QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Did the government purchase a ship called the George Washington in the United States?
2.	If so, when, what was the cost thereof, and who were the former owners?
3.	For what purpose was it bought, who reported on the seaworthiness and utility, and was an inspection made to establish the state of its repair?
4.	What was the cost of additions or repairs to it after purchase?
5.	What uses have been made of it?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	3, 4 and 5. Answered by 1.


INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES-CALLING OUT OP ACTIVE MILITIA
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	At what dates since 1915 and in what localities has the Canadian active militia been called out by order of the governor in council or otherwise, for the purpose of quelling riots or disturbances arising from industrial disputes?
2.	In each case, out of what particular dispute did the riot or disturbance necessitating that the militia be called out, arise?
3.	What were the immediate causes of the disturbance in each case?
4.	What were the general causes of the disturbance in each case?
5.	If the disturbance resulted from a strike, what were the causes and the final result of the strike?
6.	In what cases (if any) did the disturbances relate to political matters and discontent with government?
7.	What overt acts were committed by the persons responsible for the riot or disturbances?
8.	What was the strength of the militia force on each occasion?
9.	For what length of time was the militia on duty on each occasion?
10.	Where was the militia force which was called out on each occasion, stationed before the disturbances; after the disturbances?
11.	How many casualties (if any) resulted on each occasion that the militia was called out, among militiamen? Among civilians?
12.	How many arrests were made of alleged rioters, et cetera, on each occasion that the militia was called out in this way?
13.	What were the charges laid against each arrested person on each occasion?
14.	How many convictions were made of those arrested on each occasion? Where were the trials held? Are there reports of these trials?


Mr. RALSTON:: I have already asked my hon. friend to reconsider this question and have expressed my own view that it should not be pressed on account of the multiplicity of detail involved in giving an answer to the question as it stands. My hon. friend has called "stand" on two or three occasions when the question has been called. I do not know whether he has given further consideration to the matter or not, but I would ask that he do so.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I have given it consideration, Mr. Speaker, but I think the house is entitled to this information. If the minister desires to have the question stand to-day, I will consult with him to see in what respect the amount of detail involved could be cut down. But I do feel that this information is important and that the house should have it.


James Layton Ralston: I suggest to my hon. friend that he put his question as a notice of motion for papers. Then it can be discussed. It is not properly a question.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The suggestion is made that the question be put in the form of a notice of motion for papers and that the question be dropped now.


John Horne Blackmore: I will do that, Mr. Speaker.


Georges Parent: Dropped.
Questions


CANADIAN FORCES IN ENGLAND-BEER AND SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What quantity each of beer and spirituous liquors have been sent, prior to April 30, 1942, to the Canadian forces in England?
2.	From whom were these supplies purchased?
3.	What amount of money was paid to each of the brewing or distilling firms for these supplies?


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, may I make an oral reply? The answer to question 1 is: None by the Department of National Defence, and so far as I know, none by any other governmental authority. Questions 2 and 3 are answered by the answer to question 1.
1 and 2.
. Members of the board Brig.-Gen. the Hon. Mr. Justice J. F. L.
Embury, C.B., C.M.G., VD., Chairman______
Mr. A. Carl Stewart, K.C., M.I .A	
Mr. George Bickerton


NATIONAL WAR SERVICES BOARD, REGINA
Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the national war services board, division M, Regina, Saskatchewan ?
2.	What salary, per diem allowance, or expenses have each received since its inception?
3.	How many of a secretarial staff are employed by this board, what are their names, salaries and expense accounts?
4.	How many in each of the following classes have been called up through this office, (a) farmers, (b) farmers' sons, (c) agricultural workers ?
5.	How many, (a) farmers, (b) farmers' sons, (c) agricultural workers, were refused postponement up to April 30, 1942?


Mr. THORSON:: Salary	Per diem allowances	Travelling expensesNil	$1,166 00	$745 31U	2,330 50	359 27U	2,112 00	550 603.	(a) One.(b)	Miss E. G. Cannon, stenographer, Grade 1, does secretarial work of the board and assists on the staff of the registrar when not engaged on this work.(c)	Salary: $65 per month, plus cost-of-living bonus.(d)	Travelling expenses: Since employment commenced, Februaiy 1, 1942, $65.05.4.	It is not possible to answer this question. Men are not called up for military training by occupations or trades; therefore, no complete statistics are kept as to the number of farmers, farmers' sons, agricultural workers, etc., who are being called for military training.5.	The total number of farmers, farmers' sons, agricultural workers, called out who applied for the postponement of the period of their military training was 2,992.
The total number of such applications granted by the board, division "M" was 1,854.
The total number refused was 1,138.


TRADE AND COMMERCE PUBLICATIONS
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	How much does the Department of Trade and Commerce spend annually in its distribution of publications, (a) for all the provinces, (b) for each province?
2.	Would the government consider greatly reducing these publications or eliminating them altogether for the period of the war and thus save labour and paper?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1. (a)	$113,800.75-printing and distribution. This figure includes such publications as annual reports, etc., which are required by
statute.
(b) Information not available by provinces.
2.	The publication, and circulation, of certain statistics has already been withdrawn, and every consideration will be given to further economy, insofar as the need for statistical and other services may permit.


RELEASES FROM INTERNMENTS
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: How many persons were released from internment camps in Canada in each month from October, 1939, to April, 1941?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1939	1940	1941January	21	11February	16	23March	21	24April	26	May	3	June	3	July	4	August	4	September	.. 2	2	October	.. 6	21	November	.. 18	18	December	
Total-284.	.. 30 ~56	31 170	58
Questions


PRISON CAMPS-OFFICER PERSONNEL
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Did a British officer resident in Canada, with extensive experience in large prison camps in the last war, offer his services to the government in this war?
2.	If so, why was this officer not employed?


James Layton Ralston: Since the outbreak of hostilities, approximately 40,000 offers of service have been dealt with in this department. It is, therefore, not possible to identify the individual referred to or to furnish the information unless the name of the officer in question is supplied.


TOURIST AOVERTISIN G
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	How much does tourist advertising cost?
2.	Have the provincial governments got similar services?
3.	In view of the necessity for conserving rubber and gasoline, would the government consider the abolition of this tourist department as a war measure?


Mr. THORSON:: 1.	For the fiscal year 1941-42:
Advertising	 $345,373 21
Publications	 20,337 57
Total	 $365,710 78
2.	All provincial governments maintain tourist development departments for the purpose of promoting tourist traffic into their respective provinces.
3.	In view of the existing war-time conditions, the activities of the Canadian travel bureau have been greatly curtailed. The abolition of the Canadian travel bureau is a matter of governmental policy, which will be made known in due course.


WORKERS IN ST. PAUL L'ERMITE WAR INDUSTRIES -TRANSPORTATION
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	Is the government paying the cost of transportation of Montreal workmen who are employed in the war industries at St. Paul l'Ermite (Plant Cherrier) ?
2.	Is the government paying for the transportation of workmen residing in the counties of Joliette, L'Assomption, Montcalm and Berthier, who are employed in the same shops?
3.	If not, does the government propose to accord the same treatment to all these workpeople and to reimburse those living in the four counties named for the cost of their daily transportation retroactive to the commencement of the enterprise?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Yes, partially. The company supplies free transportation service from Ontario Street East, Montreal, to the plant at Cherrier, a
distance of 151 miles. Workers who use this free transportation service pay their own transportation charges from their homes to the railway depot at Ontario Street East and return.
2.	No, except that all workers in the plant, from whatever district they come, work eight hours per day and are paid for 8i hours to compensate, in part at least for transportation costs. Workers who live east of the plant do not receive any free transportation except as stated above.
3.	The department does not propose to assume transportation costs in addition to those already in effect and especially on a retroactive basis. Such a course of action would involve heavy expenses and similar arrangements in other plants.


DR. H. H. CHRISTIE
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	Is Dr. H. H. Christie, formerly of Esterhazy, Saskatchewan, employed by the dominion government?
2.	If so, in what capacity?
3.	Did his appointment receive the endorsa-tion of the Canadian Medical Association?
4.	What salary, travelling expenses, and other forms of remuneration has he received since being employed by the dominion government?


Mr. THORSON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Supervisor of medical services, Department of National War Services.
3.	Such endorsation was not requested. Dr. Christie is a past president of the Saskatchewan branch of the Canadian Medical Association and he resigned from the position of member of the health services board of the province of Saskatchewan to accept his present appointment.
4.	Salary at the rate of $5,000 per year and $881.22 for necessary travelling expenses from September 10, 1940, to the date of this reply.


POST-DISCHARGE BENEFITS TO EX-SOLDIERS
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: How many men with dependents and how many single men, discharged from this war, are now in receipt of post-discharge benefits pending employment?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Men with dependents, 314; single men, 348.
CANADIAN ARMY (RESERVE)-DEPENDENTS* ALLOWANCE


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Are members of the reserve army, when serving in the annual 2-week camp, allowed dependents' allowance, and if so, what is the rate of allowance.


James Layton Ralston: Members of the reserve army do not receive dependents' allowance
Questions

when performing annual training. They are paid under the provisions of pay and allowance regulations for the permanent and nonpermanent active militia 1937, which govern the army when not placed on active service.


RESTRICTIONS ON TRAVEL BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND CANADA
Mr. BRUCE:: Will the government institute the necessary proceedings to overcome the present restrictions on free travel between the United States and Canada?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Restrictions on travel between Canada and the United States have been and are being studied by the joint economic committees and by other agencies of the two governments. It is the desire of both governments that these restrictions shall be removed as soon as conditions make such a step feasible, and that, in the meantime, they shall cause as little dislocation as possible in legitimate and necessary travel between the two countries.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	What was the total number of soldiers in Canada and overseas entitled to vote on the recent plebiscite?
2.	What number of these cast their ballots,
(a)	in Canada, (b) overseas?
3.	Were precautions taken to ensure the secrecy of the ballot?


CAMP BORDEN-PURCHASE OP COAL
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	From whom was coal purchased for use at Camp Borden from January 1, 1941, to date?
2.	How many tons were purchased; what were the various kinds of coal supplied and the price paid for each of them?
3.	Did the successful vendors secure the contract by tender? If so, what other persons or companies tendered and what prices were asked by the unsuccessful tenderers?


Mr. MICHAUD:: Return tabled.


EXPORTS OF BACON TO BRITAIN
Mr. WRIGHT:: 1.	What was the total amount of bacon exported during the first six mouths of the 1940 bacon agreement?
2.	What was the total amount of bacon exported during the first six months of the 1941 bacon agreement?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	247,651,000 pounds of bacon were purchased1 for shipment during the first six months of the 1940 bacon agreement.
2.	325,675,000 pounds of bacon were purchased for shipment during the first six months of the 1941 bacon agreement.



PLEBISCITE'-VOTE IN BASIC TRAINING CENTRES

Mr. CASSELMAN:: What was the total vote, (a) yes, (b) no, in each basic training centre in Canada in the recent plebiscite?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The votes cast by Canadian service voters at the plebiscite were not classified according to basic training centres. The votes of Canadian service voters stationed in Canada were counted by voting sections with the following result:
Affirmative
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island	 41,720
Ontario and Quebec...	93.203
Manitoba, Saskatchewan,
Alberta, British Columbia, and Yukon ...	55,721
Negative
5,821
20,341
11,016



PETAWAWA CAMP-PURCHASE OF COAL

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	From whom was coal purchased for use at Petaw'awa camp since January 1, 1941, to date?
2.	How many tons were purchased; what w'ere the several kinds of coal supplied and the price of each of them?
3.	Did the said company or companies secure the contract to supply such coal by tender?
4.	If so, what other companies tendered and what was the price asked by each?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Return tabled.



MILITARY SERVICE-POSTPONEMENTS

George Hugh Castleden: How many postponements were granted prior to April 10, 1942, by each of the national war services boards in which the postponement was given conditional to the applicant enrolling in the reserve forces?



PLEBISCITE-PRESS ADVERTISING

Mr. BRUCE:: 1. What was the cost of advertising the recent plebiscite campaign, (a) in all daily and weekly newspapers in Ontario, (b) in the protestant religious press, (c) in the Roman Catholic press?



MILITARY SERVICE-FARM LEAVE

Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	How many military recruits have applied for farm leave in military districts 4 and 5 since March?
2.	How many have been granted leave for harvesting and other farm v'ork?
3.	Is it true that some of these men have obtained leave for six weeks only?

Questions as Orders for Returns



PUBCHASE OF DUNSMUIR HOTEL PROPERTY AT VANCOUVER

Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Has the government purchased the property known as the Dunsmuir hotel at Vancouver, British Columbia?
2.	If so, who was the registered owner of this property at the time of purchase by the government ?
3.	Did the government purchase the property from the registered owner or from the holder of an option on the hotel?
4.	If from the holder of an option, what is the name of such person?
5.	What was, (a) the purchase price, (b) the terms of payment?
6.	What was the assessed value of this property at the time of purchase, (a) land,
(b)	buildings?



SUBSIDY TO NOVA SCOTIA MILK PRODUCERS

Mr. PURDY:: 1.	Has the bonus which was formerly paid to producers of fluid milk in Nova Scotia been discontinued?
2.	If so, has any increase in retail price of milk in Halifax and other centres or other assistance to milk producers been authorized or arranged for to offset this?
3.	Have protests been lodged with the government by Mr. Harold A. Reid, Shubenacadie, secretary of the United Milk Producers' Association, and other organizations with respect to this situation, pointing out that unless an adjustment is made promptly there will be a milk famine in the district?
4.	What is the present ceiling retail price for fluid milk in, (a) Halifax, (b) Saint John?
5.	Will the government investigate the situation promptly?
6.	What was the price per ton Fort William
at the end of each month during 1941 and 1942 to date, for carload lots of:	(a) bran, (b)
shorts, (c) middlings, (d) barley meal, (e) oat chop?
7.	What is the freight per ton on feed grain from Fort William to (a) Saint John, (b) Halifax?



CONTROLLERS

Mr. SHAW:: 1.	How many controllers have been appointed since September, 1939?
2.	What is the name and address of each controller?
3.	What was the occupation or profession of each such controller at the time of or immediately prior to his appointment as controller?
4.	Were any or all controllers obliged as a condition of appointment to sever connections with the business carried on privately at the time of appointment?
5.	What rates of salary, wages, living allowances, travelling expenses, etc., are paid to controllers, and what amount or amounts have been paid to each controller from appointment to date?
6.	What specific commodity (or commodities) is controlled by each controller?
7.	Where is each central control office located?
8.	How many regional control offices have been set up since September, 1939?
9.	What is the name and the address of each official in charge of a regional control office?
10.	What was the occupation or profession of each regional control officer at the time of or immediately prior to the time of his appointment?
11.	How many regional controllers still continue to carry on the businesses in which they were engaged at the time of appointment?
12.	What are the names of those regional controllers who still carry on private businesses?
13.	What rate of salary, wage, living allowance, etc., is paid to each regional controller?



PLEBISCITE-ADVERTISING IN CHURCH PUBLICATIONS

Mr. FAIR:: What amount of money was expended by the government for plebiscite advertising in publications of the following churches, (a) United, (b) Presbyterian, (c) Baptist, (d) Church of England, (e) Roman Catholic, (f) Salvation Army, (g) other churches, specifying same?



VOLUNTARY RECRUITING FIGURES

Mrs. NIELSEN:: What are the figures for voluntary recruiting for, (a) March, 1941, March, 1942, (b) April, 1941, April, 1942, (c) May, 1941, May, 1942! to date?



MILITARY SERVICE-FARMERS AND FARM WORKERS

Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	Is the government aware of the growing scarcity of farm labourers?
2.	Since the statement of the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on March 24 last, relative to the military service of persons employed on farms, have any farmers and their sons and agricultural labourers generally, been called up for compulsory military training? If so, how many?
3.	How many farmers, sons of farmers and farm employees generally, were, by virtue of the Mobilization Act of 1940, actually undergoing training on March 23, 1942, and have since applied for leave of absence to resume their farm work, (a) to how many has such leave been granted; (b) to how many has it been refused? '



ATTESTATIONS AT BASIC TRAINING CENTRES FOR ACTIVE SERVICE

Frederick Clayton Casselman: What percentage of "R" recruits have gone active while receiving their training at each basic training centre since March, 1941 (by training centres) ?

Motions I or Papers



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, agreements and other documents, (a) supporting,
(b)	protesting the consolidating of Indian reservations in Nova Scotia into two or a lesser number than now exist; also a statement giving (a) the name, location, acreage of each present reservation, and number of Indian residents on each, (b) the name, location and acreage of proposed consolidated reservations,
(c)	the number of Indians not now living on reservations, but under the control of the government, (d) the number of Indians living in Nova Scotia not on reservations or under the direct control of the government; also the total number of Indians living in Nova Scotia, (a) males, 21 years and over at last census, (b) females, 21 years and over at last census,
(c)	number of males under 21 years of age at last census, (d) number of females under 21 years of age at last census.


Percy Chapman Black: The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) has provided me with such information as I require, and I would ask that this motion be dropped.


Georges Parent: Dropped.



CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

Mr. SENN:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams or other communications and replies thereto which have passed between members of the House of Commons or the provincial legislature and the Department of National War Services, or any official thereof, or between such members and the divisional administration of the national war services board of the province of Saskatchewan regarding the subject of conscientious objectors.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL AMENDING OR SUSPENDING STATUTES

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: For a copy of all orders in council passed since the outbreak of war which amend, suspend or otherwise alter the operation of any statute or statutes passed by the parliament of Canada, and a list of all statutes so effected.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The clerk of the, privy council informs me that amendments or suspensions of the nature asked for by my hon. friend are very few and they are resorted to only in cases of emergency. On the other hand, approximately 24,000 orders in council and 13,000 treasury board minutes have been passed since the outbreak of war. The production of papers requested in this notice of motion would involve a prohibitive amount of time and labour as it entails the consultation of each individual order in council. The motion which my hon. friend moves is very

similar to a question asked on May 19, 1941, which was acknowledged. I would suggest to my hon. friend that he have a talk with the clerk of the privy council about the matter to see if in some other way he cannot get the information he desires, but certainly to pass the order as it stands would involve an amount of labour which I do not think would be justified at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Naturally I do not want a list of all orders in council. I am not trying to find out the orders in council that have been passed pursuant to statutes, but orders in council that have the direct result of altering statutes passed by parliament. As there are only very few of these I should think it would be possible to get that information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend means any orders in council that specifically override certain statutes, it might be possible to get that information.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He must realize, however, that there may be sections in statutes that are quite obscure and nevertheless may have been overriden by some orders in council of which no one had any knowledge or idea at the time. What I will ask, if it will suit my hon. friend's purpose, is that the ministers of the different departments look over any orders that they are aware of, or that their staffs may be aware of, that have been passed, overriding statutes, and have them brought down in the form of a return. Subject to that modification the order may be passed.
Motion as amended agreed to.



IMPORTS OP COAL-DUTY PAID AT TORONTO

Joseph William Noseworthy: For a statement showing the amount of duty paid, at the port of Toronto, by Toronto firms importing coal from the United States, on each day between the 15th of April and the 15th of July (inclusive), 1940.


Mr. GIBSON:: It has always been the policy of the government to refuse to divulge information concerning the personal affairs of an individual taxpayer. Under the circumstances I cannot consent to produce figures showing the customs duties paid by individual importers.
Motion dropped.

Prairie Farm Assistance



GASOLINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: I had a
question to direct to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). I see he is not in his seat, but possibly some other minister can give me the information.
At midnight on Friday May 15, the oil controller for Canada cut the value of gasoline coupons in the maritime provinces from five to two gallons. I should like to ask the minister the following questions:	(1) Is it not
possible to regulate the distribution of gasoline in Canada so that the maritime provinces will not be discriminated against? (2) Is gasoline reshipped from the maritime provinces to other points in Canada? (3) How long will it be before the gasoline coupon will again be worth five gallons in the maritime provinces?
I sent notice of this question to the minister.


Georges Parent: This will be considered
as notice of the question.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South):	In view of the promise made by
the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) with respect to the employment of boys of seventeen years of age in industries engaged in war work but not declared essential industries, that he would take this up with the interested minister, could the Minister of National War Services give the house an answer to-day? These boys are now leaving school and are more or less out on a limb as a result of this statement and so are the industries.
Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The administration
of the order in council to which my hon. friend refers is with the Department of Labour and the director of national selective service. I understand that the matter was dealt with at a conference that was held last week, but what the decision was I personally am not aware. I shall bring the question immediately to the attention of my colleague the Minister of Labour.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Might we have an answer to-morrow, in view of the urgency of the matter?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I shall bring it to his attention immediately.


James Layton Ralston: May I interpose to say that I did refer to the matter the next day? Perhaps what I said was not satisfactory, but I immediately took it up with the director of national selective service and found that the regulations were such that almost automatically permits were granted to young men seventeen years of age to accept employment for their vacations. That was covered by a direction issued by the director of national selective service, which seemed to solve the problem. I am sorry I cannot give the page of Hansard on which the statement is to be found, but the regulation is there. I read it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I remember the minister's answer, but it does not solve the problem.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I have received numerous letters in regard to farm bonus payments, over the last week-end I received thirty-two from my constituency. Most of the wheat acreage reduction payments are made, but the great difficulty is the payments under the prairie farm assistance and prairie farm income plans. Would the minister say what action is being taken to get these cleared up?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: As the hon. member has stated, practically all the payments under the wheat acreage reduction have been made. I suppose it would still be possible to get thirty-two letters from certain sections of Alberta where payments have not been completed.


Charles Edward Johnston: This was over one week-end.


James Garfield Gardiner: Under the prairie farm assistance plan there will be some townships not yet passed-that is where there is a dispute as to whether the payment should be on the basis of eight to twelve bushels or four to eight bushels per acre, or between other categories, or where appeal has been made by the council against the decision of the board. Individuals from those townships may be complaining, and may have some
IVeekly Secret Sessions

reason to complain, as to payments not having been made, but the matter cannot possibly be completed until the appeals are settled.


Charles Edward Johnston: What about the prairie farm income?


James Garfield Gardiner: Those payments are based on the decision made in connection with prairie farm assistance so far as individuals are concerned. Payments in townships on prairie farm income are not made until prairie farm assistance payments are passed on.



REQUEST FOR WEEKLY SECRET SITTINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): In reference to what was said on Friday by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) may I ask the government if it would not be possible to have a secret sitting once a week until further notice? It could be easily done on any day of the week, preferably Wednesday. Its establishment as a weekly custom would prevent the Canadian people from thinking there was any special emergency, and it would give hon. members opportunity to seek from the government information that could not be disclosed in the press.
Karl Kenneth Homuth: There is too much secrecy now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly the hon. member for Waterloo South has given expression to a view that a large section of the public holds, and I think it is a point of view that has to be very carefully considered. The reply made to the hon. member for Gaspe last week was that he should give the information which he had to the minister of the department concerned, and if the minister thought the information to be of a kind which rendered a secret sitting advisable it would be so arranged by the government. I am advised that the information conveyed to the minister, in his opinion and the opinion of the cabinet-I can speak for the cabinet because I was present at the discussion-does not warrant the calling of a secret sitting.
As to my hon. friend's suggestion that we should have secret sessions at stated times, I think the public would be inclined to take the view that so far as sittings can be open they 
should be open, and that the government should resort to secret sittings only where there appears to be the strongest of reasons.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 15, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding $2,000,000,000 for the year ending March 31, 1943, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. McCann in the chair.

John Horne Blackmore: On May 11 the minister made certain remarks, recorded on page 2328 of Hansard, which seem to me to deserve some comment.
The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) asked the following question:
It seems to me only fair that something should be done to put those men-
Referring to the men working on farms.
-on an equal basis with their brothers and cousins who have gone to the cities and are enjoying much higher wages.
The minister replied as follows:
We did give some consideration to the question of a bonus, but it was felt that it would be almost impossible to work out any kind of bonus scheme that would be at all adequate. If you fixed a certain amount, in one part of the country it would be a pure gift; it would be much too high. On the other hand, in some areas that I have particularly mentioned, if a bonus were paid to farm labour to keep men on the land or attract them to the land, it would not be enough to counterbalance the superior attractions of high wages that would pull men from the farms into war industries.
Again the minister used the following words:	.
But there is a difference between equality of contribution to the effectiveness of the war effort and equality of sacrifice. I cannot think of any scheme that can bring about equality of sacrifice in time of war and at the same time make for maximum effectiveness.
May I interrupt this quotation just long enough to ask the minister why he has come to that conclusion. Why should maximum effectiveness be any more easily attainable when men are not making equality of sacrifice?
I utterly fail to follow the minister's line of thought there.
There is not equality of remuneration or reward either.	There is no equality of
remuneration between the soldier, sailor or airman, and the young man who works in a

War Appropriation-War Services
war industry at a high rate of pay; or between the man in the war industry and the man on the farm who has his difficult task to perform. They are all essential to the effectiveness of the war effort, but there is not equality of remuneration and there is not equality of reward. The man who enlists voluntarily has his. own remuneration and his own reward. It is inside him. He knows that he answered the call of his country when the call came. When this conflict is all over he will remember, even if everyone else has forgotten, that he answered when the call came. That is his reward, and that reward cannot go to anyone except the volunteer. So these conceptions of equality of sacrifice and equality of remuneration are easy to talk about, but the thing with which I am sure every hon. member is concerned is maximum effectiveness, even though that has to be achieved at the expense of such things as equality of sacrifice.
Again the idea in the minister's mind seems to be that in order to obtain maximum effectiveness you must depart from the principle of equality of sacrifice. I do not agree with the minister in any respect with regard to that matter. Surely it is not going to add to the effectiveness of our war effort if we are to have inequality of sacrifice, inequality of remuneration, and inequality of reward. The minister speaks as though the problem had been taken up and found difficult, and therefore had been left unsolved and neglected or laid aside. That is simply not good enough in this country at the present time. It may be impossible to bring about equality of sacrifice or equality of reward1, but certainly it is not impossible to give adequacy of reward. There are altogether too many people who have the idea that only our fighting men should be sacrificed; that without earning any great reward, they should be expected to face a future over which they have no control whatever. The idea seems to be that the next in line for sacrifice without reward is the man on the farm. Where such nonsensical ideas had their origin I cannot understand. These people, our fighters and our farmers, are of the greatest value to the country; these are the people who should be most adequately rewarded.
I feel that right now, without waiting for this session to close, we should definitely lay down the principle that every man who serves in the armed forces of this country must be guaranteed the means of establishing and maintaining a home. The pittance that these men receive at the present time certainly will not enable them to do that. Canada must have homes. How on earth can the British race survive, in competition with other races that have sense enough to realize the value of children, if the British race will not likewise realize the value of children and will not
enable their people to raise them? It is time we woke up, as a race, before we are eliminated from the competition. Canada must have homes and children. Those children must have the opportunity of growing into useful citizens. I feel that what the minister has said requires a great deal of explanation.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There is not a great deal that I can add to what I stated on May 11, when I made the remarks to which the hon member for Lethbridge has referred. Our war effort is not a onesided effort. We have set our war objectives very definitely; we have indicated the various purposes of that war effort. Perhaps I might state them again. In the main they are threefold. We should raise the strongest armed forces possible, in the army, the navy and the air force, both as to number and as to quality of personnel, so that our fighting forces may be as effective as possible both in defensive and in striking power. That, I think, might be stated as our war objective as far as the armed forces are concerned. To send armed forces overseas without the necessary equipment would be the height of folly. Therefore we have another war objective. We must produce as much in the way of ships, planes, tanks, guns and other munitions of war and war supplies and equipment as it is possible for this country to produce. We have a double duty now in this regard; for not only do we have to produce munitions of war for our own armed forces, but we have entered into an obligation to supply Britain with a billion dollars' worth of munitions and supplies for her armed forces. Thirdly, we have set as a war objective the production of as much in the way of essential foodstuffs as can be transported overseas.
I have stated three war objectives, one relating to the armed forces, the army, the navy and the air force; the second relating to the production of munitions of war, and the third to the production of essential foodstuffs. Each of these objectives must be attained if this country is to make an all-out war effort, and we must move toward the attainment of these objectives concurrently.
Now, having stated the objectives and the necessity of moving forward to these objectives concurrently in the interests of the maximum effectiveness of our war effort, I am able to reply further, if any reply is necessary, to the hon. member for Lethbridge with respect to the matter of equality of sacrifice. If these

War Appropriation-War Services
objectives of our war effort are to be attained, it must be done through the use of adequate man-power for the respective purposes of these objectives. I would ask the hon. member for Lethbridge what equality of sacrifice is possible between, let us say, a young man who enters the air force as a member of a fighting crew, whose days may be numbered from the very moment he enlists, and the young man or older man who works in a munitions plant at $5, $6, $7 or $8 per day. What equality of sacrifice is possible between our airmen, our soldiers and our sailors who offer their lives, and the farmer, who while he is doing his essential work is on his farm? What equality of sacrifice is possible under these circumstances? Yet we must have men in our fighting services, and we have-I say it to the credit of Canadian youth-men volunteering their services in the fighting forces, in the army, in the navy and in the air force. The sacrifice they make is the greatest sacrifice of all; for they offer their lives; many of them have given their lives.
In order to have maximum effectiveness of the war effort we must also have the production of the necessary munitions of war. We must also have production of the necessary food supplies, not only to keep our own nation alive, but also to supply Britain and our other allies. These are essential war purposes without which this country could not make an all-out war effort. But there is no equality of sacrifice in the matter. The farmer, while he is performing his essential work in that part of our war objective, is not making a sacrifice equal to that of the airmen or the soldiers or the sailors I have mentioned, and no farmer in this country would claim that he is. He knows he is not. Nor is any person who is working in a munitions plant making a sacrifice equal to that of the airman, the soldier or the sailor. To say that men in the munitions plants are in the front line in the same way as the soldiers, sailors and airmen is nonsense.


Mr. GILLIS:: Why the difference in wages, then?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am dealing with
equality of sacrifice. There may be equality of contribution to the effectiveness of the war effort, and that is very necessary indeed. But there is a difference between equality of contribution to the effectiveness of the war effort and equality of sacrifice.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Some are getting paid for very little contribution.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Men do not enlist for pay; men enlist for other reasons. They enlist out of a sense of duty. They do it in the air force, they do it in the army, they do it in the navy. They are not thinking of equality of sacrifice; they are ready to make the greatest of all sacrifices. They did it in the last war, and they are doing it in this one. I am getting tired of the expression "equality of sacrifice". If it could be brought about, yes; but the very nature of war makes it impossible, because the sacrifice the one makes is in a field where he offers his life, and the one the other makes is in another field. Both are necessary for the purposes of war. One man gives of his best through his skill and labour. There may be equality of contribution to the effectiveness of the war effort, but that is a vastly different thing from equality of sacrifice.
There cannot be equality of sacrifice in war and maximum effectiveness in the war effort at the same time. Let me illustrate what I mean. Take for example two young men in a war industry, both of whom are of the same age, both physically fit, and both of the highest possible value, let us say, to the armed forces. One of them has been in the plant for years, and has become a highly skilled and trained precision tool man who could not be replaced in that plant by anyone else in less than two or three years. The other young man has been in the plant only a short time. He is not essential to war industry, nor to that purpose in the war effort that I mentioned.
It is the purpose of selective service to place persons in that field of activity in which each can make the greatest contribution to the war effort. If we are thinking of the maximum effectiveness of the war effort we will take the man who recently came into the war industry and place him in the armed forces. We might for the same reason leave the other man in war industry, because he is essential to it. Each of those men makes an equal contribution to the effectiveness of the war effort.


Charles Edward Johnston: They should be paid the same, then.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: But their equality of
sacrifice is not the same.


Charles Edward Johnston: Should they not be paid the same, though?

War Appropriation-War Services


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The question of pay is a totally different matter.


Charles Edward Johnston: But there is discrimination.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am dealing with the expression "equality of sacrifice", and I should like to put that phrase before the Canadian people so that they will stop talking about equality of sacrifice in war and maximum effectiveness of war effort at the same time. The two ideas are inconsistent with each other. If we could have equality of sacrifice in time of war, I would be in favour of it, but the very nature of war makes impossible equality of sacrifice among all persons who make their contribution to the success of the war effort.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Are we not all-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Do not interrupt me, please. War demands of its youngest and strongest men the greatest of sacrifice-unfortunate, indeed; but that is war.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Many of them are in the factories.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: If we are to make the most effective war effort these are facts we must recognize. I want to make a distinction between equality of sacrifice in time of war and equality of contribution to the effectiveness of the war effort. We can have in a war equality of contribution to the effectiveness of the war effort, but I for one cannot see how we can have equality of sacrifice.


Mr. POULIOT:: I have two duties to fulfil. In the first place I wish to congratulate the minister upon what he has just said and upon the way he has acted as the head of his department. He has had fine legal training and besides that he possesses a deep knowledge of parliamentary traditions. When hon. members ask for information he tries to get it if it is available. In the second place I wish to express my deep gratefulness to my colleagues for the kindness they show to the member for Temiscouata whenever he rises to speak or to ask any questions.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: They are very proud of you.


Jean-François Pouliot: This spirit of fraternity is shown by them all, including the hon. member for Wateloo South (Mr. Homuth).
I should like to ask the minister to see that a correction is made in the translation of paragraph 3 of C.P. 2252. The English text reads:
No male person wholly or mainly employed...
The French text reads:
Aucune personne de l'un ou l'autre sexe...
A correction should be made.
If it is possible to secure it, I should like to have some information about the Frenchspeaking boards which are now sitting in the various camps. This may come under the Department of National Defence, but if it happens to come under the minister's department, I would ask him to let me have the information. Until it is changed, the law regarding defence in this country is section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act. I shall not discuss this section because an amendment is to be brought before us. One thing I regret deeply is that "0 Canada" is not considererd any longer as the national anthem, but was considered in that way, although semi-officially, even when conscription was decided upon in 1940.
I hold in my hand the first edition of the national war services regulations of 1940. The present minister was not in charge of the department at that time, since he was sworn in on June 11, 1941. These regulations were submitted to council on August 27, while information regarding the farmers was reported to the minister in charge only two weeks afterwards, on September 12. A number of the higher officials of various departments contributed to that report, especially the deputy minister of agriculture, the deputy minister of fisheries, the deputy minister of mines, the deputy minister of transport and the timber controller. The report is dated September 4, but it was sent to the registrars only , on September 12.
There is a difference between the Militia Act, which is to be found on the statute book, and the 1917 conscription act and regulations and the 1940 regulations. In the first place there were exemptions, and now there are mostly postponements. I have a list of the general exemptions under the Militia Act and under the 1940 regulations. They covered the physically unfit, members of the clergy, the judiciary and the army. Exemptions were provided for members of police forces and fire brigades, for wardens and officers of prisons and lunatic asylums, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and Mennonites, Doukhobors, and conscientious objectors. In the Militia Act, exemptions were provided for eight other classes of people, such as the members of the king's privy council, members of the executive councils of the provinces, deputy ministers of the federal and provincial governments, telegraph clerks when actually employed, officers and clerks regularly employed in the collection of the revenue, professors in colleges and universities, and teachers in religious orders, the only son of a

War Appropriation-War Services
widow being her only support, and pilots and apprentice pilots during the season of navigation.
I have the particulars of a case which is even more deserving than that of the only son of a widow. This is a boy whose father and mother have died. The details of this case are set out in a memorandum which I will send to the minister. -He has three grounds for postponement. First, he is the only support of his younger brothers and sisters; second, being a mechanical technician his services are indispensable in industry, and third, his health is bad. The other day I phoned to Quebec city to ask the national war services board to reconsider its decision in this case. The member of the board who answered me told me that he was looking after war industry only. I asked about the other member, and he told me that he was looking after farm hands and farmers only. I asked about the chairman of the board, and he told me that he was away for three weeks. I have nothing to say against the members of this board, but the point is that at the present time there is a quorum of two members only to do its work. When one member is away it is easy for the other two to reconsider any case that might be submitted to them.
I find that there were exemptions worth considering in the Borden conscription act of 1917. This act was based upon the British Military Service Act of 1916, being chapters 5 and 6, George V. This act deals with exemptions which were considered to be in the national interest. The grounds of exemption were as follows:
(a)	That	it	is	expedient	in	the	national
interest that the man should instead of being employed in military service be engaged in other work in which he is habitually engaged;
(b)	That	it	is	expedient	in	the	national
interest that the man should instead of being employed in military service be engaged in other W'ork in which he wishes to be engaged and for which he has special	qualifications;
(c)	That	it	is	expedient	in	the	national
interest that, instead of being employed in military service, he should continue to be educated or trained for any work for which he is then being educated or trained;
(d)	That serious hardship-
This is another consideration:
-would ensue, if the man were placed on active service, owing to his exceptional financial or business obligations or domestic position;
(e)	111 health or infirmity.
Then it goes on to deal with conscientious objectors. The two reasons mentioned in the clauses I have just read are surely deserving of consideration, because very serious hardship may fall upon the dependents if they have no other means of livelihood.

There is another exemption which is not precisely mentioned as such, although in practice it works out that way. Section 4 (1) of the national war services regulations provides:
Subject to the provisions of these regulations, every male British subject who is or who has been at any time subsequent to the first day of September, 1939, ordinarily resident in Canada-
-shall be liable to undergo military training; but the phrase "ordinarily resident" is not defined in section 3 of the regulations which deals with interpretations. I think it is important that the phrase should be defined so that we shall know just what length of residence in Canada is required. According to section 16 of the interpretation act;
No provision or enactment in any act shall affect, in any manner whatsoever, the rights of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, unless it is expressly stated therein that His Majesty shall be bound thereby.
That, is right. It means that the law of the land shall apply to all of us in this country except his majesty and the royal family. Therefore it is of the utmost importance to have a ruling on this point, I would thank the minister for a clear interpretation of "ordinarily resident", so that there may be no misunderstanding whatever about the phrase. In my humble view the national war services regulations should apply to every British citizen who is now resident in Canada or who comes here for the duration of the war. I can see no reason why any British citizen should not be subject to these regulations.
I think the regulations should also provide exemption in cases where there are already three or four members of the family on active service. I know an old gentleman who is a general store keeper in the country, and a farmer as well. He has one son in charge of his business and three other sons in the army, one being in England, one in Nova Scotia and the other in Newfoundland. Of course a postponement has been granted to the son who is at home, but in cases of this kind where many sons of the family are in the service, postponement should automatically be granted for the son remaining at home.
There is another reason why the Borden act was better than these regulations, and that is that it provided for an appeal from the decisions of the board, and not merely one appeal, but there was a possibility of a third appeal in case the second appeal did not render justice to the applicant. Under these regulations the decision of the board is final and conclusive. The decision of the

War Appropriation-War Services
board is always final, of course, but it is not always conclusive, and there is a reason for my saying that. Without wishing to say anything unpleasant about anyone I may point out that it is impracticable for a judge who has to sit at various places and preside for two or three weeks in the month over civil or criminal courts to hear all the cases under these regulations that come before him as the chairman of the board. It would be very easy for the department to appoint for this purpose some retired justice of the king's bench or superior court, an older gentleman who is not now on active duty on the bench, and who would have enough time to consider each case on its merits.
Of course all applications for postponement are not equally deserving. There are some that deserve particular consideration, and a judge who is absent for two or three weeks during the month from the place where the board sits finds on his return that his desk is piled so high with files that it is physically impossible for him to go through them all and get the true picture in each case. I therefore make two suggestions to the minister in that regard. The first is that he replace all the judges now on the boards by retired judges of either the superior court or the king's bench, so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, and by retired judges of similar tribunals in the other provinces. My second suggestion is that at least one court of appeal be provided where the applicant can have any wrong redressed by a superior tribunal. If the government were under the impression when these regulations were passed that they would have less trouble if no provision were made for an appeal, by now they must realize they were mistaken because they have probably had more trouble and more representations by reason of the fact that the rulings of the board are final.
I wish to impress upon the committee the fact that farmers have a case which is most deserving of consideration. I entirely agree with what the minister said about equality of sacrifice. I know personally a number of young men who would like to enlist but who cannot on account of the responsibilities they have at home. They are like the boys who have beautiful sweethearts but cannot marry because they have to look after their parents. If they leave, the padlock will be put on the farm because the aged people will find it impossible to cultivate the land.
An excellent article has been written on this matter by a journalist of note, a former president of the press gallery, who I believe is a personal friend of the minister, Mr. Emile Benoist of Le Devoir. He wrote at full length
on the matter and expounded very well the case of farmers and fishermen. This is a serious matter. It has been discussed by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) himself, and among other clippings I have one from the Montreal Gazette of February 27:
Canadian farmers asked to produce more foodstuffs; Agriculture Minister Gardiner urges maximum capacity at Breeders Banquet at Mount Royal Hotel, Montreal.
I have already had occasion to emphasize to the minister the fact that farming should not be considered a seasonal occupation. The minister will remember that my contention received support. I am sure there were representations by many other members, but to my personal knowledge my representations were supported by the Prime Minister and by the late minister of justice, and he agreed to it. Now farming is not considered as only a seasonal occupation but is described as a seasonal and essential occupation. In the province of Quebec it is essential but it is not seasonal, or rather it is seasonal in all seasons. The minister knows that in our part of the country the farmers are those who rise earliest and go to bed latest, and it is a full-time job the year round. They have a lot to do and their work is different from that of the farmers in some other parts of the country who have no cattle and work with tractors. After the harvest their year is finished. At home, however, the animals are not like camels; they have to be fed every day and it takes a long time. The farmers have all sorts of things to do, and their work keeps them busy all the time.
I have received very instructive letters on this subject and have sent copies to all ministers to inform those who were not so familiar with the farm problem regarding the work of our farmers. Of course, the statement that was made by the Prime Minister on March 24 brought some relief to the farmers and they expected that it would be easier for them to have their case settled in the future. I greatly appreciate the support I have received from the minister and the Prime Minister in connection with this problem, which is vital not only to the civilian population but also to the army and to our allies. The farmers were greatly disappointed when another statement was made by the Minister of Labour in relation to the one that had been made a couple of days before by the Prime Minister. Then the Minister of National War Services made a statement-if I am wrong I hope he will correct me-that those on the land on March 23 were to be considered prima facie farmers, and evidence to the contrary had to be brought agairrt



War Appropriation-War Services
that presumption. This is what was understood from his statement, which was widely publicized in the country. A boy was on the farm on March 23. He was prima facie a farmer, and it was up to the Department of National Defence or anyone else to show that on that day he was not a farmer and was not essential to agriculture. But the interpretation we have now in some cases is that the board decides of itself that although the man was on the farm on that very day his services are not required for agriculture. That is a very bold thing, because the importance of the man on the farm is obviously relative and when I say that I want to explain myself. You cannot always judge the importance of the farmer's work by the number of his horses, the number of his cattle, or the number of his sheep. Not only that; it is important to see whether the farmer is a bona fide farmer, and if he is he should qualify for postponement, at least, as he has no right to exemption now. He should be qualified for postponement. I have here a communique given by the minister on April 17. I have not the English text, but the French. On page 2 I find the following:
When the applicant has shown that he is a person wholly or mainly employed in agriculture within the meaning of the amended regulations, it is mandatory upon the board, subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, to grant the postponement order. Furthermore, the postponement order is until further notice and it constitutes an allocation of the applicant to agriculture rather than to military service.
And it goes on. That was the change. In the first place, the onus probandi was against the farmer applicant, and now it is against the state; therefore it is up to the state not only to show but to establish that the farmer is not necessary to agriculture if his request for postponement is to be denied. This is the way it works in Montreal. I am informed that an adjournment is granted by the board, or by the registrar for the board, on the sworn statement that a farmer's son or farm hand was working on the farm on March 23. In my view such procedure is in accord with the statement made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National War Services when they interpreted the regulations or the law. Therefore the regulation should be amended. Too much discretion is given to the board. Subsection 3 of section 14 of the regulation reads:
Unless it is established to the satisfaction of the board that such person is not an essential worker in agriculture.
It is very difficult for the board to decide upon a thing like that. As soon as the formality is completed I do not see how the board can say, without asking for further

evidence, that a farmer is not an essential worker in agriculture. Of course the matter is most delicate, and I understand the difficulties of the minister, because there are some draftees who are under him until they go to the army, and then if while they are in the army they ask for leave, their case is decided by the board, which is under the authority of the minister. It is a most difficult situation; I understand the difficulties of the minister and I sympathize with him. Many a time I have been sent by his department to the Department of National Defence and by the Department of National Defence to his departs ment, just to know who was responsible. Of course I understand very well that the registrars, who are far from Ottawa, have not the same opportunity to telephone to both departments in order to come to some agreement about it.
If I understand the matter aright the men are under the Minister of National War Services so long as they have not gone into the army, and when they are in the army they are under the Minister of National Defence.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is correct.


Jean-François Pouliot: When they ask for leave
and the leave is granted by their commanding officer it is of course a shorter leave, but then I presume they are still under the Department of National Defence. What I want to know is this: When they first get into the army and when they get leave from the national war services board, during that leave are they under the Minister of National War Services or the Minister of National Defence?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: If the application for
leave comes from an R recruit, that is a person who has actually reported to a training centre, the leave is not granted by a national war services board but by the national defence unit. The application has come to the board for its recommendation; the actual leave is granted by an officer of the Department of National Defence, and the person who is on leave is still subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence, because he is still a soldier in the reserve army.


Mr. COLD WELL:: May I be permitted a
supplementary question? I received a letter this morning from a young man in Saskatchewan who had served one month in January, 1941. Lately he was recalled, and he applied to the board in Saskatchewan for a postponement, which was refused. Am I right in telling that young man to apply to the commanding officer of the unit to which he has now been called, or what is the situation?

War Appropriation-War Services


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: As soon as the thirtyday man had done his thirty days he was taken on the strength of a militia unit and thereby became a member of the reserve army, and subject to the reserve army regulations. Then each month the Minister of National Defence breaks up his requisition for men into so many new men who have done no training at all and so many who have done the thirty-day training but are to be recalled. When we recall a thirty-day man we do so for the Department of National Defence and in the name of the Minister of National Defence. It is a service we render for the Department of National Defence. We are authorized to deal with his application for postponement.


Thomas Miller Bell: How do these young
farmers know? This is a young farmer who owns his own land in Saskatchewan; apparently he does not know where to apply for postponement.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: He will get his notice;
it will be sent to him actually by our board.


Mr. COLDWELL:: He has had that.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: And he may apply to our board for postponement.


Major James William Coldwell: He has done that.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Then if his application
for postponement has been heard by the board and has been refused-


Major James William Coldwell: That has been done.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: -that means he automatically is recalled and must report to the training centre. He is still however a member of the reserve army, of the militia unit to which he was attached when he finished his thirty days. There is nothing to bar him from applying to the commanding officer of his unit for leave, and as I see it he is the only person to whom he may apply for leave.


Major James William Coldwell: What about the order
in council of March 21?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Order in council P.C. 1916, passed I think on March 12, applied only to persons who had been in the reserve army for less than three months. I do not think those regulations apply to the thirty-day men. But while they technically do not apply I believe the boards have heard applications for leave from those men. There is a difference between an application for postponement, which the board does determine, and an application for temporary leave. I hope I have made it clear to my hon. friend.
44561-159}


Major James William Coldwell: Not quite. If the hon. member for Temiscouata will forgive me for pursuing this point, the order in council does not apply to the thirty-day men.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I would not think so, because it applies specifically only to R recruits who have been in a training centre not more than three months.


Major James William Coldwell: This man has been in a training centre less than three months.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But he has belonged to a unit for more than three months.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: But immediately after the thirty-day training period was over he became attached to a reserve militia unit and therefore became subject to the reserve army regulations. Perhaps I should refer to the specific order in council.


Major James William Coldwell: There is a great deal of confusion about this. Here is a young man who thought he came under the order in council, so he simply applied for postponement. Now he is doing his spring seeding, looking after his cattle and horses. He is alone on his farm. As a neighbour he has his father, who is a sick man. Suddenly he is called up; apparently he has applied for postponement and has been refused. He wants to know what he can do next. He is wondering how on earth he can dispose of his cattle and horses, and comply with the regulations.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: He has applied for postponement, and his application has been refused by the Saskatchewan board?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, although he is a genuine farmer, owning his own land.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Well, I would imagine that is the end of it so far as that man is concerned.


Major James William Coldwell: I can hardly conceive that this is the end of it so far as that man is concerned.


Mr. FLEMING:: Did the minister not make the statement that all would be frozen in agriculture who were in agriculture as of a certain date?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, Mr. Chairman; the hon. member for Humboldt is absolutely wrong, and he should not answer for the minister. What the minister has said is that any boy who was unfortunate enough to be engaged in agriculture, who was called up for thirty-day training and did not belong to a reserve unit for more than three months-


Harry Raymond Fleming: He did not say that.

War Appropriation

War Services


Karl Kenneth Homuth: -did not belong to a reserve unit for more than three months, had the opportunity of getting a postponement.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I made no reference to persons engaged in agriculture in the case about which I was talking.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar was asking about it. Now then, if he had been called two months ago it would have been impossible for him to take the thirty-day training, because it is now four months' training; but anyone called up who was given thirty days of training and who belonged to a reserve unit automatically came under the Department of National Defence and was no longer under the Department of National War Services. The minister said so, in so many words. The only chance the man had was to appeal to his commanding officer.


Harry Raymond Fleming: Are you the new minister?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, but I could not do any worse. The situation is that the Prime Minister rose in this house and tried to explain the changes.


Harry Raymond Fleming: He did explain them.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: He did not explain them very clearly, because within a few weeks the Minister of National Defence rose and said those were not the regulations. Hon. members left this house for the Easter recess with the idea that men who already had been called to the army but who were required on the farms could go to their commanding officers or to some tribunal and be sent back to the farm. Well, it does not work out that way in this province. In Ontario these men appealed to the commanding officers. For three weeks the commanding officers said they knew nothing about it, that they had no authority. Finally the men were told that if they got a letter from the reeve of the township, or from a doctor, to say that their parents were unable to carry on, or from responsible citizens saying they were required on the farm, they could submit such letters not to the district tribunal but to the commanding officer. To-day commanding officers in Ontario are being driven nearly crazy trying to adjudicate these cases, because the department is putting it up to them. They say, "No, we are not going to let you off," and they refuse to release these boys. That is the situation in this province. I have had many cases of extreme need, but the commanding officers still say no. The whole thing has been passed from one to the other; it has been a case of simply passing the buck, until it has been passed right back 
to the commanding officer. He wants to keep his unit full; he is going to keep it full, and how can he decide whether or not a man is needed on the farm simply by some letters he may have before him? The result is that the men are not released; they have to remain with their units. That is the situation we have in Ontario.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I dealt fully with the subject of applications for leave coming from persons who were under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence. It is all provided for by order in council P.C. 1916, dated March 12, 1942, which makes amendments to the reserve army (special) regulations, 1941, which govern these men. Section 5 of the amending order in council which amends section 23 of the reserve army (special) regulations, 1941, is the applicable section. In the first place it provides that a man called out for training in pursuance of the national war services regulations, 1940, and amendments thereto, may make application at any time within three months after having been enrolled and after having commenced his training as an R recruit, for leave of absence.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Application to whom?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Just a moment. Subsection (b) of the same paragraph outlines the procedure that he must follow and to whom he must make application. It specifies that the applicant must first apply in writing to the officer commanding the unit. The application must show the reasons and facts upon which it is based, together with statements corroborating the facts. These are to be made by statutory declaration or attestation under oath. The officer commanding will then transmit the application, with his recommendation, to the district officer commanding. The section goes on to say that the district officer commanding may forward the same; he need not do so. It is not mandatory upon him to forward the application; and the purpose in not making it mandatory is, as I explained last Monday, to guard against frivolous applications. But I also think I can say that any application with merit will go to the appropriate national war services board.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What assurance has the minister in making that statement?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: My knowledge of the facts of the situation.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Well, the knowledge of hon. members is just as clear, and perhaps more so.

War Appropriation-War Services


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Will my hon. friend please keep his seat while I am making a statement in reply to him? The officer commanding may forward the application, with whatever recommendation or representation he may see fit to make, to the appropriate national war services board.
Let us assume that the application is now before the board. The order in council indicates the general principles that shall govern the board in dealing with these applications. They are stated in the order in council, section 23, subsection (a). It is pointed out that these applications are dealt with upon such circumstances, reasons or grounds being established as would have entitled the applicant when called out, ab initio, to postponement at the commencement of his training. In other words the national war services board deals with these applications for leave upon the same principle as it deals with applications for postponements. Then that board makes its recommendation in the matter.
The order in council provides that on receiving the recommendation of the board the district officer commanding will grant leave for the period recommended by the board. That is done, subject to one proviso, namely that whenever the exigencies of the military situation require that such leave be curtailed or refused, he may refer the board's recommendation to national defence headquarters for final decision. In other words it is mandatory upon the district officer commanding to act upon the recommendation made by the national war services board, apart from military exigencies. If such military exigencies arise he must refer it to national defence headquarters.


Thomas Miller Bell: The board may decide the application for leave on exactly the same grounds as if it had been an application for postponement, under the other regulations?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes, exactly.


Thomas Miller Bell: If that is so, why is it that the young man in the position I have just described is not granted leave by the board?-unless the board refuses to recognize the decree of the government of Canada. That is what it amounts to.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No; one would have to know the facts of the case, because each of the recommendations made by the board in respect of these applications for leave is a recommendation based upon facts before the board. I have no doubt that in refusing a person's application for leave the board
would be governed by the same considerations as would have governed it in refusing an application for postponement. In other words, if it is the kind of case in which they would have granted a postponement, they would in all likelihood grant an application for leave. But if it is not, then they would not make any recommendation in favour of granting of leave. That is what is meant by the order in council.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not know anything about this case, except that the facts, as presented to me are these. The young man who bought the farm in 1939 proceeded to farm and to stock it. He lives near his father, who is a semi-invalid. Therefore he farms also his father's land. The order in council provides that farm labour of an essential sort shall be frozen on the farm. If it provides that farm labour shall be frozen on the farm, would it not be logical to suppose that a young man of the type I have mentioned-and I am dealing with the facts as represented to me in a letter; I do not know the young man-would come under the postponement provisions?


Harry Raymond Fleming: He did have a postponement.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I wonder if I might suggest to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that a discussion of individual cases, in the absence of knowledge of specific facts, is perhaps not helpful. I should be glad to look into any facts or any cases of the kind the hon. member has mentioned.


Major James William Coldwell: I have already written the minister with respect to this case, and he will probably receive my letter to-morrow or the next day. I seldom bring individual cases before the committee but I mention this one because it strikes me as the type of case an explanation of which might enable us to understand the regulations. I confess I do not understand them. I am asked for advice. According to what the minister now says, I gave wrong advice regarding a case of this kind when I was in western Canada at Easter.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have been dealing with applications for leave from persons under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence. Ordinarily of course it is a most anomalous situation to find that a person subject to army discipline should have his application for leave referred to a civilian board, or to an authority outside the actual

War Appropriation-TPar Services
army. Ordinarily the army looks after applications for leave. However, the reasons for embarking upon this policy are as follows. First, it was desirable to deal with these applications for leave as uniformly as possible across Canada. No matter how great an effort is made it is not possible to obtain absolute uniformity. Second, the Department of National Defence said they were not equipped with the machinery to hear applications for leave in large numbers. Then there was a third consideration, that the boards had the files, knew the circumstances and the facts in the districts and had information with regard to the matters involved. Under those circumstances it was thought they could best pass upon the merits or otherwise of applications. Consequently an arrangement was worked out between the Department of National Defence, under whose jurisdiction this matter comes, and the Department of National War Services, whereby these boards might be placed at the disposal of the Department of National Defence to make recommendations with respect to applications for leave. These were the general reasons for working out the arrangement between the two departments. The order in council to which reference has been made is one amending the reserve army (special) regulations, 1941.


Harry Raymond Fleming: What instructions were given to the divisional registrars after the Prime Minister's statement was made in the house? It will be remembered that the divisional registrars came here to Ottawa. What instructions were given to the various boards?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Would the hon. member
for Humboldt be more specific and indicate what particular subject he has in mind? Perhaps I would then be able to deal with his question.


Harry Raymond Fleming: It was based on the
statement of the Prime Minister that men were needed in agriculture and that if these men were called up by the various boards, the onus would be upon the board, not upon the men. But when you go to the Department of National War Services to discuss this matter you are told one thing, while the boards tell us that they have another set of instructions. There seems to be some difference between the instructions given to the various boards which came down here a month or so ago and what we find out when we interview the department.
[Mr. Thoison.l


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Perhaps I can reply to
the hon. member for Humboldt and the hon. member for Temiscouata at the same time, because they have both raised the same points.
I issued a press release dated April 17 which I placed on Hansard a week ago today. As soon as that press release was issued I sent a copy to every member of the House of Commons and every member of the Senate, as well as to all administrative divisions. As I indicated last Monday, we had a conference in Ottawa on April 23, 24 and 25 of the chairmen of the boards and the divisional registrars. The purpose of that conference was to consider the regulations, to suggest amendments and to consider administrative matters; in other words, to see whether the regulations could be improved in order to make them more workable and more adaptable to the specific purpose for which they were designed. At that conference there was a full discussion of the national war services regulations which were put into effect by order in council P.C. 2252. The hon. member for Temiscouata has referred to a particular phrase in the order in council. I think I should deal with this, and in so doing I think I may be able to answer the hon. member for Humboldt as well. Section 5 of order in council P.C. 2252, which becomes section 14, subsection 3 of the national war services regulations, contains this provision:
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this section,-
That is section 14.

the board shall, from time to time upon the application of a person wholly or mainly employed in agriculture, grant him a postponement order until further notice,-
That is the mandatory part of the order in council. It will be noted that the person must apply. It will be noted also that the person referred to in this subsection is a person who is wholly or mainly employed in agriculture. It follows, therefore, that if such person who is wholly or mainly employed in agriculture within the meaning of that term as defined in order in council P.C. 2252 makes application for postponement, the board shall grant him postponement until further notice. The purpose of the order in council is contained in that mandatory direction to the board contained in the regulation.
However, I should go on and deal with the proviso which the hon. member for Temiscouata referred to in his remarks to the committee. I have read the first part of section

War Appropriation-War Services
5 of order in council P.C. 2252. If I may proceed from where I left off, the section goes on to say:
. . . unless it is established to the satisfaction of the board that such person is not an essential worker in agriculture, or that such person has at any time subsequent to the 23rd day of March, 1942, ceased to be actually employed or engaged in agriculture or in a primary industry.
The purpose of that proviso is curative. It is not the governing part of the regulations; it is intended to ensure that persons who ought not to be covered by the regulations will not be covered by them, and it has no other purpose. Consistently with government policy in the matter, the intent of the regulations is that all persons wholly or mainly employed in agriculture, as the term is defined in the regulations, shall be held for the purposes of agriculture, held for the particular purpose that I mentioned earlier this afternoon. But it is not intended that persons shall get in under the wing of those regulations who should not do so, and therefore this proviso is put in. It is curative so that there will be no abuse of the regulations.


Harry Raymond Fleming: What if the board does not act?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Please allow me to proceed. The intent of the regulations was set out by	the Prime Minister	in	the speechthat he	made	in this house	on	March 24,and the intent is also contained in the regulations. I think I have indicated the intent in the remarks I have just made. This means, as I think I clearly stated in the press release, that there has been a fundamental change of approach with regard to persons	wholly	or mainly employed in agriculture,	within	the meaning	of	that term.
Previously the regulations were based upon the idea that the man who was physically fit might be postponed as to his military training on one ground or another, but that when that period of postponement was concluded he was meant for the armed forces of this country. These new regulations make a change in that approach; for they provide that when this man gets his postponement order, until further notice he is allocated to the purposes of agriculture. That is the intent of the regulations. There has been a shift of base with regard to the regulations. That is now the governing policy.
Individual cases will come up. A man who is wholly or mainly employed in agriculture must make his application for postponement if he desires postponement; when
he shows that he is wholly or mainly employed in agriculture he has established a prima facie case, and he is prima facie entitled to a postponement order until further notice.


Major James William Coldwell: In the case of R recruits-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Let us not complicate the situation, if my hon. friend will permit me, just for the moment.


Major James William Coldwell: I am quite willing.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: In most of the cases that come up, I would say in the vast majority of cases, there are no difficulties at all. But there may be individual cases. Let us take some individual cases, the kind or type of case that might come up, just as an illustration.
Suppose there is a family of five sons, and one of the sons is called up. He makes his application for a postponement order until further notice on the ground that he is wholly or mainly employed in agriculture. His case comes before the board. An investigation shows that he is really a person of comparatively little importance so far as that farm is concerned. That does not altogether dispose of the case. The board must grant that man's application for postponement unless it is established to the satisfaction of the board that he is not an essential worker in agriculture. The onus is a negative onus, which is very often a difficult onus to discharge. Essential to agriculture does not necessarily mean essential to a particular farm. "Not essential to agriculture" is a question of fact, to be found by the board in the light of all the circumstances. I do not think I could go further than that, after indicating what the policy is and also indicating, as I wish to do specifically, that the proviso is purely curative, purely for the purpose of preventing possible abuses of the regulations. The proviso is not the governing part of the section. All the questions under that are questions of fact, to be found by the board in the light of all the circumstances concerning that particular person's case. It may be an easy fact to find on one set of circumstances, and a difficult fact to find on a different set of circumstances. Circumstances may be of such a nature that if they were submitted to one jury, one jury would find one way, and if they were submitted to another jury it might find differently. That is true with regard to questions of fact. It is left to the board to find that question of fact, namely, "not essential to agriculture." I do not think I can go further than that.

Mrar Appropriation-War Services


Major James William Coldwell: The Prime Minister did not give that impression to the house when he spoke on March 24.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think he did.


Major James William Coldwell: The Prime Minister, on March 24, at page 1567 of Hansard, used these word's:
Under the new regulations, farmers, farmers' sons and agricultural labourers will normally-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes, normally.


Major James William Coldwell: It goes on:
-will normally not be obliged to undertake compulsory military training and service.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is correct.


Major James William Coldwell: It goes on:
It is realized, however, that in a limited number of cases, men on the farms are not, in fact, essential agricultural workers.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is right.


Major James William Coldwell: But:
If it is established to the satisfaction of the national war services boards concerned that such persons are not essential workers in agriculture, they will continue to be called for service in the appropriate age groups.
The point I was trying to have made clear, so that we may be able to advise those who make inquiry of us, is this. I am not arguing whether it is right to exempt a class as a class; in fact, I am a little doubtful of that myself, but it is being done. The question I raised I wish to have clarified, and it is not clear yet. The statement of facts I have given may be wrong, but let us suppose it is right. Here is a young farmer who has owned and operated his own farm since 1939-he did not buy it to get out of military service-and at the same time has been assisting his father who is partly incapacitated. This young fanner is called up, after having done thirty days' training in January, 1941.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: But he is in the army.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Was his father incapacitated in 1939?


Major James William Coldwell: I could not tell you.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Quite a number bought farms to escape military service.


Major James William Coldwell: Assume that the facts are as I have stated them. He bought this farm before war broke out. He has done his thirty days' training. He applies to the board for postponement, he tells me, and is refused. Now he is faced with the necessity of selling his stock and equipment, and his farm, if he can dispose of it. The minister says he should

apply to his commanding officer for leave, and that the commanding officer "may"-not "shall"-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The commanding officer must forward the application to the district officer commanding.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, the district officer commanding "may"-not "must"-refer the case to the war services board for a decision.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: He "may"-not "must". In other words he may be the last word if he wishes. But suppose he does refer it. Then the minister says the case should be decided on the same grounds as though it were a case of application for postponement.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is right.


Major James William Coldwell: This young man did not know to whom to apply. Who is the commanding officer to whom he should apply?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: His militia unit.


George Hugh Castleden: May I ask, with regard to the mandatory part of the regulations-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Before my hon. friend puts his question, may I make this statement.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to have the interpretation of the Prime Minister's statement.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think what I have been saying this afternoon is exactly in line with what the Prime Minister said on March 24.
The Prime Minister, as reported on page 1567 of Hansard, used these words, which were quoted by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar:
Under the new regulations farmers, farmers' sons, and agricultural labourers will normally not be obliged to undertake compulsory militarytraining and service.
I put it this way, that the first part of the subsection which I quoted was mandatory, namely:
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections 1 and 2 of this section, the board shall, from time to time, upon the application of a person wholly or mainly employed in agriculture, grant him a postponement.
That was the main statement of the policy.
. Mr. COLDWELL: What is the minister's interpretation of "normally"?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I would say that that is the governing principle. If a man is wholly or mainly employed in agriculture, the board shall grant him a postponement order. We are dealing with a specific point.

War Appropriation-War Services


Major James William Coldwell: But it is realized that ia a limited number of cases men on farms are not essential to agriculture. For instance, if a man has three or four sons on a farm.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I had in mind a limited number of cases, and that is what I meant by saying that the purpose of the proviso was purely curative and to prevent abuses, and was not the governing part of the section.
I put in different phraseology exactly the same ideas as were announced by the Prime Minister, that the normal rule is that the man should get his postponement order. It is only in the exceptional cases that he should be regarded as not essential. In each case it is a question of fact. There may be more persons not essential to agriculture in one locality than in another. Let me make this statement by way of illustration. A man might be in one agricultural area; he might be one of five sons. The farm might possibly be quite competently run with two or three sons. It does not follow of necessity that the remaining two sons, say, are not essential workers in agriculture; they may be needed in agriculture somewhere else.


Major James William Coldwell: No dispute about that.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: A question of fact might come into the discussion. In one district there might be a great demand for agricultural labourers, and the two sons in the family I have mentioned, who might not be necessary at all for the purposes of that particular farm, might be necessary in the area. Well, they are not unessential to agriculture.


Major James William Coldwell: Take the case I have mentioned to the minister. There is one son, farming and helping his father. Is he not essential? Is that not a prima facie case?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I know the hon. member will not wish me to express an opinion with regard to a question of fact without knowing all the surrounding facts. That is why I invited him to let me have the particulars so that I may have the case looked into.
Let me, however, continue with the illustration of the point we have been discussing. In another area there might be five sons and only two of them are required for that farm. The other three are not needed for that farm, may not be needed for any agricultural purposes in the neighbourhood or in the district afcd may not be able to go anywhere else in Canada where perhaps they might be absorbed. These are the facts that would have to be taken into consideration, and it might be quite proper to regard one person in one of the situations I have mentioned as being not essential to agriculture and quite
improper to say of another person in a different locality that he is not essential to agriculture.
I have sought to illustrate what I have in mind by examples, and I think I have indicated this afternoon precisely the same matters the Prime Minister stated on the floor of the house. May I say to the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Fleming) that if he will give me the cases he has in mind I will have them looked into. I have investigated a tremendous number of cases from the hon. member for Humboldt, but I shall be glad to have those he has in mind looked into.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Why should that be
necessary?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It should not be necessary.


Mr. McDONALD (Pontiac):: Has any man, other than the farmer called under the act, the right to ask for postponement?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Oh, yes.


Wallace Reginald McDonald: Let me submit a case that happened in one district within the last week. I do so to call attention, not to a special case, but to ascertain if the conduct of the officer in that district as cited in this instance is exemplary of all of them. Anybody who makes application for postponement there is simply wasting his time. The firm with which this young , man is employed gave him a letter addressed to the registrar of the district. He proceeded to the registrar's office and asked to meet the registrar to whom the letter was addressed. He was met by an official, some understrapper, who had the nerve and audacity to say to him, "There are too many of you fellows looking for postponement." I submit, sir, that he had no right to make that statement. Had I been present I would have said to this gentleman, "It is absolutely none of your business." However, he proceeded to tell this man, "You will be advised in a day or two; the committee will sit on your case to-morrow." He left there, returned home and-a curious coincidence- by the time he arrived home a letter was received in the mail by the firm with which he was employed informing him that postponement could not be granted and that he was to report for duty on a certain date.
I contend that the case was never submitted to the registrar or the board, because the date of the letter corresponds exactly with the time of the young man's departure from the office; the arrival of the letter at its destination coincides with the time that would elapse for its dictation immediately

War Appropriation-War Services
after his departure, and it is signed not by the registrar personally but by a stamp with the initials of the other individual who told the young man that there were too many making applications for postponement.
It has been said here that every young man called for service receives a notice indicating that he has so many days within which to make an appeal. I am not going to contradict that statement except to this extent. I personally investigated at least five of these notices and failed in any instance to discover that these young men were notified to that effect. Only last Saturday I had a visit from a farmer whose only son was called for service. Another son is overseas. This farmer came to ask me if I could do anything for this son who was still on the farm. I said, "Absolutely nothing; submit your case to the registrar of the district in Montreal. But your son should send in notice making application for postponement." This young man has been always on the farm, and by virtue of the order in council of March 24 he is entitled to exemption. I studied the order that young man received, and I did not see any notice informing him that he had eight days within which he had a right to make an appeal. I do not want to be critical; but if the case I have cited is at all indicative of the treatment young men are receiving in that office, the officials there are going far beyond their duty, and it is not a system conducive to confidence in the administration of the regulations.


Harry Raymond Fleming: The minister made a
statement about certain cases that would be mandatory. But if the board pay no attention to that, what is the answer? In Saskatchewan-I am sure there are hon. members here from Saskatchewan who will bear me out-there are dozens of cases called up in that way having the attributes that the minister has pointed out make it mandatory that the board grant postponement, but they refuse to grant it. What is the answer?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You are sunk.


Harry Raymond Fleming: Should one instruct
these people not to report? That is what I have been thinking of doing.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Certainly not. I would
point out that each of these boards is composed of three persons. The chairman in each case is a judge of the superior court or other court of the province in which the major portion of the administrative division is located. At hearings of the board four representatives have a right to be present and make representations to the board: a representative of the Department of National 
Defence, a representative of the national war labour board, a representative of agriculture and a representative of the director of national selective service. To these boards we entrust the task of deciding upon applications for postponement of military training. We do our best to pick a board presided over by a superior court judge. We have had two conferences of these boards for the purpose of discussing how best we can make these regulations work, how we can make them most adaptable to the purposes for which they were devised.
The hon. member for Humboldt has put to me a question which I could not answer if his premise is correct. Whether or not his premise is correct I cannot judge. I cannot agree with him with regard to it when I know that a great many applications for postponement have been made and have been granted. I am not going to assume that a board is going to flout the regulations and act in the teeth of them when I know the manner in which the boards have attempted to carry out these regulations across Canada. After all, the purpose of the boards is to fill the requisitions that come to the Department of National War Services from the Department of National Defence; it is not the primary purpose of the boards to grant applications for postponement. The remarks of a number of hon. members seem to indicate that that is their view.
With regard to the statement of the hon. member for Pontiac about the notice containing no statement that the man has a right to apply for postponement within eight days, my understanding was that the notice to report for medical examination is a printed notice and that it contains a statement to the effect that he has that right. If my hon. friend will give me the particulars of this case I shall be glad to have it looked into, because I am exceedingly anxious that these regulations shall be administered with the utmost integrity. If there is any case in which any hon. member feels that an injustice has been done, if he will bring that case to my attention I shall have the facts looked into.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I do not want to interrupt the minister, but might I say-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Will my hon. friend please sit down while I have the floor?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: If the minister does not want to extend any courtesy, go ahead, I would expect that from him anyway.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am anxious that these regulations shall be administered with integrity.
I am anxious that they shall not be used

War Appropriation-War Services
for any purpose other than that for which they are designed, that of calling up men properly for military training. I think the boards have dealt with applications for postponements judicially and, I believe, sympathetically. The thought I want to leave with members of the committee is that these regulations are part of a law for mobilization, not for demobilization or the granting of postponements. Though there may be criticism of certain individual decisions, I think there will be general agreement that the boards have administered these regulations well.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am not going to ask the minister a question, because I would not expect an answer; but the more I hear him try to describe this matter, the greater the fog becomes. His answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Pontiac indicates that apparently he does not himself know what the notices contain. The medical notice is the one in which the man is notified that he may ask for a postponement, but he must do so within eight days. The notice of call does not so state. I am just answering the hon. member for Pontiac, because apparently the minister does not know.


Jean-François Pouliot: When the hon. member
for Waterloo South rose I was just in the act of writing him a note, which says, "Your previous remarks were to the point. Why do you spoil the effect?" I have been dealing with the minister enough to be able to tell the hon. member for Waterloo South that the best way to deal with him is for my hon. friend to adopt his sweetest voice and talk agreeably, and I am sure he can do that without any effort.
I have no complaint against the government, but I do complain about the pressure of work on certain officials so that they are unable to give sufficient time to each case coming before them. I fully agree with what was said by the hon. member for Pontiac; there are cases like that, and cases such as those mentioned by the hon. member for Waterloo South have also occurred in my own constituency. There are young boys who are posted as deserters just because they took it for granted that farmers were exempt from training until further notice. The statement that in future farmers would be practically exempt from service was given wide publicity in the newspapers, until the correction was made, not by the Prime Minister, not by the Minister of National War Services, but by the Minister of Labour, who said that the Prime Minister's statement should not be interpreted in that way. Therefore it seems to me that the authorities should be
very lenient with regard to boys who have acted in good faith, who have completed the first part of their training and who have been induced into error because of the headlines which have appeared in the press.
Of course the trouble with the boards is that they wait too long in sending out their notices. They wait until the last moment, and then the young men have not sufficient time to present their cases to the board and supplement them with the required evidence. There should be a joint sitting attended by the Minister of National War Services, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Justice, in order that we might have a definite interpretation not only of the national war service regulations but also of the reserve army (special) regulations. This is a new kind of regulation, which is not part of King's Regulations and Orders; it is new because of the fact that trainees or draftees are called up by the Minister of National War Services and later come under the jurisdiction of the defence minister. I have before me the remarks of the Minister of National Defence on April 23 with regard to farming. He made himself very clear about the importance of farming when, as reported at page 1896 of Hansard, he said:
I do not know of any occupation in Canada -I think I am correct in saying this-the utility and usefulness of which in connection with the war activity has been so recognized as the farming industry.
This was the general tenor of the statements made by everyone with regard to the farming industry. But when it came to the farmers who were in the army, under his own jurisdiction, the Minister of National Defence adopted an entirely different tone. The hon. member for Lake Centre and a member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group asked questions, and, as reported at page 1897 the minister said:
But no matter what the facts are, I shall have inquiry made, because if there is anything understood by the Department of National Defence it is that we have not much call on the agricultural community from now on as far as calling up men under the National Resources Mobilization Act is concerned.
Then a little later he goes on:
But I do feel that members of the committee ought not to expect me, as head of the Department of National Defence, endeavouring to mobilize, train and prepare an army for operation, to allow men in large numbers to go even for seeding operations. They are members of the army now; they had opportunity to apply for postponement; they did not, and I submit it is not fair at this time to ask that I simply issue a blanket order and say to the men, "Go home and do your seeding and then come back."

War Appropriation-War Services
It is to my personal knowledge, as it must be to the personal knowledge of the Minister of National War Services, that the Minister of National Defence was wrongly informed. He says they did not apply for postponement. They did, in a very large number of cases. The answer of the board was, "You had a first postponement. We can give you a second, which will be the last". Then, when they got the second they were told, "You may have a third, but it will be the last".
The minister will recall that on many occasions I have brought the matter to his attention. I asked him for a ruling, sir, and to notify the board. The matter was definitely stated by the minister in the house. He set out the regulations, but I had to ask him to get in touch with the board, in order to give them a definite interpretation.
Mark you, the minister was in a false position because the ruling of the board was final. He had no authority over the board, but could only appeal to it. No one can appeal from such a board; he is limited to an appeal to it to reconsider a case. If the board cares to reconsider, all right. On the other hand, if it is as bold as the commissioner to whom I spoke at the end of last week, the commissioner who told me that it was final- finished-the situation is somewhat different. I asked him, "Will you reconsider it?" He said, "I cannot do that; I look after only war industries." I said, "Well although the chairman is away, two of you are together, and form a quorum; you could reconsider the case." He said, "The other one looks after farmers." Imagine! The case was a most meritorious and deserving one. It is precisely the one I mentioned to the minister not long ago involving an orphan who supports the family. His father and mother are dead, and this boy looks after his little brothers and sisters. He is an expert mechanic.
I hold in my hand a certificate from a man for whom I have the most profound respect. I refer to the Reverend E. P. Roy, an elderly gentleman who is the parish priest of both the boy and myself. His letter, dated at Riviere du Loup on May 16, 1942, may be translated as follows:
I, _ the undersigned parish priest of St. Patrick's Riviere du Loup, certify that Mr. L. P . . . , since the death of his parents, is the only support of a family of five children, who are absolutely without any other support, and who will have to beg for their bread if they cannot rely on him. This would be definitely an error. I consider in justice and charity that that young man should be exempted.
The letter is signed by the Rev. E. P. Roy, parish priest.
[Mr. Pouliot.i
Then, I have a doctor's certificate, and a sworn statement by the party concerned to the effect that he is the only support of the family. I send these to the minister, and I do so in public; I have nothing to hide. I am sorry to have to trouble the minister about this matter, but when I am turned down by a commissioner who knows nothing about his business, a commissioner like the one I spoke to over the long-distance telephone, I find it very sad. This is a case of serious hardship, and one worthy of consideration. Are these children to be sent to an orphanage because a man is not given consideration by the board? On the file I sent the minister there is a certificate from the young man's employer. Already several of his employees have gone into the army. The only ones left, besides his mechanic, are those men who are unfit for military service.
Therefore I say there are three counts to consider. I called this man, who was not appointed on my recommendation, but who was bold enough to answer in the way I have described. That is not the way to answer members of parliament. We make no money from this kind of work. We seek no fee, but do it just to help our people. I protest strongly against the decision reached by one of the ministers in the early days of the war, when he said that all persons, except members of parliament, should look after cases of this kind.
Is there any man more widely known-I would not say better known-in his constituency than the member of parliament? When there are any difficulties about federal matters the people go to him in confidence. I receive Tories as well as Liberals-if there are any Tories left in my constituency. I receive them just as freely as Liberals, and try to help them. I am always available to help them in matters like this. I believe it is my duty to do so, and I do not do it to get votes. When they say to me, "I will vote for you at the next election," I say, "Do not make any such promise. If you feel like voting for me, all right. But do not make that promise, because you are exposed to betraying your promise if you feel later that you have made a bad bargain." It is my duty to help my constituents, and I am delighted to do so. We are now told that members of parliament have not the right to make representations as members. They have the right as doctors, mayors, lawyers or solicitors, but as members of parliament they have not that right. They cannot act when people come to them precisely because they rely on their members to give them a hand in such cases.



IS, 1942

[Stage Direction]
War Appropriation-War Services
I would ask ,the minister and his colleagues to consider the case I have brought before them, so that there may be an appeal from the board. If the matter is rectified he will have much less trouble in his department than he might have, through grievances which may arise. These men may be honest, but they are not infallible. There is more genius in two heads than in one, and when there is the right to appeal there are better results from two boards, than from only one. That was done during the last war, and it worked out very well.
There is a further point to consider. If these regulations were drafted in this way, and if the subtitle of section 14 referred to seasonal occupations such as agriculture, fishing, et cetera, the reference was made precisely because after the capitulation of France it was thought that our enemies would invade this country, and that all men of military age should have some .training and be ready to repel an attack or invasion. That was the spirit of the law, and precisely the reason why there was a short time for training, and why farmers were classed as .those having seasonal occupations. Afterwards the period of training was changed from one month to four months and, in spite of what had been declared by General Crerar, farmers were told that one month's training was not enough, and that they would need four months. They were told, "Afterwards you will be free .to go back on the farm." But that was changed by the Minister of National Defence himself, in virtue of an order in council giving him wide powers. It changed completely the condition in which farmers found themselves.
Farmers were ready to leave for a month. They made the sacrifice of going for training for that length of time. Afterwards, however, *they could not leave the army. The general staff found a new way to evade the law. They did not leave those trainees in their districts, but moved them to the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, in order to change the district, in which they would train.
How can men who are not in the active army, who are just trainees or draftees but who are located either in British Columbia or in Nova Scotia, get leave from their commanders when they are told that they must transfer their requests for leave to the boards? What does a board in British Columbia or in Nova Scotia know about the conditions that face a farmer in Quebec, or that face a hundred or a thousand farmers in that province? They may know something about their own provinces, but they know nothing about the conditions that face the farmers in our county. It happens also that the commissioners know very
little about what happens in their own provinces. Here is a sad case. If the Minister of National Defence is going to refuse draftees the right to have leave, it should be said openly so that we may know. He should not say that a chance will be given to the farmers when he is unwilling to give them that chance. He went on to say, as reported on page 1900 of Hansard:
That would be taking into consideration another matter altogether, namely, the national interest. They find a man in the army, and they do not take him out on compassionate grounds because of the fact that he has to operate a farm.
Mr. White:	What does the minister mean
by "compassionate grounds"?
Mr. Ralston:	That is a general term used
in the army in connection with leave, and may cover half a dozen cases.
It is not compassionate grounds; it is a question of national interest, as the minister rightly said a moment ago. It is a matter of national interest that farmers should operate their farms; it is not a matter of compassion. Then the Minister of National Defence went on to say, as reported on page 1901 of Hansard:
I want to say to my hon. friend that he and the hon. member for Lake Centre are the first two I have ever heard say that the Prime Minister said anything about leave to men already in the army.
Then he went on to say:
But if my hon. friend or the hon. member for Lake Centre has a statement by the Prime Minister where the Prime Minister said that leave was to be granted from the army for men to go on farm leave, I should like to see it.
There was a statement by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough, and then the minister continued:
I have said that I have no idea of a single case having been granted. I have said, too, that Mr. Biekerton, the president of a farm group in Saskatchewan, ig the only one whose communication has come to my attention.
It seems that the Minister of National Defence makes a distinction between trainees who have not come to the camp and who ask for postponement and draftees already in the army who ask for leave. In the first instance, he says that they should ask for postponement, and in the second instance, he is reported on page 1902 of Hansard as saying:
I said about those cases that if they were men who were in farming occupations wholly or mainly, I would take the matter up.
He promised he would take the matter up, and it is important that it should be taken up. I have already quoted the case of a young man who had six months leave and was sent to Nanaimo, and I was told that the department would look after him. But that is only
[Stage Direction]
War Appropriation-War Services
one case among many, and it is important to see that these abuses do not occur again. It is all right to say that one loves the farmer, but love should be more practical than that. The Minister of National Defence, when he filled out his registration card, said that he had milked cows for three months, but when he ceased to do that after the three months he ceased to be indispensable as a farmer. But other farmers do that the year round; their usefulness does not stop, and they deserve consideration. I submit these matters to the minister in the hope that he will take them under consideration, and I may have two or three question to ask him later on.
John George Diefenbaker: In view of the attitude taken by the minister that he would welcome any suggestions that might be offered to improve the operation of the regulations under which men are called for service and under the provisions of which postponements are granted, I have a few suggestions to offer. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke in the house on March 24 he left the people of Canada under the impression that in so far as farmers were concerned, they would be entitled generally to postponement. This same idea was conveyed in the April, 1942, issue of "Canada at War", where it is stated at page 8:
Emphasizing the vital role being played in this war by food, farmers, their sons and farm labourers are granted an indefinite postponement of compulsory military service if they are doing essential farm work.
Without entering in any way into a discussion as to whether or not the announcement made by the Prime Minister was generally acceptable to those engaged in agriculture, I do say that such principle was enunciated by him and restated in "Canada at War". What is being contended this afternoon, and as I contended on April 23, is that the major complaint is to the "un-uniformity", if I may use that expression, of the administration of the regulations, and it is to this that criticism is being particularly directed. The regulations are all right, but there is nothing in them whereby any board can be required to live within their terms. There is only one way in which an individual may insist under our law on the performance of a duty by an administrative body, and that is by way of mandamus or by way of one of the prerogative writs. AH those rights have been taken away by the regulations. Therefore, when it is said that the regulations are mandatory, that means nothing. It just means that something shall be done, but if it is not done there is no right on the part of him against whom there has been discrimination to enforce his legal

rights. In other words, if a person had all the rights in the world and was not in a position to enforce those rights, they are non-existent unless the administrative body charged with the administration of the law is prepared to follow the law.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: Just before six o'clock I was dealing with the regulations which establish the rights of persons who are called up for service to seek postponement. I think we shall all agree that when postponements are to be granted they should be granted in an equitable manner to the end that in the interpretation and administration of the regulations there shall be as nearly as possible uniformity in all the provinces. As the regulations stand to-day, the only appeal that can be taken is an appeal to the board in each of the provinces, the decision of the board being final. The result of that may very well be that in one province the board will interpret the regulations in a manner different from the interpretation given in another province. As the regulations are, while in one province a man may be granted a postponement when he applies, on the basis of being a person "wholly or mainly employed in agriculture", in another province the board may not see fit, on similar facts and under similar circumstances, to grant such postponement.
It was stated by the minister that the wording is mandatory, that is to say, that the board "shall from time to time, upon the application of a person wholly or mainly employed in agriculture", grant him a postponement. True enough, the section is mandatory; but there is no provision whereby a person entitled to his postponement and denied that postponement may make further application either by way of appeal or to the courts. Under the regulations, section 8 provides:
No proceeding authorized or pending before an appeal board, and no decision of a board, shall by means of an injunction, prohibition, mandamus, certiorari, habeas corpus or other process, issuing out of court, be enjoined, restrained, stayed, removed or subjected to review or consideration on any ground whether arising out of alleged absence of jurisdiction in an appeal board, nullity, defect or irregularity of the proceedings, or any cause whatsoever, nor shall any such proceedings or decision be questioned, reviewed or reconsidered.

War Appropriation-War Services
A reading of that section establishes clearly that regardless of the merits an individual may have to obtain a postponement, he is denied that right, and the prerogative writs that ordinarily prevail under British law to assure to a person, who is entitled to the mandatory performance of an act, have been denied under that section. The result is that in parts of the country, a strict and stringent administration is taking place, while in other provinces, upon similar facts, postponements are being granted.
I think the minister will agree that if one thing must be insisted on, it is that in the administration of these regulations there should be, as nearly as humanly possible, uniformity; otherwise the result may well be that a feeling of suspicion may be aroused. In my opinion the minister should donsider the setting up of a final appeal board similar to that provided by the Military Service Act in 1917, whereby, by appointment of the governor in council, one of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada should act as a central appeal judge. In that way, if any provincial board is failing to carry out properly the provisions of the regulations, or in so doing is discriminating against any person within its jurisdiction, there may be an appeal to the central authority. Only in that way can we secure uniformity of administration consistent with the proper application of the law.
While in the matter of appeal it might be argued that if it was not necessary for men called up for service to have to report until such time as the decision was handed down, the difficulty that might arise on appeals being taken could very well be obviated by a provision denying a stay of proceedings pending the decision. This afternoon someone suggested that if a man was called up and was entitled under the regulations to postponement, but had been refused and failed to report and was prosecuted, he would then have the opportunity of stating to the court that he had been Wrongly called, being entitled to his postponement and could successfully defend himself. But a reading of section 30 shows otherwise:
Every man called out pursuant to these regulations who fails or refuses to submit himself for medical examination within the time limited by and in accordance with the terms of any notice given to him by the divisional registrar requiring him to submit himself for medical examination shall be guilty of an offence.
Section 31 provides:
Every man called out pursuant to these regulations and placed by an examining physician in a category in which men so placed are considered fit for military training who fails or refuses to report within the time limited . . . shall be guilty of an offence.
Therefore the position of affairs is this. Regardless of the merits of his case a man has no right to-day to ask the crown or the military authorities to show cause on an appeal to a central appeal court or by resort to a prerogative writ that he is not entitled to postponement. It would have been much better, instead of having the National Resources Mobilization Act administered under regulations, to have made provision by statute as was done in the Military Service Act of 1917. The regulations as they are to-day are so worded that they deny to many the right to postponement, who are entitled to that postponement and, on the other hand, might operate against the crown where postponement might be granted arbitrarily by the provincial board, whereas under the facts of the case postponement ought not to be granted.
I suggest that the minister give consideration to the establishment of a judicial final tribunal here in the city of Ottawa. It is not going to be a costly proceeding. It will do no harm, nor will it delay the military effort of this'dominion, but it will assure one thing and that is that the man who lives, say in Prince Edward Island and is called up to service will know that the same type of administration is going to be applied in his case as is being followed in British Columbia. To have any other basis of administration may raise suspicion as between province and province, denied as a man is to-day those rights of British jurisprudence which assure him the performance of mandatory rights under the law. To-day a man who is called up for service has certain mandatory rights under the regulations, but if they are denied to him he has no recourse at law. He cannot go to the minister and say, "There has been a decision made against me and I am entitled to a postponement". The door is closed to the most definite rights provided for by regulation.
If the idea that I suggest is accepted, the minister will be relieved of the many hundreds of applications that are to-day being made to him. If I understood him aright this afternoon, representations are made to him regularly, and upon receiving them he communicates with the provincial boards. In that case, where one man in consequence of representations made by the minister secures postponement, while another man under similar circumstances who does not make application is ordered up for service, there is bound to be suspicion which might very well be obviated by the simple expedient of appointing as a judicial final tribunal composed of a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I would suggest, too, from a reading of these regulations that they contain many incongruous provisions, and they might very well be

War Appropriation-War Services
submitted, if not to parliament itself, with a statute introduced in that behalf, at least to a committee of parliament to the end that equality will be secured among all the people across this dominion and that uniformity of administration will be ensured.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I should like at the outset to express my great appreciation of the contribution to the discussion made by the hon. member for Lake Centre. He has put forward in a clear-cut manner the argument that there ought to be established a central court of appeal or board of appeal which would hear appeals from all the divisional boards across Canada with a view to obtaining uniformity of decision. I appreciate very much indeed the argument that he has put forward and the clarity of his statement of the grounds for it.
The general opinion thus far has been against the setting up of a central court of appeal, and in coming to that view the authorities had in mind the experience of the last war-the Military Service Act, with its great multiplicity of tribunals, and its appeals ending with an appeal to the Chief Justice of Canada. Some of those appeals dragged on for months. It was with the deliberate purpose of avoiding a repetition of what occurred then that the divisional boards were set up, each one presided over by a superior court judge or a judge of some other court in the province where the major portion of the administrative division was located.
I imagine it was for that reason also that provisions were put into the statute to the effect that the decisions of the administrative boards should be final, that they should not be reviewable by mandamus or injunction or the other various procedures to which the hon. member for Lake Centre referred. He has quoted two sections of the regulations, sections 8 and 30 which, I think, make that intent clear.
The expectation was that the questions involved in an application for postponement are questions of fact. I do not think any questions of law are involved. Perhaps when I make that statement I make it a little too broad. Let me content myself by saying that in the main all the questions that come before these boards are questions of fact. Questions of fact are not all the same. The considerations operating in each one of the provinces are not all the same. But if you ask a board presided over by a superior court judge to deal with questions of fact that come before the board you go a long way toward uniformity, perhaps as far toward uniformity as it is possible to go when you are dealing with questions of fact.

It is quite true that when you have questions of fact coming before boards, one board may attach greater weight to one particular fact than another board might do. Then, too, considerations in the various provinces differ. One province may be mainly agricultural, with the board thoroughly understanding the importance of agriculture. In another province the main activity may be industrial, with the board in that particular case having a thorough appreciation of, let us say, the needs of war industry. All of these considerations may affect the board in its dealing with the facts of each case as it comes before it.
We have had two conferences with the chairmen of the boards and the registrars. There was a conference fairly early in the history of the regulations, and then on April 23, 24 and 25 we had a three-day conference with a view to having a general discussion of the regulations and their administration. Conferences of that sort will, I think, go a very considerable way toward bringing about uniformity. I doubt whether uniformity could be any more effectively brought about by a court of appeal. If questions of law were involved, certainly it would be desirable to have a central court of appeal. But when each case is really dependent on questions of fact I do not see how the establishment of a central court of appeal could bring about uniformity. That is my view. But I appreciate very keenly the necessity of uniformity of administration of the regulations across Canada as far as that is possible in the light of the fact that the decisions in these cases are made by tribunals which are judicial tribunals, on the basis of the facts of each individual case.
We held this conference of chairmen and registrars of divisions. We sat for three days. I was present at all the sessions, and I can assure hon. members that a great deal of useful work was done. It was the view of that conference, indeed, it was the view of the department, that the regulations should be gone over from beginning to end, and it was suggested that a committee should be struck for the purpose of going over the regulations. A number of regulations that are still in the brochure of regulations as printed are spent, by reason of the facts that they were meant to cover being no longer applicable. For example, certain regulations in regard to students were applicable only to the state of affairs that existed when we called men for only thirty days. Some of these regulations should be struck out. Then it was the general view that the Minister of National War Services might appoint a committee for the purpose of going through the regulations from start to

War Appropriation-War Services
finish. It was my hope that there would be placed before that committee the various views expressed by the conference and also the views expressed by hon. members of this committee in discussing the regulations. I hope that as soon as possible after this debate is terminated that the committee will proceed1 with the work of combing over the regulations, and I assure hon. members that representations made by them will be brought to the attention of the committee.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Does the minister mean a departmental committee?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: What was in mind was a departmental committee. The reason for that was that there are a great many administrative details to be worked out. I am not wedded to the idea of a departmental committee; my opinion is that it might have advantages over some other kind of committee, but in any event I would assure hon. members that their representations will be brought to the attention of the committee. These regulations are of great importance and are becoming of even greater importance. It is therefore essential that they should commend1 themselves in both their substance and content and also in their administration not only to this house but to the country generally.
There are difficulties involved in individual cases, but those difficulties arise from the facts of each particular case. If I were completely satisfied that the establishment of a central court of appeal would produce uniformity, I would not hesitate in recommending such establishment. But the experience of a central court of appeal in the last war under the Military Service Act was not a happy one, and we hope not to run into a similar experience again in this war.
When I was before the house last Monday I was in course of making a statement, but I did not get anywhere near through. Perhaps it is just as well. It does not really make much difference what form the discussion takes, whether it takes place after a general statement or in the course of making that general statement. I am in the hands of the committee as to which course the committee would prefer.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister proceeds would he permit one or two more questions arising out of his statement?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister agrees that if there is one thing more than another that is necessary it is that there be as nearly as possible equality in the administration of this act dn every province of the dominion.
He states that if an appeal were allowed it would be an appeal on questions of fact, and for that reason it would be impossible, or at any rate difficult, for a central court of appeal to look into the decisions of a provincial board. But has the minister given consideration to -this, that up to March 24 the granting of postponements was a matter to be decided upon the individual case; but on March 24 in consequence of the announcement made by the Prime Minister, provision for the granting of these postponements was made, on a basis, not of the individual circumstances, but of the occupation of the particular individual; and individual considerations were -to have effect only in the event that the crown could not show that such person was not an essential worker in agriculture. Therefore -the position of affairs to-day is this, that those in the particular occupations he mentioned, and in particular agriculture, after that date were prima facie to be entitled to a postponement.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: On application.


John George Diefenbaker: On application
being made; and the onus rests to the crown to establish that the individual does not come within the purview of the general postponement provision.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Or should you say the onus passes away from the applicant?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, and that
is exactly the point I am endeavouring to bring to the attention of the minister, that once the onus passes away from the applicant, then it is not a question of fact in an individual case; the postponement is an en masse proposition. Everyone is entitled to it who comes within the purview of the regulation unless the crown can show that the applicant is not an essential worker in agriculture. This afternoon the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar pointed out a case, and the minister refused to say what his decision would have been in that case.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have not the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: True enough; but if the facts were as stated by the hon. member, clearly that man came within the regulation entitling him to postponement. The government saw fit to grant postponements to a class engaged in agriculture, and took upon itself the onus of proving whether or not a man should be denied the benefit of that regulation.
The minister says that what took place in 1917 was one of the reasons why a central court of appeal was not established. I would ask him to amplify that statement. Why could not provision be made whereby appeals
2522	COMMONS
War Appropriation-War Services
could be allowed to a central court only after that court had been applied to and had granted the right of appeal? I do not believe there should be an automatic appeal, but I think there should be provision for appeal, to the end that those entitled to rights under the law may obtain those rights. To-day, as matters now stand, the people of Canada may find themselves in the position that in one province men will be granted postponements while in another province under similar circumstances men will be called to service. It was never intended that regulations should be interpreted in a manner that would discriminate in favour of one province as against another. An appeal body would bring about uniformity in the interpretation of the regulations. This afternoon the minister stated that the regulations were mandatory; that the applicant had his rights; that they were not declaratory rights but were rights assured to him. So I put this proposition to the minister. If in any province, as a result of the predilictions or the attitude of a board, the provisions of the regulations are deliberately flouted and disregarded, what rights has an individual so affected? As I see it, he has none. He has been denied the prerogative rights such as writs of habeas corpus and certiorari. He has been denied any appeal. He has rights, but he has no method of enforcing them.
Then take the other position, in which the board would grant postponements without regard to the regulations, deliberately flout the regulations in the other direction, allowing everyone postponement without regard to whether or not, under the law, they are entitled to it. Is there any provision whereby the crown may prevent that abuse of power? There is nothing whatever under the regulations as they stand to-day; and with all the sincerity that I can put in my words I say to the minister that the enforcement of these provisions must be done equitably and fairly. To-day we find ourselves in this position, that in one province 2-3 per cent of the young men are being called up, while in another province, in proportion to population, 5-7 per cent are being called up. Continue this course and the result will be not chaos but the destruction of national unity. As I see it, there is only one way of preventing such a condition of affairs, and that is through a uniform application of the law to every person in Canada, without regard to provinces or the boards having jurisdiction in the several provinces. As the regulations are, in Saskatchewan-and I speak of that province because I represent a constituency there-every man engaged in agriculture might be called up and ordered to report, even with 
the regulation as it is, and there is no power whatsoever to interfere with the actions of the board. That would amount to a denial of justice, a denial of fairness, a discrimination against those entitled to postponement, and there is no right on the part of those who are discriminated against to appeal to the courts of this country.
It is true that in 1917 the prerogative rights were denied. I can understand the reason for that, because if it were left open to those called for service to take advantage of legal technicalities, they would do so; they would appeal by way of certiorari, habeas corpus or anything else available. But there remained the right of appeal. To-day there are no rights, either to the men who are being called up, to assure them of fair treatment, or to the crown, if a board should deliberately flout the regulation. While I have mentioned Saskatchewan, I think it only fair to say that in doing so I was not referring to that board. The Saskatchewan board is composed of three reputable gentlemen: the chairman of the board, Mr. Justice Embury, who was a brigadier-general in the last war, with a distinguished record; Mr. Bickerton, president of the United Farmers, and Mr. Carl Stewart, K.C., a member of the legislative assembly.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Might I ask the hon. member which board he is referring to when he uses the phrase "flouts the regulation?"


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It would apply to any board.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the point. I mentioned Saskatchewan as an example of what might take place, because Saskatchewan is mainly agricultural. I could have mentioned any other province, but that was why I came back to point out that I was not specifically referring to the board in Saskatchewan. I do ask the minister to give consideration to this matter. As the regulations are, there is not a lawyer anywhere who could advise anyone as to his rights under these regulations. I do not understand why men called up were denied representation by counsel before the provincial boards, but that is what the regulations provide. If a man is denied legal representation, at least he should not be denied those ordinary rights that British subjects everywhere have enjoyed for the past two hundred and fifty years. I do not believe in wholesale appeals;
I do not believe that every one should be free to appeal to a central appeal board; but I do believe that if and when a provincial national services board is not carrying out the provisions of the law, the opportunity should be given applicants to appeal by leave to a central board composed of a judge of the

War Appropriation-War Services
Supreme Court of Canada who would give uniform administration of the regulations, and would give to each case a uniform, proper application of the principles upon which postponement is provided for under the regulations.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The hon. member for Lake Centre has presented his case powerfully, and I would be prepared to say that there is a great deal of merit in what he has put forward, if I were prepared to accept the basic assumption upon which his argument is made, that boards are flouting the regulations.
In the course of the months I have had to do with the department I see nothing to suggest that boards are flouting the regulations. While the prerogative writs are done away with in these regulations, as they were done away with in 1917, we are concerned with getting finality. The judgments of the boards are stated by the regulations to be final. I propose to submit an amendment to the regulations in order to give the boards power to reconsider. That was a matter which was discussed at the recent conference, and it was generally agreed that that power should be in the boards. It may be that they inherently have the power already;
I would not go so far as to say that they do not.
I should point out that in addition to the composition of the boards, there are four representatives who have the right to appear before the boards; one representing the Department of National Defence; one representing the national war labour board, and one representing agriculture. Those three representatives are supposed to be the representatives of the three war purposes to which I referred earlier this afternoon.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Are those representatives appointed by the government?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The representative of the Department of National Defence is a serving officer of the Department of National Defence. The representative of the national war labour board is appointed by that board.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Have they been appointed in all the provinces?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think the representatives of the national war labour board are operating in all the provinces.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Who is the
representative in Saskatchewan?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not know who it is. in Saskatchewan.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Who appoints the representatives of agriculture?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The minister appoints the representatives of agriculture.


Thomas Miller Bell: Have they been
appointed in all the provinces?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No. Last Monday I put on Hansard the names of the five representatives of agriculture who have been appointed. That is perhaps not as important now as it was earlier, or as it was before the new regulations with regard to agriculture came into effect.


Major James William Coldwell: In view of the discussion to-day it would seem to be important.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No, there has been very little by way of expressed dissatisfaction with the decisions made by the board. If one were to listen only to what has been said this afternoon he might think that there were thousands of cases of dissatisfaction. As a matter of fact only a very few cases are brought to our attention.


Major James William Coldwell: It is wrong to have even a few cases, if they can be adjusted.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I quite agree, and that is my reason for saying that if hon. members have brought to their attention cases which strike them as being those which have not been fully considered, or in which all the facts have not been dealt with, I invite them to bring such cases to my attention, notwithstanding the additional work involved. I would publicly welcome having those matters brought before me. Actually the number of cases which have come to my notice is quite small.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Has the decision been reversed in any of them?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: In some of them the boards have reviewed the facts and have granted postponements.


Mr. STIRLING:: So the boards have power of revision?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I thought I had covered that point when I was addressing my remarks specifically to the hon. member for Lake Centre. I think they have the power. But to put it beyond dispute we propose to make an amendment along the lines I mentioned a moment ago. There must, however, be some finality in these matters, and I must again stress the fundamental purpose of these

War Appropriation-War Services
regulations, namely to enable the Department of National War Services to fulfil the requisitions sent to it by the Department of National Defence.


An hon. MEMBER:: And do so equitably.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: And do so as equitably as possible. As a matter of fact I think hon. members will be interested in the considerations which govern the assignment to a civilian rather than a defence department of this particular task of calling men for military training. I believe I can say that the Department of National War Services and the national war service boards regard as individuals all persons coming before them as a result of the notice relating to medical examination. Then those persons are turned over to the training centres if they have not made out a sound case for postponement, made out a case for postponement on either of the two broad grounds, the one of hardship or the other of national interest. When they are turned over to the training centres they become soldiers subject to military discipline and subject to the law of the army. Up until that stage, up until they are being turned over to the training centres they are under the jurisdiction of our department which regards them as individual persons, giving consideration to their individual cases! It is that principle and that attitude of mind which I wish to preserve.
If there could be absolute uniformity of administration or decision as to the facts it would be highly desirable, but it would be a mistake to look at percentages only, because back of the percentages are many other factors and many other considerations that every one would have to assess in order to arrive at a true interpretation of whether there is uniformity. The hon. member for Lake Centre referred to the percentage of postponements, and I should like to put on the record now what I intended to put on at the outset this afternoon but which I did not because of the run of questions that started before I could complete the statement I had in mind.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not speak of percentages of postponements; I spoke of the
percentage of those called up, the R-recruits.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I quite appreciate what my hon. friend said. In the Ottawa Citizen of May 15, 1942, there appeared an editorial entitled "Figures on Draftee Army." This editorial indicates the folly of making state-
ments without looking closely at the facts. I should like to put it on Hansard with the leave of the committee. It starts off as follows:
Some interesting and revealing figures concerning men called up for military service under the mobilization act were given in the House of Commons the other day. Robert Fair M P for Battle River, had asked a question ' as to the number of men drafted, the number of applications for postponement of training and the number of applications granted.
Mr. Thorson, Minister of National War Services, furnished the following figures, covering the period from October 9, 1940, to March 12,
Under the heading "Men called up", figures are given for each of the provinces. Figures are also given for each of the provinces under the headings: "Asked for postponement" and "Granted postponement".
P.E.I	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick...
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan ....
Alberta	
British Columbia..
Men	Asked for	Grantedcalled	postpone-	postponeup	ment	ment1,013	549	4634,718	3,010	2,0194,567	2,315	1,80238,433	37,163	22.17437,252	19,800	15,9538,331	3.231	2,4429,424	2,874	1,8039,024	2,534	2,3347,543	4,443	4,056
Then the following comment is made in the editorial:
Wliat will first of all open the eyes of most people is the extraordinary high percentage of applications for postponement of training, and next to that, the high percentage of postponements granted.
Then there follows this statement:
Among other things the figures reveal is that only a little more than half the men called up under the compulsory home defence law get into the army right away.
The figures which were given in reply to the question put by the hon. member for Battle River, and which appear in Hansard of May 6, reveal ^ no such thing. Another statement is made in the editorial as follows:
During the period covered, 120,305 men were called up and accepted. But only 67.259 got into uniform. A total of 75,919 asked for postponement of training and in 53,046 cases it was granted.
That statement is wholly erroneous. If the writer of that editorial had read the answer which I made to the question put by the hon. member for Battle River, he would have seen that the total of 120,305 appeared under the heading entitled:
Number of men called up for military training under the National Resources Mobilization Act in each of the provinces, and accepted at national defence (army) basic training centres, since October 9, 1940, up to March 12, 1942.

War Appropriation-War Services
The whole of that number of 120,305 went into uniform. What the writer of this editorial has done is to deduct the number of applications for postponement of military training that have been granted, 53,046, from the total number who were called up and accepted, 120,305, arriving at his total of 67,259, which he stated were those who got into uniform. That is entirely erroneous. All men referred to in the first column of my answer, or 120,305, got into uniform oveT and above the 53,046 whose military training had been postponed. The figure 120,305 does not include the figue 53,046. I do not believe the writer of this editorial would have fallen into this error if he had read with greater care the headings of the various columns. Having fallen into that error, the writer of the editorial then falls into another error when he makes this statement:
In Quebec about 97 per cent of men drafted asked for postponement and approximately 60 per cent were granted postponement. In Ontario 53 per cent asked for postponement and 43 per cent got it. Saskatchewan, with 31 per cent asking for and 19 per cent obtaining postponement, has the lowest percentages.
All those figures are erroneous for the reason I indicated before.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Does the figure of 120,305 mean that that number of men stayed in the army, or does that figure include those who had the thirty days training and then got out of the army?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The figure I have given includes the thirty days training figure.


Mark Cecil Senn: How many out of the 120,305 took the thirty days training?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I put those figures on Hansard last Monday, but I have them here. In that figure of 120,305, there are included 82,893 who were called up in the three 30-day training periods.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That makes a different
picture altogether.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It does not affect what
I have just been pointing out.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But is it not a fact that the thirty-day trainees did not ask for postponement?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Oh, yes, a great many
of them did.


Mr. DUPUIS:: And a great many of them were called up again.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes, a great many.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Actually how many of
the thirty-day trainees asked for postponement? I think the percentage was very small.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: All those figures are
available. The figures of application for postponement and the number of applications for postponement granted have been kept with very great care from the outset, and I could obtain for the hon. member for Waterloo South the particulars exclusively for the three calls for thirty-day training but I would have to work the figures out separately. I have with me here only the grand totals covering the fifteen training periods.
The writer of this editorial in the Citizen falls into the same error when he arrives at his percentages. Let me indicate, if I may, how he falls into error. Take, for instance, the province of Quebec. Under the heading as given in the editorial, 38,433 men were called up and 37,163 asked for postponement. Then the writer jumps to the conclusion that out of the 38,433 men who were called up 37,163 asked for postponement, and in that way he gets his 97 per cent. Nothing of the sort. All of the 38,433 men called up went into uniform and) none of them got any postponement. They all went to the training centres and they were all accepted.
Similarly, by the same erroneous inference, he makes the statement that in Ontario, on the other hand1, 53 per cent asked for postponement and 43 per cent got it. That would indicate that there was a treatment or an attitude of mind in one province different from the treatment or the attitude of mind in another province. I d'o not know whether the writer of that editorial was trying to indicate any particular attitude of mind in the province of Quebec compared with the attitude of mind in Ontario or any other province, but the writer certainly draws wrong conclusions as between the provinces. As a matter of fact, if the writer will look at the second of the two columns he will find that in the province of Quebec 37,163 persons asked for postponement and 22,174 postponements were granted. That is a percentage of roughly 59 per cent.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Would the minister state how many were called up? We would then have the complete picture.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I shall be glad to give
all the facts. To continue with this editorial for the moment, in the case of Ontario, the editorial shows that 19,800 men asked for postponement and 15,953 applications for postponement were granted. That is 70 per

War Appropriation-War Services
cent. In Saskatchewan, 9,424 men were called up; 2,874 asked for postponement, and 1,803 applications for postponement were granted. That is 62 per cent. Therefore the province of Quebec, instead of having, as the writer of the editorial would have it, the largest percentage of postponements, has really the lowest percentage of postponements granted in respect of applications for postponement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How does
the percentage of postponements compare with the number called up?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The true basis of calculation should be the number of applications for postponement in relation to the number of notices sent out to report for medical examination.


Clarence Gillis: Would the minister mind putting on the. record the same figures for all the provinces. There are other provinces besides the three that I hear mentioned so often.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I mention them only by reason of the figures in the editorial. Ordinarily I do not pay a great deal of attention to the Ottawa Citizen.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: If the minister would permit me, the argument he is making to show that the editorial is wrong could, I think, be put in another way. The question that was asked was this:
How many men have been called up for training under the National Resources Mobilization Act in each of the provinces?
In the first column the figures given do not answer that question.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think so.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: Very definitely not-


Grote Stirling: Certainly not.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: -because the heading above the figures given in the first column is:
Number of men called up for military training under the National Resources Mobilization Act in each of the provinces-
That was what the question asked for, but then the heading over the column goes on to add these words:
[DOT]-and accepted at National Defence (army) basic training centres.
I think that is the answer to the whole difficulty.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That may possibly be the explanation. But the answer given gives the information in respect of the persons who were effectively called up.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: Called up-and taken into the army


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is fit persons. In order to get correct percentages one would have to have another set of figures showing the number of persons to whom notices to report for medical examination were sent. That is the first notice that goes out, and if hon. members would like to have that for the whole of the country, for the same periods, I will put that table on Hansard so that the comparisons may be made. In respect of the four months men, that is, the really effective persons, I will put that table on Hansard. I have it by administrative divisions, but I will table it by provinces.


George Russell Boucher: Do the tables placed on Hansard by the minister last Monday show how many were called up by provinces under the 30-day plan and otherwise; how many asked for postponement, under the 30-day plan and otherwise; and how many postponements were granted under the 30-day plan and otherwise, by provinces? That would settle the question and enlighten the people in that regard.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The tables I put on Hansard last Monday relate only to the four months plan because those are the persons who are effectively put into the Canadian active army for home defence. The tables show the number of men requisitioned by the Department of National Defence; the number of men who reported to basic training centres; the number of men rejected for medical reasons upon reporting at basic training centres; the number of men accepted at basic training centres; the number of men examined by civilian physicians, showing the number placed in each medical category since the inception of the four months training plan up to March, 1942. Then table VI shows applications for postponement, and table VII shows applications for postponements that were granted. I think these tables will answer the questions of my hon. friend with respect to persons who were called up for four months training and held for the duration.


George Russell Boucher: Why could the. minister not couple that with those called for 30-day training? Some called for 30-day training would be included in those for the four months.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No, not in the figures I gave. The figures I gave in the tables cover only persons who were called up for four months and do not include the persons who served thirty days and were recalled. I gave those additional figures earlier in the day, and I pointed out that in respect of the

War Appropriation-War Services
30-day men our department acts for the Department of National Defence and we call them up in the name of the Department of National Defence, because those men are members of the reserve army and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence. In respect of those persons who were called for thirty days and recalled, I gave those figures: the total number that were requisitioned by the Department of National Defence, 13,650; the number who reported to training centres, 14,387; the number of men who were actually accepted at training centres, 12,539.


George Russell Boucher: That is the point. The minister does not tell us the number who were called. He tells us the number who were requisitioned, the number who reported, and the number who remained after rejections had been taken up, but he does not give us the number who were called.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The total number of
notices for medical examination sent out for the same training period was 312,649. That is the total covering the operation of the regulations from their inception, and includes the thirty days ana the four months men.
I have in this table, by administrative divisions, the number of men to whom notices to report for medical examination were sent. The figures by provinces are as follows:
Prince Edward Island	 1,846
Nova Scotia	 12,319
New Brunswick	 12,627
Quebec	 117,425
Ontario	 84,678
Manitoba	 20,721
Saskatchewan	 19,780
Alberta	 20,739
British Columbia	 22,519


George Russell Boucher: But that would not be the number called to report, because some of those called for medical examination might be in a category that would not be called, so we still do not have the picture.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Quite so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the minister leaves the discussion of the regulations, I wish to say a few words in support of the position taken by the hon. member for Lake Centre. Last year the minister will remember I strongly opposed the removal of regulation 14, which took away from the applicant the right of appeal to the minister as a final court of appeal.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Where is that in any previous regulation?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Clause 14 was withdrawn, the clause appointing the minister as final court of appeal.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is news to me.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not
news to the minister that the boards became the final court of appeal, that no appeal to the minister was allowed any more.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There was no appeal to the minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the original regulations there was.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will not argue the point now. The minister has just said that these regulations are important and that they are becoming increasingly important. That is true, because these regulations are the machinery under which Canada proposes to requisition the lives of its citizens. As the minister acknowledged, it is most essential that these regulations and the administration set up under them shall be carried on in the most impartial manner possible. The protest has been made before and was made again to-day that there is lack of uniformity in the administration of the different boards. Last year some reference was made to a hockey team as an illustration. There are other illustrations, some of which I shall draw to the minister's attention in a moment. In my opinion it is bad practice to set up across the country quasi-judicial bodies and give to them arbitrary power under regulations which they themselves are the sole authority in interpreting. Under these regulations wide powers are given; there are blank spaces under them where it is not clear exactly what course is to be followed. In these cases the board becomes a law unto itself, and there is danger, especially if the minister lacks time for supervision or lacks firmness, of these semi-judicial bodies becoming little czars in their own domain.
Not being a lawyer, I am not sure that the procedure suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre, that a final court of appeal here in Ottawa would meet the situation, would be the best. It may be that it would. Certainly I think this would help to meet it, that first of all these administrative committees, national war services boards, ought to be conducted to some extent on the basis of court procedure.
A board is set up in Saskatchewan, for instance, with three men on it. A young man comes before that board making application
2528	COMMONS
War Appropriation-War Services
for postponement. The only representative that I know of who has ever gone before that board in addition to the person making the application is the representative of the Department of National Defence. I do not know of any representative of the labour supply board; I dc not know of any representative of agriculture other than one of the members of the board. The young man is in a court in which the Department of National Defence has a person functioning practically as prosecuting attorney, and is left to defend himself and present his own case. Most of us know what it means to be suddenly placed before a committee; the average person, if he has no experience in presenting facts, if he is timid about answering questions, can trip himself up in a very few minutes. It seems to me that if the board is made the final court of appeal, there ought to be a person, say the judge, in this case the chairman, as referee; there ought to be someone in that board presenting the case for the Department of National Defence, and there ought to be someone there who will examine the facts concerning the applicant and present the facts for him.
The average young man has not a chance in the world in presenting his own case; he is entirely at the mercy of the mood, the persuasion or the mental outlook of the men on the board. If they are considerate, thoughtful; if they examine his case carefully, help him in bringing out the facts, he may get a fair deal. If they are not that kind of men, the situation is quite different.
The set-up of these boards might well be changed. There ought to be, but as far as I know in Saskatchewan there is not, a representative of labour selected and recommended by labour; there ought to be a representative of agriculture, suggested by agriculture. In the case of Saskatchewan there is one who, I am sure, is quite satisfactory to agriculture in that province; I do not know anyone who would fill the position better. But someone on that board ought to appear on behalf of the applicant, someone who will examine his case and present it. The representative of the Department of National Defence is there, who is very naturally prepared to present many reasons why the postponement should not be granted; it is his job to get as many persons into the army as possible. Certainly someone ought to be there to present the other side of the story. If these boards are to continue to have the tremendous powers that have been given them, there ought to be some setup to make them more judicial in character and to guarantee to the persons going before them the best possible presentation of their case.

The minister says that one of the reasons why it would be impossible +o set up a final court of appeal is that these are cases founded on fact, not on interpretation of the law. That is correct. But I would ask the minister what machinery is set up by his department for the collecting of these facts. It may be better now; I have some reason to believe it is, but I know that for quite a while the facts were collected in the strangest manner. I had a young man come to my home one morning with his grandmother, whose sole support he was alleged to be. They had made an application for postponement on the ground that if this young man should be called up, the grandmother would have to leave the farm, dispose of the stock, move into town and live alone. The postponement was granted. A few days before the time to report, however, the young man was notified that the postponement had been cancelled. He came to see me; I told him there was nothing I could do, that this was the decision of the board, but that I would telephone the board and find out why the postponement had been cancelled. I called the secretary of the board, and again I have no quarrel with that gentleman. He has always been very courteous and fair to me, and he is the servant of the board, not responsible for the policy pursued. He said, "Yes, we did grant postponement, but on the basis of certain information given to us in the last few days we have cancelled that postponement." I said, "Well, that is fine, except that I should like to know the source of that information." He replied, "We are not going to tell you the name of the person." I said, "I do not want to know the name of the person, but I do want some assurance that the information reached you through proper channels. Was it secured for you by the mounted police? Was it secured for you by any officer or employee of the government?" His -reply was, "No. This information was telephoned to us by some individual in the community in whom we have confidence." Well, Mr. Chairman, if you ever start to collect your facts on that basis you are taking the most dangerous ground possible upon which to administer selective service. If the government is going to turn certain people in the community into official informers, it is storing up a lot of grief for itself. There is not a community anywhere in which there are not at least two or three people who like minding the business of other people better than their own, who specialize in sending anonymous letters, making anonymous telephone calls, or sending messages about somebody else whom for some reason or another they do not like. In all fairness I must say that in a number of cases

War Appropriation-War Services
with which I am familiar the investigation was made by the mounted police. With that I am in complete agreement; the machinery for collecting these facts ought to be official machinery. Facts ought to be collected through the proper agencies, the mounted police, the local magistrate, or some person in an official capacity who has training in sifting facts and presenting evidence.
A few moments ago I said that these boards had wide powers and that there was always the danger, in connection with semi-judicial boards of this kind, that they might become little czars in their own communities. They are pretty well the final authority; they make the decisions as to how the regulations shall be interpreted. Let me give one illustration of that; I refer to the method by which conscientious objectors have been handled, particularly in Saskatchewan. I know the subject of conscientious objectors is not a popular one; but the test of any democracy is how it treats its unpopular minorities.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Hear, hear; I entirely
agree.


James Lester Douglas: I want to direct the attention of the minister to the regulation which, as he knows, is No. 19. It states:
Any man who claims that he conscientiously objects to bearing arms or to undertaking combatant service may, at his own expense, apply for an order or direction of the board postponing his military training which order or direction may be given by the board to the divisional registrar if the board is satisfied that such man conscientiously objects to bearing arms or to undertaking combatant service.
I direct the attention of the committee to the words, "if the board is satisfied," which is a wide discretion. Then regulation 20 provides:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the next two preceding sections, the board, of its own motion or on application made by the minister or any person representing the minister, in the case of any person entitled to postponement of military training, either as a Mennonite or as a Doukhobor or as having been found by the board to object conscientiously to bearing arms or undertaking combatant service, may direct that such person, if medically fit for military training, be required to report as or after his age class has been called out to carry out such alternative training, service or work as the board may direct. . . .
From what information I can gather-and of course the minister will correct me if I am wrong, because he is in a position to know all the facts in reference to every province, while I can speak only with reference to my own province-the treatment of this particular group has not been uniform in the various provinces. As an example I mention two young men whom I have known for fifteen
or twenty years. They are twins, students at the theological seminary of the United Church, studying for the United Church ministry in . Saskatoon. Both made application to the board in Regina, claiming that they had religious scruples against the bearing of arms and offering to do any type of alternative service the board might prescribe. One young man was granted postponement on the ground that they considered him to be a sincere-and I underline the word "sincere"-conscientious objector. The other young man, for some reason I have never been able to find out, was not considered by the board to be a sincere conscientious objector and, with a number of others, had his postponement refused.
They went back to the university and made an offer to the board that they were prepared to do anything else. At the university other students who normally would be called out with their age groups are given an opportunity to take the R.O.T.C. course during their spare time in order to not break into the university year. These young men asked that they be given some alternative training during their spare time, instead of the R.O.T.C. course. That was refused in Saskatchewan, though my understanding is that at the university of Toronto such training is provided for students who conscientiously object to the bearing of arms. There I believe they are given an opportunity to take alternative training in some other line. But these young men were refused that opportunity, though it is expressly provided in regulation 20 that the board may prescribe some alternative training or service.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: If they are found to be conscientious objectors.


James Lester Douglas: Yes, but they must have found them to be conscientious objectors, because they did not insist on calling them up for military training. They said, "All right. You will not take the R.O.T.C. course; you do not want to report for military training, therefore you must stop your university year right now and go up to Banff national park," to work in a labour gang building highways, at 50 cents a day, out of which they must buy their clothing and all the other things they require. I know of one young man who was within a few months of finishing a chemistiy course, which would have enabled him to do great service to this country in our war effort. Several of these young men have been taken out of the university in the middle of their year, and sent up to Banff national park. As I said before, and wish to make perfectly clear, I have no objection at all to these young men doing alternative service. My contention is that any man who lives in this country is in the position



War Appropriation-War Services
where the state has the right to demand from him in this emergency some form or another of service.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Practical service.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, practical service.
To go back to the young man to whom I referred, he went to the board and said, "I am quite prepared to go to England with a firefighting group. I am prepared to go to England or anywhere else to drive an ambulance." But they replied that they had no arrangements for that sort of thing, and that they could not do that. The result is that we send a man to a labour gang, building roads, when it seems to me there are far more useful things we could do with young men of that kind.
I wish to repeat that I do not propose to be placed in a false light when I present this case to the minister. I have never held, and do not now hold, the view of the conscientious objector. I myself took the reserve officers training course when I was at university. In talking to these young men I have told them that in my opinion they should take the course, and that they could do so without violating their principles. I have told them that the course would do them a world of good. But I do insist that whatever one may think of the point of view of the conscientious objector, no man or group of men should be allowed to vent any sadistic tendencies they may have against any person with whose particular point of view they happen to be in disagreement.
Simply to take a young man out of a university, when hundreds of others are being left in the universities, and send him to a labour camp where he is not needed, because he antagonizes those who do not agree with his point of view, is not fair. It seems to me we are on very dangerous ground when we do that sort of thing.
Questions with respect to conscientious objectors-and I use that purely as an illustration-along with many other parts of these regulations ought to be clarified so that there will be uniform application in the administration of the regulations. There ought to be a final court of appeal, or there ought to be provision for farmer and labour advocates on the boards to present the cases of these young men in a proper and judicial manner.
Just one other point. The other evening I drew the attention of the minister to the young men who reported for training on April 9, and I pointed out then that there was a great deal of confusion in view of the fact that on March 25 the newspapers of Canada

carried a statement that they were exempted- that was the term used-and that postponement had been granted. The term used was that they were exempted from military training. I hold in my hand a clipping from the front page of a western newspaper. It is headed, "Main points of new programme" and is dated at Ottawa, March 24. It opens with these words:
Following are the high-lights of the national selective service programme, as announced in the House of Commons to-day by Prime Minister Mackenzie King.
Then follows a long list of the key-notes in the announcement, and No. 8 in the list is as follows:
Exemption from compulsory military training for essential farm workers, and prohibition against farm workers quitting jobs for nonessential work.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is just a misunderstanding.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, but it was a misunderstanding that had disastrous effects. As I said the other day, if one young man read that and did not report, he could still make application under the new order in council P.C. 2252. If he could substantiate the fact that he was working on the farm, or had been a farmer on March 23, he could get his postponement. But the other young man, who had not time to make the application, was in a different position. Even if he had time, the board had not time to deal with it, because they already had hundreds of applications made before March 23 with which they had not dealt. The young men who did report are no longer within the jurisdiction of the national war services board, and they cannot be dealt with at all.
I believe it was last Monday I raised the matter, and at that time the minister said he was going to look into it and see what could be done. Has he been able to think of any procedure which can be taken to deal with these cases? Has he decided if it is possible to examine these cases, in view of the fact that there was considerable confusion at the time the arrangement was made?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think there is some merit in the observations of the hon. member for Weyburn with respect to the class of persons, who, prior to March 23, had received their notice to report for training, and who, after March 23, did not make any application for postponement, by reason of the fact that they did not know they had any right to do so. I should like to give further consideration to the group of persons covered in that interval of time, and to have an opportunity of discussing the matter carefully with

War Appropriation-War Services
my colleague the Minister of National Defence, by reason of the fact that they are now in the training centres. I say to my hon. friend that that situation is under review.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the
minister make some statement with regard to conscientious objectors? On what basis is a board supposed to make a decision as to a man's sincerity or insincerity? Is there provision for alternative training for these men, and provision for alternative service, either in or outside the universities? Is it entirely within the discretion of the board to decide whether a young man shall remain in a university, whether he shall take alternative training or whether he shall simply be put into alternative service without any choice as to the type of alternative training for which he shows the greatest aptitude?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not know whether it is the wish of the committee that I should deal generally with the subject of conscientious objectors, and the manner in which that subject is being handled to-day by the department. I am in the hands of the committee. I had intended to make an opening statement which unfortunately I have not yet been able to complete. Then, a number of questions were raised by the leader of the opposition, some affecting the reserve army, some affecting students, and a number of other subjects. He commented, too, upon the administration of the regulations. I do not wish to deal with those particular subjects in his absence.
If it is the wish of the committee, however, I shall be very glad to deal with the subject of conscientious objectors, and give the committee a view of the whole subject. It is a subject with which it is not easy to deal, because the number of classes and kinds of persons is so varied. We cannot speak of conscientious objectors as being one class of person. In the main, conscientious objection is an individual objection toward taking human life. It varies with people. Certain persons have no objection to using force, depending upon the person against whom they may have to use the force. Some Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the use of force if it is for the purpose of defending another Jehovah's Witness, but otherwise they may be against the use of force. There are varieties of views, but generally speaking we deal with the subject of conscientious objectors under three sections of the regulations. I dealt with this at some _length last November, but I shall review the situation briefly as it is and then deal with the steps that we have taken with regard to conscientious objectors. Section 18 (1), which deals with Mennonites and Doukhobors, reads:
44561-160J
Members of the denomination of Christians called Mennonites and members of the community of Doukhobors who immigrated to Canada pursuant to the arrangements evidenced by the order in council of August 13, 1873, and by the order in council of December 6, 1898, respectively, or the descendants of such immigrants who have continued without interruption to be members of the aforesaid sect or denomination of Christians or of the aforesaid community of Doukhobors and who have resided without interruption in Canada, shall be entitled, subject as provided in these regulations, to the postponement of their military training.
That section deals with two classes of persons, Mennonites who come under the order in council of August 13, 1873, and Doukhobors who come under the provisions of the order in council of December 6, 1898. Persons who come within the provisions of section 18 are entitled to postponement of their military training. Applicants who come within the terms of this regulation must apply and must show, first, that they are descendants of these immigrants; second, that they have continued without interruption to be members either of the aforesaid sect or denomination of Christians, that is Mennonites, or of the aforesaid community of Doukhobors, and, third, that they have resided without interruption in Canada.


Mr. ESLING:: It is doubtful if the minister has the information at hand, but perhaps he will make it available before this discussion closes. The minister is putting some figures on Hansard, and I should like him to tell the committee how many conscientious objectors of the Doukhobor sect residing in British Columbia have been exempted from military service. How many such conscientious objectors were ordered for employment on public works, and to what projects were they to be sent? How many of them have refused absolutely to accept any orders from the government for either military or public service, and what steps have been taken to make these conscientious objectors obey the edict of the government?
During the past year there has been a noted movement of Doukhobors from Saskatchewan to British Columbia, to my district particularly. Conditions there are very favourable because they are able to live on improved land tax free, and naturally a Doukhobor does not Overlook anything in the way of getting ahead of the next one. When our young men are called up for service and they find these conscientious objectors exempted from any kind of service, and going to work in the lumber camps or accepting other well-paid positions, it stands to reason that there cannot be much of enthusiastic loyalty among our Canadian boys. The point is simply this: Is the government going to

War Appropriation-War Services
permit these young Doukhobors simply to flaunt defiance at the orders of the government?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I cannot give the hon.
member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling) answers to all the questions that he has asked because we do not have a separate breakdown for each province of the different kinds and classes of persons who claim to be conscientious objectors. However, in so far as the information is available, I shall give it to my hon. friend.
Last fall I dealt at considerable length with the painful subject to which my hon. friend has referred, namely, the Doukhobors in British Columbia and particularly that sect known as the Sons of Freedom. There is not much that I can add to what I said on that subject in November. Without overlooking what my hon. friend for Kootenay West has asked for and assuring him that I shall come back to some of the questions that he has placed before me, perhaps I may be permitted to continue with my general description of the manner in which the regulations relating to Mennonites, Doukhobors and conscientious objectors are enforced. I have dealt generally with the persons called Mennonites and the persons called Doukhobors and indicated what facts those two classes of persons must prove in order to come within section 18. Section 19 deals with conscientious objectors generally, and subsection 1 reads:
Any man who claims that he conscientiously objects to bearing arms or to undertaking combatant service may, at his own expense, apply for an order or direction of the board postponing his military training which order or direction may be given by the board to the divisional registrar if the board is satisfied that such man conscientiously objects to bearing arms or to undertaking combatant service.
The matter of conscientious objection is a fact. The question as to whether a person is a Mennonite or a Doukhobor within the meaning of section 18 is also a fact. If the applicant for postponement is able to produce the facts that bring him within the provisions of section 18, if he is a Mennonite or a Doukhobor within the meaning of that section, or if he is a conscientious objector within the meaning of section 19, he is entitled to postponement of military training.
I agree with the hon. member for Weybum in not understanding the point of view of the conscientious objector, but I am likewise satisfied that the bona fide conscientious objector has that point of view. If he has it, I for one am prepared to recognize his viewpoint, and I agree that the principle is sound that his military training should be postponed. As to the Mennonites and the

Doukhobors we have a national obligation of honour that binds us to respect the conditions under which their fathers and mothers came to this country.
Under section 20 it is generally provided that if the board has found a person to be a Mennonite or a Doukhobor or a conscientious objector, and has postponed his military training, the board may direct him to alternative service of a nature that will not involve the bearing of arms or the taking of human life. We started off with alternative service for a period of four months, that being the period of time for which men were then called up for military training. We have now made the period of alternative service equal to the period for which a man is called up for military training and subsequently held for service in the Canadian army for home defence; that is, for the duration of the war.


John George Diefenbaker: Were not the
Doukhobors who served for a period of some four months in the national parks during 1940 and 1941 definitely promised that they would not be subject to any further call for any type of service during the period of the war? If they were not so promised, have any of them been called up since? Has there been an amendment of the regulation and if so, when was the regulation changed?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have heard it stated that some kind of statement such as the one suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre had been made to some of them, but whether that is so or not I do not myself know. We made the amendment comparatively recently. It was done by order in council P.C. 2451, dated March 30, 1942. If that is so, then that is the law regarding the alternative service of these persons.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not a fact that the national war services boards in certain of the provinces definitely promised the Doukhobors and Mennonites in 1940 and 1941 that if they served for a period of four months on road construction work and the like, that was the termination of their service? The minister has said that he has had information or has heard that someone made such a representation. Then he must have been informed who made the representation. If the representation was made, is it the intention of the government to recall those who have served for a period of four months to continue their service for the period of the war?

War Appropriation-War Services


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: My hon. friend will not expect me to state what will be done if something else has been done when I do not know whether that something else has been done or not. I will say to him that I have heard it stated that some kind of representation was made, but whether it was made or was not made, I do not know, and whether it was made with authority or not, I do not know. But I draw this to the attention of the hon. member, that we first announced the period of military training as for thirty days. Then we said that the 30-day training plan had passed out of the picture and men would be called up to serve four months. Later the Minister of National Defence stated that when the men had finished their four months training they would be held in the Canadian active army for home defence for the duration of the war. Similarly the same attitude may be taken with regard to the Doukhobors. The power is there by the amending order in council to call these persons up.


John George Diefenbaker: All that is required is the enforcement.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The way in which the whole situation has worked out has varied considerably in the different provinces by reason of the fact that the circumstances in each of the provinces are different. In Manitoba the problem relates mainly to Men-nonites. In Saskatchewan the problem is one that relates mainly to the Doukhobors. Last year, at first the Doukhobors were quite rebellious at the idea of alternative service. There were many prosecutions and many convictions; I forget how many, but I think it was around one hundred or thereabouts. Then they went into the alternative service work camps and did a considerable amount of road construction, and I believe they did it very well.


Grote Stirling: Where was that?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think in the northern part of Saskatchewan.


Grote Stirling: It does not apply to the British Columbia Doukhobors.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No; I am travelling westward. My understanding is that while there was, at the outset, a good deal of trouble in Saskatchewan with the Doukhobors over this system of alternative service, that difficulty has disappeared, and my information is that we shall probably not have any great difficulty with the Doukhobors in Saskatchewan. In Alberta there has been no great difficulty with either the Mennonites or the Doukhobors. In British Columbia-


Mr. GREEN:: Before the minister comes to British Columbia, will he say whether the
Mennonites and Doukhobors on the prairies are now working for the duration of the war? Were they released at the end of the four months period?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The ones who were in the camps are all held for the duration of the war. I announced, with regard to conscientious objectors, that I had entered into an agreement with the minister of lands of British Columbia under which I undertake to send him up to 1,000 conscientious objectors for the purpose of preventing forest fires in that province which might result from enemy action.


Major James William Coldwell: Where are they being sent from?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They are sent from the various work camps.


Howard Charles Green: Is this the position, that the Mennonites, Doukhobors and conscientious objectors have been called up for the duration of the war and that, as the younger Mennonites and Doukhobors and conscientious objectors reach the age at which other British subjects are called up and put into the army, these young Mennonites and others will also be put in the work camps and have to work until the end of the war?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is the understanding.


Mr. CHURCH:: Is the minister going to talk all night?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am in the hands of the committee, but I am in the very trying position of endeavouring to give a statement with regard to the Doukhobors-


Major James William Coldwell: That is a strange question from the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church).


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes, I think it is; and when I try to make that statement five or six other members wish information. I should like to be able to answer all at once, but I am afraid I cannot do so. I will therefore continue answering the questions put to me by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) with whom the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) has now united forces, because we have reached British Columbia where a painful situation exists with regard to the Doukhobors, particularly that sect of Doukhobors called Sons of Freedom. I admitted last year that I did not know what to do with the Sons of Freedom, and I do not know any more to-day what to do with that painful sect.

War Appropriation-War Services


Howard Charles Green: They are a small group of the Doukhobors of British Columbia. Are the others in the same category as far as service is concerned?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There is a difference
between the Sons of Freedom and other Doukhobors.


Howard Charles Green: Some are bad and others are worse.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There may be more truth
than fiction in what the hon. member says.


Grote Stirling: Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) will inform the committee how many Sons of Freedom there are.


Howard Charles Green: There are quite a number.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Nobody knows. It was suggested that we should intern them all. I do not think that would be a solution. An attitude of that kind was adopted once before by the previous administration in 1932. They took all these Sons of Freedom, wives and children, lock, stock and barrel to an island in the Pacific, but they could not do anything with them and brought them all back.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They were free all right.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They were freed, and I must confess that I do not know what to do with the Sons of Freedom. I do not think anybody else knows what to do with them.


Grote Stirling: The minister should admit that for a good many years after the Piers island experiment there was peace and quietude in that part of British Columbia from which they came.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: After they came back or while they were away?


Grote Stirling: After they came back.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I wish I could tell members of the committee some of the difficulties we have had with these Sons of Freedom.


Howard Charles Green: Go ahead.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No. I quite agree with the hon. member for Yale that I must not do so.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: The Prime Minister once had a solution.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes, he proposed to call in the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Grote Stirling: No. He was going to call in the right hon. gentleman who used to sit here.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes, and if that did not
settle the question, then he would call in the hon. member for Kootenay West. With regard to the other Doukhobors in British Columbia I do not believe the situation is hopeless. I think we shall make a good deal of progress in the matter of alternative service with these Doukhobors in the light of the favourable experience we have had in connection with road construction in Saskatchewan.


Major James William Coldwell: Are any educational facilities provided? If so, would it not be possible to get some young teachers from Doukhobor homes and families to do work among them in British Columbia? As a matter of fact, the university-educated young Doukhobor in Saskatchewan had a considerable influence on the Doukhobor community in that province.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That might be true with regard to Doukhobors in British Columbia who are not Sons of Freedom, but the Sons of Freedom will not go to school or do anything. If they would content themselves with being passive resisters, it would not be too bad, but they are militant passive resisters and will not have any schools. They will not do anything.


Howard Charles Green: They would bum down a schoolhouse.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: May I assure hon. members from British Columbia that I will not send any Sons of Freedom to assist in forest fire prevention in that province.


Howard Charles Green: Have any British Columbia Doukhobors been taken into service?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not think so.


Howard Charles Green: Sons of Freedom or sons of anything else?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not think so, yet. There is the situation. I think we shall have some success with the Doukhobors, other than Sons of Freedom, this year, in the light of the reasonably favourable experience we had with the Doukhobors in Saskatchewan last year after the outset of this scheme.


William Kemble Esling: Would the minister permit me to correct one statement. We look upon the original Doukhobors who came to Canada as making up many of the Sons of Freedom. Those to whom I refer are good, strong, healthy young men of training age. The minister must admit the humiliating situation of having these young men, when assigned to other service such as road building, simply say to the government, "We are not going into training or to do any other service; what aTe you going to do about it?" That is the situation.

War Appropriation-War Services


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes; I agree.


William Kemble Esling: It is unfortunate, and it does not develop any spirit of enthusiasm among the young men who are asked to enlist in the various branches of the service.


Thomas Langton Church: I gladly gave way a few minutes ago so that the hon. member for Kootenay West might ask a question. Half an hour has now expired. When the National Resources Mobilization Act came in, I opposed the last clause, namely that the government should have power to make rules and regulations. I opposed that because, with the exemptions and rules, I knew what was going to happen, that the act would be simply a political football, and the results have so shown. Are we here to get a total war or not? That is the question which the people of this country want answered. A great deal of the time spent here could have been more profitably spent. There is no reason why we should have this antiquated system of rising to ask questions about one thing and another. We should have the British system under which we could ask all these questions on the orders of the day, and the minister would save his time and the time of the house.
Two years ago I brought up this matter of conscientious objectors. I was at it for three months and nothing was done because it turned out that under the rules and regulations, which have the force of statutes, it would take a long time to act. The conscientious objectors have votes, and they are a class of voters that get what they want if they go after it.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They have no votes in British Columbia.


Thomas Langton Church: I belong to the Church of England which in one of the thirty-nine articles says that "it shall be lawful for Christian inen at the command of the magistrate to bear arms and serve in wars." That made the mother country the great country it is to-day. Under these rules and regulations we are taking a different system, with the exemptions proposed by the government, and the department created for that purpose. How
does it come about that we have a different system? We have the enemy at the door on our eastern coast; we have lost the command of the sea at the other door; we do not know where we are to-day. As far as all this talk about exemptions and boards set up to exempt farmers and others, amending the rules and regulations, and difficulty in getting orders in council acted on, is concerned, if Hitler comes here there will be no such things as boards, judge advocates and all that to further postponements. It seems to me that this department is nothing but an omnibus department. It gets out a lot of picture and information books after the fashion of Christmas time; it is largely in fact a Santa Claus department handing out information books, picture books and other gifts here and there, with the result that the war, instead of being primary, is the last thing thought about and is secondary to a lot of rules and regulations. There is a great deal of political undercurrent in this and other debates. I have seen it ever since the war started. When a debate opens, matters are raised which are not related to the war at all, and are secondary.
I have as much respect for and have had as much to do with farmers perhaps as any man in this house. I see their difficulties, and with two wars and a depression in between, I sympathize with them as much as any man in this house. But with this world war on which may engulf all the dominions, with the enemy now at the front door of three dominions, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and at our own door, we should not be spending our time in discussing such matters as this, and rules and orders in council to exempt farm labour. I sympathize with the minister in having taken over such a department, but he is attempting the impossible. With the rules and regulations and exemptions it is utterly impossible for him to do his duty to the army. With few exceptions the navy and the air force have no difficulty about farmers' sons; they are just running there trying to get in.
On May 6, an answer was given to a question asked by the hon. member for Battle River and answered as follows.

War Appropriation-War Services
Military Service-Applications for Postponement of Training
Mr. Fair:
1.	How many men have been called up for training under the National Resources Mobilization Act in each of the provinces?
2.	How many applications for postponement of training have been made in each province?
3.	How many applications have been granted in each province?
Mr. Thorson:
2
Number of men called up for Military training under the National Number of applications Number of applications Resources Mobilization for postponement of for postponement of Act in each of the military training that military training that provinces, and accepted have been made in each have been granted in at National Defence province, since Octo- each province, since (Army) basic training ber 9,	1940, up to October 9, 1940, up to
Provinces	centres, since October March 12, 1942	March 12, 1942
9, 1940, up to March 12,
P.E.I	1,013	549	463Nova Scotia	4.718	3,010	2,019New Brunswick...	4,567	2,315	1.802Quebec	38,433	37,163	22.174Ontario	37,252	19,800	15,953Manitoba	8,331	3,231	2.442Saskatchewan. . . .	9,424	2,874	1.803Alberta	9.024	2,534	2,334British Columbia.	7,543	4,443	4,056Totals	120,305	75,919	53,046
There is the answer to the call from the farms. Further, we have to look for cause and effect in the supply to agriculture. In the United States to-day there is a carryover of 600,000,000 bushels of wheat; it is a drug on the market. At the end of September they are going to have another 600,000,000 bushels, the crop of 1942, as well, with no place to put it and no market for it. In this country the estimate I see is about 400,000,000 bushels for this year's crop. Men are wanted in the army more than on the farm if we are to beat Hitler. The call is urgent. I know that in the Toronto district many farmers' sons and daughters are going to the city to work in the munitions plants. The school boards have taken the matter up; about one-third to one-quarter of the high school population is going to the farms to help agriculture, and a great many from the public schools. In the mother country the women are working on the farms and doing a large proportion of the farm work. Are we going to let the women do the fighting at the front for the men of this country? That is one of the issues I see. Are the women going to get in the front ranks and do the fighting while the men stay at home? I say no. In 1S12 the farmers fought at Queenston, and the same in the great war. Large numbers of farmers' sons in Ontario in the last war did not want to be exempt; many of them went to the front voluntarily, and I believe that if the voluntary system had 
been supported and modern methods adopted, we would not have had all this trouble. We could have had a million men under the voluntary system, with the money that has been spent by this department. It is one of the most mischievous departments we have ever had in war or peace. I do not blame the present minister for that; he has not been master all the time, but it has been so from the start. It was never intended to be anything but a political department for the benefit of certain sections of the country as against others. Here we have the granting of exemptions to conscientious objectors, all kinds of farm exemptions, munitions workers, divinity students and so on; we have boards set up, and all the rest of it. Well when Hitler comes here he will end all this very quickly; and he is not far away at the present time, if we are to believe what we are told. We face the possibility of all this.
I appeal to the minister: let us put some common sense into this system and these rules and regulations. In the first place, an act like this should have been construed strictly for all the people of Canada. The conscription act of the government which was in power during the first great war was construed in a definite, clear way. This act is not. This act has rules and regulations off it, loopholes, exemptions and all the rest of it. We have boards set up headed by judges, so that one would think one was in a court of

War Appropriation-War Services
law, and now they are advocating that applicants for exemption should have the assistance of a lawyer, and that there be a judge advocate for the board to aid him to get off service. There are no lawyers in Germany getting exemptions for people; the firing squad takes care of that. I have just as much sympathy as any man in the house for the people of the prairie provinces, who have had to go through two wars and a depression. They deserve a great deal of sympathy, but with the enemy at the gate what are we going to do about it?
We have a lottery system in connection with the calling up of recruits. Surely that was never intended under the act or to have such rules and1 regulations off it. Lotteries are illegal under the criminal code; yet under some of the provisions of this act numbers are put into a hat and drawn to determine who shall be called up. Such a farce! No wonder there is dissension in the securing of recruits, and favouritism. I have spoken to a number of soldiers, and they complain that some men are allowed to come home to the farm while others are not. City men must stay. Only last Saturday one young soldier told me that one man in his unit, who had a brother and sister working in a munitions plant in the city, was going to get an exemption in order to go home and work on the farm. The Grenadiers, the Queen's Own and the other regiments crossed lake Superior in the dead of winter, with the weather 46 degrees below zero, to save the prairie country, and Canada from being dislocated, and they never had any such system as this. They were volunteers. I believe the first duty of a citizen is to defend the realm.
I do not like to bring other matters into this discussion but this is the only chance we have. I am not to blame for the system. The minister's department relates to the war, the mobilization of troops, exemptions, conscientious objectors, farm workers, and others. It also has a large publicity branch known as the information bureau which beclouds the issue. That is about the only humour I have heard since the minister took office, calling it an information bureau. This information bureau is a misinformation bureau; at least I can get no information from it and a lot of such information as is given is not correct. All it does is send out tons of literature. I think a building the size of the Toronto armouries would be required to store all the paper that is wasted by this department. The press are complaining; a great many of the editors have said they consign this literature to the waste-paper basket. This department is costing the country a huge amount of money. For
instance, at a time like this, they put out a booklet of all racial origins in Canada and dealing with farmers in the war, entitled "Canadians All" by a gentleman named Doctor Watson Kirkconnell, MA.., Ph.D. I do not know what he is doctor of, music or literature or what, but I think he is a doctor of philosophy. He is a philosopher, if you please. Well, we have had a great deal of philosophy in connection with this act, and Hitler has a philosophy of his own. This booklet-260,000 copies-has been circulated all through Canada and England, and has greatly hurt this country there. It seems that everything must have stamped on it, "Issued by authority of the Honourable J. T. Thorson, Minister of National War Services," and all that sort of thing. It must be remembered that any money required for this department comes out of the estimates or out of this $2,000,000,000 resolution. Separatism is rampant; one would almost think we did not belong to the British empire.
I have here another booklet, in which they quote a celebrated gentleman, Mr. L. W. Brockington, official recorder of Canada's war effort. He told the people of England and the United States, and it is on the top of another pamphlet of the department:
King George VI of England did not ask us to declare war for him; we asked King George VI of Canada to declare war for us.
Did you ever hear anything like that in all your life, raising such a separatist status issue with the war on, after we in this house had agreed to put aside all party politics for the duration of the. war and some time after, and to think of nothing but the war? Is it any wonder the business men are wondering about the awful cost of this sort of thing? To return to Doctor Kirkeonnell's booklet, what does this gentleman say about the Japanese? I will read just one sentence, at page 25:
In Canada, especially on the west coast, we have 23,000 Japanese .	.	. Our Japanese
show a lower crime rate (1931 census) than any other group in Canada.
That is a deliberate misstatement of fact, and I challenge it right now. This book is issued for one purpose, as I see it: political propaganda, and the glorification of the foreign-born in this country at the expense of the British-born, for disunity. I agree that the foreign-bom make fine citizens, but I object to any publication being issued to set class against class, those of one racial origin against others, something which no decent citizen would do in this country, and it is mischievous, when war is on, to suggest all this in book form and raise the question. That cry is raised on every page of the booklet. Then the author goes on to refer to some people



War Appropriation-War Services
whom I consider friends. I have not very many of them in my constituency, but I have known a great many during the course of my experience, and I have found them to be splendid, loyal citizens. I refer to the Jewish citizens of Canada. The information given about them in this booklet is not correct. Some time ago the Minister of National Defence laid on the table the figures in connection with recruiting, and according to those figures this class of the community had about 0-51 per cent of the population in the army. But this is the statement which appears at page 39 of this booklet:
However, the people of Canada will not lend their aid to this particular activity of enemy agents, because the evidence is all around us to prove overwhelmingly that our Jews in Canada are conscientious, industrious and loyal citizens.
Of course they are; who has suggested otherwise in war time but the author? With our soldiers getting SI .30 a day to fight the Germans, they do not need this gentleman, who never was in the army overseas, who received $16,000 of the money of the people, to publish an unneeded book like this in war time. Almost all our foreign-born people have made good citizens, and they do not need any boosting like this. It is done for political propaganda. They are welcome in this country. We are glad to have the various classes he names. They are among some of our finest citizens. They are hard working, and we owe a great deal to them for what they have done in the exploration, settlement and development of this country. The author of this booklet goes on, as I see it, to insult the British-born and the members of the Canadian army of British origin. He says:
While the percentage of male Canadians of all origins, twenty-one years of age and over, who served in the C.E.F., was 31-02, the figure for Canada's Jews stands distinctly higher, at 37-81 per cent.
Another misstatement of fact. I do not know whether the present minister was in the government when this book was started; I do not think he was The book was a mistake. It continues:
While, moreover, only 3-38 per cent of all Canadians in the C.E.F. received declarations for bravery and distinguished conduct, 4-52 per cent of the Canadian Jews in the C.E.F. won such declarations.
Then, he is criticizing the situation in Great Britain. Enlistments, according to the figures of 'the Minister of National Defence were [DOT]051 per cent, and those figures are not correct. So much for that book. I fail to see why the people of Canada pay for it.
Not being satisfied with that, this same gentleman appeared at a meeting of the Royal

Canadian Institute held in Convocation hall at the university of Toronto in December, 1941, and said:
. "Canada is no longer an Anglo-Saxon country in terms of national origin, and there is little likelihood that any large-scale immigration from the British isles will take place after this war is over," Professor Watson Kirkconnell told the Royal Canadian Institute in Convocation hall on Saturday night.
That statement has done untold injury in the old country. I have seen it in newspapers from the old land, and they are wondering what is the matter with Canadians, who are putting up with all these conscientious objectors, and publishing books like this in war time.
In my opinion this particular department is attempting to do the impossible. I believe in what Wordsworth said of Milton of the time of the Napoleonic wars. It is reported that Wordsworth said, "Milton, thou shouldst be living at this hour; England hath need of thee." I would substitute for that, "Gilbert and Sullivan, thou shouldst be living at this hour; Canada hath need of thee to describe what is going on in all this playing at war and with all these picture books, with the difficulty of getting men into uniform, and all that kind of thing." No wonder recruiting lagged, on again, off again, on again!
I ask: Where is the treasury board when all this is going on? We have a treasury board, and if the treasury board is not meeting I understand the minister now has power to take action and spend money anyway like water. The dead-hand of the treasury is on this department-because that is all it is, a dead-hand. They can spend money like water; they are spending all kinds of money like water; a mint of money is wasted, and yet all this kind of thing is going on in this department.
They are not satisfied with one thing. No; they have got out a proclamation in connection with the anniversary each September of the declaration of war, to come again on September 10. I do not even see the king's name in it, in connection with the proclamation. Here is a celebration of an anniversary of the war, and the king's name is not in it. More separatism. We all know that the war started the day Great Britain declared war, because when Britain is at war, so is Canada.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It started the day Canada declared war.


Thomas Langton Church: When Hitler and his axis ships approached the Athenia he did not say, "Oh, you have not declared war, yet." Hitler did not pay any attention to our proclamations; he just sank the Athenia, with 130 Canadians on board.

War Appropriation-War Services
I do not wish to be unfair to the minister, and I will say that I believe he is conscientious, hardworking and did not initiate this legislation. I do not know him as well as some do, but I believe he is trying to do his duty. But he is trying to do it under impossible conditions and an impossible system.
There is another gentleman in the department, the director-general, Mr. Lash, who is giving talks over the radio. One can scarcely turn on his radio without hearing this gentleman who is supposed to be the director. I asked a question on May 6 as to who authorized these Santa-Claus books, and under whose instruction this particular book was written. The answer was that it was written under the instructions of the director of public information. It is the work of the director and all his regiment of hussars. One cannot turn on the radio at night without hearing them. I shut off my radio, because I do not wish to listen to those people talk and give wrong information about Ontario recruiting. What has he been doing?- spreading seeds of disunity between Ontario and Quebec by his talks. He has given figures on active recruiting. I will say to him the figure was given last week in the above return showing that of 3S,000, there were 37,000 who applied for exemption from one province. Those are the figures, whether he likes them or not.
No wonder people are groaning under heavy taxation.	They wonder where the
trouble is, but we allow these expenditures to go on in this manner.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To-night the minister challenged a statement I made, and on a question of privilege I should like to draw his attention to-


The CHAIRMAN:: Just speak to your question of privilege.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister challenged a statement I made earlier, and I suggest I should be given an opportunity of placing the facts before the minister, before the committee rises.


Thomas Vien: That is not a question of privilege. A question of fact stated by an hon. member can be challenged by any other hon. member. If it were a personal statement made by an hon. member, or if words had been incorrectly stated, there would be a question of privilege. But there is no privilege in challenging the accuracy of certain facts which have been stated. They can be challenged. There is nothing personally affecting the hon. member when he challenges facts.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The accuracy of the statement was challenged, and I merely wished to check up on it.
44561-16U


Thomas Vien: I promised to recognize the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: One point in these regulations that I cannot understand is this, that the man who is usefully engaged as a farmer may be refused an exemption, while the parasite who says he is a conscientious objector may enjoy exemption. That seems unfair. On the one hand we have a good farmer who brings his case to the board. The board says, "No; we can do nothing." And there is no power in the minister or in the government to change the decision of the board, except by abolishing that body. On the other hand there is the fellow who is always in a poolroom, and who does not work. He is a parasite, and says he is a conscientious objector. That fellow will not go to work.
It is said that in 1873, in the days of Sir John A. Macdonald and, later on, at the time of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, some concessions were made to the Doukhobors and the Men-nonites. This, again, I cannot understand. I remember on one occasion, when a former Liberal government was in office, I asked a minister why the government did not remove the exemption from tax-free bonds in 1922, as soon as they took office. He told me that they thought they had to respect a contract. Well, I find it immoral in war time to grant an exemption to Mennonites and Doukhobors, on account of some silly enactment made in the past.
It is a defiance of the people of the land to grant exemptions to these conscientious objectors. There are people who should not be given these exemptions and yet who enjoy them by virtue of the regulations and by virtue of the law. However, these regulations are no worse in that respect than was the Militia Act and the Borden conscription act of 1917. The minister will always have this matter brought up every time the farmers are dissatisfied.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) referred to the information bureau. Everyone knows my views about that. I suggested that it be reformed by abolishing it. The hon. member for Broadview gave the Toronto viewpoint, and I shall give the viewpoint of the. province of Quebec. The French director is a fascist and a neurasthenic and he is not qualified to be on the bureau. His stuff is silly; his letters are absolutely silly; it is all a waste of paper. I have complained about getting no information from this bureau. We did get some data from the Department of Munitions and Supply, but there was always something lacking. We were given the names and the amounts of money that

War Appropriation-War Services
were spent, but we were never told the quantity of goods furnished and therefore it was an impossibility to know the cost. Moreover, it was given to us in such a way that a member of parliament would need ten secretaries and ten adding machines to know how much the packers were paid in a month or something like that. It was impossible to get any real information; it was simply a list of names and the disbursements of money-the quantities were never shown. It was so bad that the mayor of Ottawa complained about it and suggested it was useless. Now that we do not have anything, we are just as well off as we were when we had those figures.
All we get from the information bureau is data about rubber and gas and oil. It is simply a detective novel published in instalments. We hear something about Mr. Cottrelle and Mr. Berkinshaw; it is simply a clearing house of matters regarding the Department of Munitions and Supply. Sometimes the literature that comes out of this office is provocative and the minister may have trouble with the people because of it. So I join with the hon. member for Broadview in asking the minister to abolish this department.
I think the minister should define the phrase "ordinarily resident". Outside of the provisions that relate to Doukhobors, Mennonites and conscientious objectors I cannot say, as does the hon. member for Broadview, that this is political legislation. I believe that under the present minister the regulations will serve the purpose for which they were drafted. What the minister needs is cooperation from the boards. He must be the guiding star of the boards. Simply because they have the right to make final decisions is no justification for their acting in contravention of the spirit of the law. The minister is the lawmaker, and when he gives an interpretation of the regulations, that interpretation should be followed.	When the boards do not do
that, the only recourse is to change them.
I do not complain about all cases, but there are some in which decisions were given without sufficient consideration to satisfy public opinion. I hope the minister will take action. He is the boss of his department and he does not need advice from any of his colleagues regarding the operation of the regulations. Members of parliament know more about the operation of the regulations in their own constituencies than do any of the ministers except the 
minister in charge of this department. When members of parliament make representations that are in the public interest I hope the minister will consider them as such. I have great admiration for him and he knows it. I want his support so that we shall have the least possible trouble in that regard.
Sometimes we have to fight to get men into the army when they want to join, but when a man is indispensable on a farm it is the duty of the board to keep him there until conditions change. This is the interpretation of the law that is expected by all. I want the minister to take what I have said in the spirit in which I have said it. My only desire is to have everything in his department run as smoothly as possible, to see that justice is given to all. When I know of some unfairness or injustice I cannot do otherwise than ask the minister to help me to redress the wrong.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I would say to the hon.
member for Temiscouata that I have noted his request for a definition of the phrase "ordinarily resident in Canada." That will cease to have anything but an academic interest in view of the announced policy of the government that the regulations will be made to apply to all residents of Canada, whether British subjects or otherwise. The Prime Minister made that announcement of policy, and it is merely a matter of working out the intricate arrangements that are involved.
The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. McDonald) raised a question with regard to the notice relating to medical examination and stated that in certain cases the person receiving the notice was not told of his right to apply for postponement. My information is that along with the notice of medical examination goes a set of instructions and that those instructions definitely indicate to the person who receives the notice what he has to do and what are his rights. In order that it may be a matter of record in the same Hansard in which is reported the remarks of the hon. member for Pontiac, I should like to put these instructions on Hansard. They are very brief. With the leave of the committee I shall do so. The instructions are as follows:
Department of National War Services Instructions
Upon receiving the enclosed "notice-medical examination" you will proceed, within three clear days, to any duly licensed doctor in your village, town or city, or at the nearest point to you. Show the doctor your "notice-medical examination" and be sure to sign the "medical examination and certificate" form used by the doctor who will examine you. You are reminded that you must proceed to the doctor at your own expense and that the department

Shipping Losses
will not pay any transportation in connection with your medical examination, but the department will pay the examining physician for examining you. Any question which you may wish to take up should be taken up in a letter addressed to your divisional registrar. His address^ appears in the upper left hand portion of the "notice-medical examination". You are also reminded that you must notify your divisional registrar immediately if you are a student at some university or college, or a member of the navy, the army or the air force, or of a non-permanent active militia unit. Should you have reason to make application for the postponement of your period of military training, do it right now to your divisional registrar. Your divisional registrar will not receive any application for postponement after eight clear days of the date appearing on the enclosed "notice-medical examination". If you are notified to report for military training you will receive a transport warrant covering only the distance from your stated place of residence to the training centre to which you will be notified to report. The department will pay no other transportation. By following the above instructions you will be serving your best interests.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 19, 1942