brought to my mind a point I had really intended to cover in my opening remarks. I do not wish to single out any particular branch of the service for special commendation, but one of the reasons why our casualties have been lower in this war than in the last has been, among

5S5

War Appropriation-The Army

other things, the splendid work done by the medical corps. They are operating in the forward areas, doing major surgery at forward dressing stations; and incidentally the nursing sisters are operating well forward in this war under gunfire. With the use of aeroplane evacuation and the new drugs we have, and with prompt blood transfusions-and in this the civilian population has contributed largely in providing plasma-the result has been that deaths following wounds have been very much lower than in the last war. I am glad my hon. friend brought this up, because I did want to pay this special tribute to the work done by the medical services in the army. I will get the information asked for.

Mr. RALSTON:

Of the 11,800 N.R.M.A. men sent over up to the end of February plus the 2,400 up to the end of March, how many were trained infantry men?

Mr. ABBOTT:

I cannot give that accurately at the moment, but a very large proportion of them were. If I can I will get the exact figures and give them to-morrow.

Mr. RALSTON:

My hon. friend will have in mind that there were a certain number of trained infantry planned to be sent over, and I should like to know whether or not that number has been exceeded. If it is a fact that the number of trained infantry are over the number planned, remembering the figures given last November with respect to the number of casualties forecast, and knowing the casualties which have been published in the newspapers so far, there must be thousands more overseas than were planned on. I would ask whether consideration has been given to substantially increasing the number of men coming back on rotation leave.

Mr. ABBOTT:

Consideration has been given to that and I think we have about 4,000 back already on rotation leave. Consideration is being given to increasing that number.

Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay) (Translation):

Mr. Chairman, the few remarks which I intend to make will be of a general character because we have before us the entire resolution in which we are requested to vote a sum of two billion dollars for the purposes mentioned.

As has been the case with most of the resolutions introduced by the government, I notice in that resolution things that are, to my mind, almost conflicting. In fact we are asked to vote two billion dollars towards defraying any expenditures that may be incurred for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada; secondly, for the conduct of naval, military and air operations in 32283-38

or beyond Canada; thirdly, for promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other' manner whatsoever.

In this connection I wish to say a few words. Of course, if we were to vote an appropriation for the purposes mentioned under paragraph (c) of the resolution, no one could object. Indeed, I believe we should, as far as possible, "promote the continuance of trade, industry and business communications by means of insurance, or indemnity or in any other manner whatsoever." If, in this resolution, the objects and the amounts desired had been grouped; if, for example, we had been requested to vote a billion dollars for military purposes and another billion for the objects enumerated in paragraph (c), I do not hesitate to say that, as far as the purposes of paragraph (c) are concerned, no objection could have been raised. However, as I said a moment ago, in the present resolution, as in almost every motion submitted to us, the government has included certain items that are acceptable, while all the others are not. That is why I wish to state briefly the reasons which motivate my opposition to this resolution.

It is clear that we are now requested to pass war appropriations for the seventh consecutive year, as the first was adopted at the time of the declaration of war, in 1939. It is equally clear that this year, when the turn of events indicates that we are quite rapidly approaching the end of the war, the Canadian people were entitled to expect a certain lightening of the tax burden and a lowering of expenditures for war purposes.

Now, we have before us an appropriation comparable to those we voted during the last few years, that is in 1942, 1943 and 1944. Therefore, at the present time, when all cam hope for an early conclusion of the war, when Canadian citizens who have been staggering for many years under a crushing burden of taxation could have anticipated early relief, the government offers us no prospect for the materialization of that hope which the whole population of Canada has so long entertained.

Under the circumstances I cannot see why we should have again to vote such considerable sums if we have only the occupation of Germany to deal with. It has been said that our forces should remain in Germany for some time, but on that score it would be rather easy and pretty logical, and also in accordance with past experience to have such occupation expenditures defrayed by the enemy, that is by the occupied country rather than by ourselves. As a matter of fact, in

REVISED EMTIO [DOT]

5S6

War Appropriation-The Army

view of the war effort that Canada has achieved, the maintenance of all those occupation forces should be paid for by those countries which we shall occupy.

Another matter which gives me the greatest concern and which probably also explains why the appropriation is as large this year as in the last few years, is that we wish to pursue, as we have done in the case of Germany, the war against Japan. This afternoon the right honourable the prime minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) warned the house that the claim of some newspapers to the effect that he wanted to wage war against Japan on a moderate scale, was not correct, and he quoted what he had said in order to emphasize that when he mentioned a moderate effort, he was referring to moderation not in the war against Japan, but as regards the army of occupation in Germany. Therefore, it means that we are launching against Japan a war that will lead us no one knows where and which will cost us in munitions, men and money probably as much as the war in Europe If we take such a course nobody knows what the outcome will be.

This is the very thing I want to oppose. I claim we have no reason to send expeditionary forces across the Pacific and we should not mobilize any troops to wage war on Japan when, in Asia there are whole populations anxious to fight that country; in China, for example, hundreds of thousands of men are ready to march against the Japanese as soon as they are supplied with the necessary weapons and ammunition. After five years of war in Europe, it would be only logical, just and reasonable that we refrain from sending troops-to the Pacific, being content to supply weapons and ammunition to those who ask nothing better than to settle scores with Japan.

I said a moment ago that the present appropriations leave no hope to the Canadian people of a lightening of their burden, contrary to the general expectations.

I shall also make a few remarks concerning certain controls that have been irksome for too many years.

At the approach of the end1 of the war, and this is the present situation, it seems to me that the government could have released our people from some of the present restrictions.

I shall deal more particularly with the motor truck control which, in my constituency, as in all others, I suppose, make conditions more intolerable and calamitous than ever. The main industry of Charlevoix-Saguenay is forestry, which is of paramount importance. Indeed, my constituency supplies large quantities of wood for paper-making, fuel and other gen-

eral commercial purposes. Well, last year, a good proportion of this useful wood was never taken out because the motor truck controller refused to grant permits for the purchase of trucks. It would seem that this year, at least during the few months that I have been making numerous personal calls on ithe controller, things have become even more worse than last year. Our people are refused permits to purchase the trucks they need while the dealers are running advertisements in the press offering trucks for sale. It is therefore evident that some of these vehicles are on the market, but our people are not allowed to buy them and, therefore, next winter, large quantities of wood will still remain in the bush, impending trade in general, whether of fuel wood or other forest products.

I shall bring a special case to your attention to show that these controls are often administered in a strange manner.

In the parish of Saint-Tite des Caps, county of Montmorency, there lives a certain Ludger Duclos, owner of two butter factories. Well, last summer, while production was set at the highest level, as this man could not sell his butter without taking in ration coupons in compliance with instructions from the wartime prices and trade board, he built up a large stock of this product. He then went to Quebec to reserve space in the cold storages, both those operated by the government and those owned by private concerns; but, unfortunately, nowhere could he find room for his surplus stock. Now, instead of going back home and destroying a large quantity of butter which he was unable to sell because his customers could not give him the necessary coupons, he did what every sensible man would have done under the circumstances: he disposed of his butter without asking for the required coupons. I have here a statement made under oath, showing that if he had to do that, it was on account of the fact that it was utterly impossible for him to find in Quebec an appropriate place for storing the surplus butter he had. Some time later that gentleman was arraigned before the Quebec police court, on a charge preferred by the wartime prices and trade board, and he was sentenced to pay a $500 fine.

It seems to me that, as the end of the war is in sight, those controls could have been eliminated so that our people might have sold their products on the domestic market without having to comply with the often absurd formalities of that board.

Mr. Chairman, an anomaly can be noticed in this country to-day. The Prime Minister said yesterday, that in the war against Japan

War Appropriation-The Army

nothing but the voluntary system of enlistment is contemplated, and we could see in the papers to-day, under large headlines, that in the war against Japan, volunteers only will be called. Now, if volunteers only are to serve in the war against Japan why should the Mobilization Act that was passed in 1940, be kept in force? That act, which is chapter 13 of statutes 3 and 4, George VI, has a preamble which reads as follows:

Whereas by reason of the developments since the outbreak of the present war a special emergency has arisen and the national safety of Canada has become endangered; and

Whereas it is, therefore, expedient to confer upon the governor in council special emergency powers to permit of the mobilization of all of the effective resources of the nation, both human and material, for the purpose of the defence and security of Canada, and

Whereas it is expedient that the said powers should be conferred upon the governor in council during the continuation of the state of war now existing,-

And so forth, and so on. The act was passed. Therefore, are there to-day such reasons as perhaps existed then-which I do not admit-and that could be thought to exist in 1940? '

To any observer it becomes evident, as we now expect the war in Europe to end soon, that the question of internal defence and security of Canada is no more of importance for the present; it is clear that even if Canada was subject to attack in the past, this threat has now disappeared. Therefore, the repeal of the 1940 mobilization act is now in order.

If we mean to be sincere in saying that volunteers alone will take part in the war against Japan, let us repeal the 1940 mobilization act, so that no more of our young men, as at present., will be dragged handcuffed from their homes and led to the training camps. Disguised conscription still exists to-day perhaps more so than ever and, as already stated in this house, the soldiers needed to fight Japan in Asia will be drawn from the ranks of these conscripts.

For this reason, I submit that to be honest with the Canadian people, the 1940 mobilization act. must be repealed. If, at the present time farmers were only granted leaves to work on their farms, I claim that it might then be feasible, at least temporarily, to suspend the enforcement of the 1940 mobilization act to avoid a situation which, in some instances, is really calamitous. Indeed, here is a case among possibly a hundred that I could bring to your attention. It constitutes a patent proof that our farmers' sons cannot get the necessary leaves of absence to work on the farms.

32283-38i

I wish to refer to the case of private E. Villeneuve whose regimental number is E-463443. This young man was serving in the army and last year he was given leave to work on his father's farm. Last fall, relying upon the instructions and notices published in the newspapers and' even in the offices of selective service registrars, this young man left the farm in December to work for two or three months in the bush. It is a well known fact that generally speaking in winter a farmer who has only a few head of live stock in the stable, does not need as much help as at- seeding time, in the spring, or in the summer and fall. In any event, a month after going to work in the bush, he received a notice that his leave ended on January 15, 1945 and that he was required to return to the training camp because he had not remained to work on the farm, in fulfilment of the object of his leave. I then got in touch with the Department of National Defence, and even with the minister himself, and I shall read an excerpt from the correspondence which passed1 between us at the time to show that if, in theory, the Department had the right to cancel the leave granted to this soldier, it is obvious from the correspondence which I have here, that this young man was justified in believing that he had the right to work in the bush for two or three months during the winter. I have here a notice dated December 21, 1944, issued by the Department of National Defence from which I quote the following. .

In some cases, soldiers on compassionate farm leave have inadvertently received notices from the N.S.S., Department of Labour, that if the work on the farm is completed, they may be given employment in the woods or in the lumbering industry. These cases have been drawn to the attention of the Department of Labour.

This was on December 21. It is readily seen by this notice that there were differences of opinion in the Department as to whether these young men who had received leave of absence to work on farms would be allowed to work in the bush during the winter. After making representations, I received, on February 12, 1945, a letter from the private secretary of the minister of National Defence which reads as follows;

I have your letter of 23 January, 1945, with further reference to Private Villeneuve.

No instructions have been issued by the Department of National Defence that soldiers who were granted compassionate farm leave could remain on such leave during the winter months and accept employment with the lumbering industry. It recently became apparent that an erroneous impression was prevalent in farming and lumbering circles that such changes in employment were permissible.

War Appropriation-The Army

Mr. LACROIX:

Paragraph (b) of the

resolution reads:

(b) the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada.

Will the minister tell me if the National Resources Mobilization Act, as amended by bill No- 80, will be the legal authority for the application of paragraph (b) ?

Mr. ABBOTT:

I do not know that I

quite understand my hon. friend's question.

Mr. LaCROIX (Translation): Here is my question: Paragraph (b) reads as follows:

(b) the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;

War Appropriation-The Army

Will the implementation of this part of the resolution be carried out by resorting to the mobilization act as amended by bill No. 80?

Mr. ABBOTT:

(Text) A bill will be founded upon this resolution granting $2;000/100,000 to His Majesty, and a portion of that amount will be used to pay the costs of the conduct of naval, military and air operations in and beyond Canada. I cannot see what connection there is between the National Resources Mobilization Act and bill No. 80 and the financial provisions which will be made in the bill to be founded on this resolution. Perhaps my horn, friend could elaborate a little.

Mr. LACROIX:

You have to apply this

item.

Mr. ABBOTT:

My hon. friend has been in the house much longer than I and he knows that following the adoption of this resolution, if it is adopted, an appropriation bill will be introduced to provide a vote to His Majesty of $2,000,000,000 for the purposes to be set out in the bill. Those purposes will be substantially the purposes indicated in the resolution.

Mr. GRAYDON:

I understand that the

Canadian Pharmaceutical association has been in touch with the three branches of the service from time to time over a period of I suppose, one or two or three years. Memoranda have been brought to the attention from time to time of the heads of the three armed services, particularly the army, having to do with the status of pharmacists in the armed forces, and a suggestion has been made by the association looking, toward the setting up of a pharmaceutical unit in the army. I have copies of the correspondence which has been sept to me in connection with the memoranda of the association, and I would ask the parliamentary assistant before his estimates are disposed of to explain what the policy of the government will be in connection with that application. It would be an imposition to ask him in his present position to reply now, tout after consultation with the officials of his department perhaps he would outline to the committee just what the situation is and what the policy of the government will be.

Mr. ABBOTT:

As the committee knows,

I have not been associated with the department very long and I was not aware that these representations had been made. I shall inform myself on this subject and endeavour to give my hon. friend an answer to-morrow.

Mr. WHITE:

Were any officers or policemen injured or killed in the recent riot at Drummondville?

Mr. ABBOTT:

I know that none was

killed and I do not know that any were injured. I shall make inquiries and hope to be able to inform my hon. friend to-morrow. I think a statement was issued by the department shortly after the incident.

Mr. WHITE:

Has the department given

any consideration to increasing the pay of troops once they proceed overseas, and has any consideration been given to granting what is known as long-service pay?

Mr. ABBOTT:

I do not know whether

such consideration has been given but I shall be glad to inquire and give my hon. friend the information later.

Mr. GRAYDON:

There arises out of overseas mail I received this afternoon a matter which might properly be drawn to the attention of the parliamentary assistant. I have heard this complaint before, but I did not think it had attained such prominence in the minds of those overseas as this letter would indicate. The letter was dated March 22, which would indicate that the mail service was not seriously delayed, and my correspondent, a man from my own town, writes me as follows:

One thing we would like to know is why aren't we issued with Canadian cigarettes in our rations, instead of British smokes?

He goes on to say: .

The English fellows say that ours are much better than their own.

This is a matter which I do not apologize for bringing before the committee because it has often come to my attention before, but this letter is so recent that, as the opportunity is now afforded for questions and answers in committee, I would ask the parliamentary assistant to look into this complaint and let the committee know what the real situation is and what possibility there is of remedying it. This is perhaps one of those little things that nevertheless loom large in the minds of the boys overseas and I would appreciate it if the parliamentary assistant would tell us if anything can be done about it.

Mr. ABBOTT:

I shall certainly make

inquiries and give my hon. friend a reply. I have heard from friends of my own who have been overseas that the supply of Canadian cigarettes was pretty fair over there, that there are substantial supplies available. Why the issue consists of British cigarettes

War Appropriation-The Army

rather than Canadian I do not know, but I shall be glad to make inquiries and give my hon. friend an answer.

Mr. HAZEN: