Mr. MACKENZIE :

Mr. Speaker, may I point out to the hon. member who has just spoken that this resolution does not introduce any new element. Some days ago the house decided as to the principle of the resolution, and his own party-very wisely, I think- with the exception of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), voted for it. This resolution simply nominates the personnel who are to serve jointly upon the committee with members from the other house. However, the powers given the committee were stated definitely in the earlier resolution. The committee will consider the design for a flag and will then report back to the house. Then the house may either accept or reject the report of that committee, or adopt whatever course it may consider fit ard proper.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the

house to adopt the motion.

Carried.

Mr. CHURCH:

On division.

Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin)? Has any report been received by the chief electoral officer regarding alleged irregularities in the federal constituency of Melville last June? If so, will the minister table a copy of the report.

Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):

Mr. Speaker, in the absence

of the Secretary of State I understand and as the member concerned, I wish to state that the report following an investigation held respecting a certain poll in the constituency of Melville was received by the chief electoral officer this morning. I learned just before coming to the house that the report has been received and is thirty some odd pages in length, and that it will have to be copied before it will be possible to lay a copy of it on the table.

Mr. HOMUTH:

Are you still a member?

Mr. GARDINER:

I am still a member, yes.

Mr. MACKENZIE:

And he will be a

member, too.

Mr. GARDINER:

I do not think the

purpose of the investigation would be properly served unless this were made public; and of course the proper way to make it public is to place a copy on the table of the house.

Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):

I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Press reports indicate that there has been some change in the demobilization programme by which men eligible for discharge may remain in the. service for an extended period, pending their finding suitable employment. Will the minister give the house a statement respecting this change?

Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defencq):

I am obliged to my hon. friend for asking the question, because the press reports to which he has referred would appear to have given rise to some misunderstanding. There has been no change in the

2240 COMMONS

Demobilization-Munitions and Supply

basic policy of demobilization, which is that men who have a point score, who are eligible for discharge, and for whom there is no longer any military necessity, are discharged. However, that policy has never been applied harshly. In a case where a man has indicated he would like to stay in the service for a short time, provided that suitable and essential employment can be found for him, he has been kept in, and someone who perhaps is in a slightly lower priority position is discharged in his place.

As my hon. friend knows, the machinery for discharge, if I may so describe it, is now operating pretty well at capacity, to the extent of about 40,000 a month, and we will continue it.

So far as possible, the policy to which I have" referred, of allowing a man who wishes to stay in for a couple of weeks or a month, to stay, will be followed. However, I think I can point out that considerations of that kind have never entered into a large number of cases, and it would be impossible to have it so.

Mr. GREEN:

Is there a limit to the length of time a man may stay in the- forces?